digital camera resolution

[vegematic]

I'm in the market for a digital camera and I've got it narrowed down to either the Canon A610 or the A620. The major difference seems to be resolution, 5 Mp and 7.1 Mp respectively. Now I need to decide if the extra resolution is worth the extra $100 for me. Most of my pictures will be viewed on computer but I would like to be able to make prints of special ones, usually 5x7 or 8x11. I've also heard that one can "zoom" using the photo software if the resolution is high enough. You can magnify part of an image without it looking grainy. I've been using a 1.3 Mp camera from school and I really can't expand my images at all. I've not tried to print any.

So for these uses am I likely to see much of a difference between the 5 and the 7.1 Mp? I'm sure they'll both look great compared to what I've been using...
-vegematic

 

[SteveHiker]

I would guess you can't go wrong with either. I have a 5 or 6 year old 3.3 megapixel Casio. I have made 8.5 x 11 prints from it that look very good.

 

[David Metsky]

The difference between 5 and 7 MP isn't really noticable at the 8x10 range. Yes, you can zoom in more but the difference isn't that great. It gives you approximately 1x extra on the 4x zoom. Optical zooms are much more efficient than just adding more megapixels.

For the use you described, the 610 sounds fine. It's quite a nice camera.

-dave-

 

[hardyb]

I have a Canon Powershot A85, 4MP and I have taken 1000's of hiking photos with it, and It's small enought to carry everywhere, and best of all it has fantastic battery life, and that is a big deal when your out in the middle of nowhere with no place to plug in the charger. As for mega pixels, I can print out great 8x10's with my 4mp. Just remember if your planning on taking allot of photos, the more mega pixels the bigger and more memory cards you'll need.

 

[buddy]

Pixels

Higher resolutions will allow you more flexibility in cropping out and enlarging sections of your photo's. However, lens quality, internal software, and hardware effect picture quality as well, becoming more important in the 5 megapixel plus camera's. Some very high quality ( professional grade) SLR digital cameras have only 6 megapixels. I highly recomend checking out the Cannon Powershot S60. It has 5 megapixels, very capable automatic modes, and lots of useful manuel options accessable from a well designed intuitive menu. It has a 28-70 optical zoom lens. Digital zoom degrades piture Quality and is unneccessary if your down loading to a computer. Google it and I'm sure that any review you read by someone who owns this camera will be the same. Buddy

 

[lumberzac]

I'd save you're money and go with the 5MP. I'm currently using a 5MP Olympus and have blown pictures up to 12 x 16 without any noticeable pixelation.

 

[arghman]

ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto. save the $100, put it into a mutual fund, then 5 yrs later spend it on your next digital camera.

I have a 5MP Panasonic FZ20 but I have the image size set to 3MP. Looks fine, and I'm a stingy person when it comes to disk space (would rather manage 2GB/year than 3.3GB/year)

 

[vegematic]

Thanks for all the quick and excellent feedback. I just ordered the A610 (5Mp). Oughta have it in time for next weekend's adventures!
-vegematic

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

Wise choice, saving that $100.

There is little practical difference between a 5MP camera and a 7 or even 8 MP one. The manufacturers need to come up with reasons for the public to buy new digital cameras, and more megapixels is a popular selling device. In reality, even a 4MP camera (on a lower ISO setting) will do everything that you described as wanting.

I was in photo sales for (ahem) MANY years, and just bought myself a 4MP camera. The camera is a tool; how the photographer uses it is far more important to the end result than brand names and excess pixels. Now take lots of pictures and have fun!

 

[Lawn Sale]

If you have an older computer, you will significantly benefit from a USB 2.0 connection upgrade for downloading the pictures. I use a card reader rather than just attaching the camera, but either way would work fine.

I have a 5.0 mp camera and I love it, it allows me to zoom in on those faraway shots and crop out just what I need.

 

[forestgnome]

I guess it's too late, but I would add the importance of filter acceptance and exposure lock. The 5mp will do just fine.

I consider a polarizer essential for images with blue skies; some cameras don't take filters.

I viewed your very enjoyable website; you really like to stitch the pictures together for panoramics. Luv it!!!! Somtimes the sky looks different from photo to photo. That's because the auto-exposure in your camera changed the exposure settings as you took each picture. If you have a manual setting, or use exposure lock when metering you first image to be stitched, your images would all have the same exposure settings, thereby eliminating that sometimes noticable line in the sky from photo to photo.

Keep shooting those panoramics; you have a great eye for composition.

 

[nartreb]

This horse is nearly flogged to death already, but I'd like to take a a moment to make clear *why* the difference between 6MP and 7MP is not really noticable:

megapixel count is a square measure - the total number of pixels on a rectangular chip. However, resolution, the best measure of how detailed something looks, is a linear measure (dots per inch). To make something look twice as sharp, you need four times as many megapixels. Conversely, the difference between 6MP and 7MP, while it sounds like a 17% increase, only gives you an 8% increase in resolution.

As a rule, you need to change resolution by at least 50% to make a perceptible difference. In other words, if you're not getting at least double the pixel count, save your money.

An 8% wider frame buys you an almost imperceptibly larger margin for cropping your mis-framed shots, that's about it. Probably not worth 25% of the cost of a brand-new p&S camera - you should spend the money on memory, batteries, etc.

The other thing to think about is how you'll use the photos.

For display on a computer screen (100 or so dpi or x about 1 foot wide) 2 megapixels will be more than enough, and 4 is just about future-proof.

For viewing over the Web, pity the poor slobs with modems. And even with a good connection, anything over a megabyte in storage size (ie, 2 to 4 megapixels at very high JPG quality) starts to have a perceptible delay. Your photos better be damn interesting if you expect people to wait around to view them - and remember they can't actually see the difference on their computer screens beyond about 2 mp.

For printing, consider that professional printer output is typically 300dpi or better, but you can reliably get great results from an image resolution of 200dpi or lower [modern photo printers will interpolate -fill in- the missing pixels in a way that keeps your print from looking pixellated even under close inspection].

So how many pixels do you need to make a higher-resolution-than-you're-likely-to-notice (200dpi) print ?
3x4: 0.5 MP
6 x 8: 1.9 MP
12 x 16: 7.7 MP
24 x 32: 30.7 MP (time for medium-format film, or a $40,000 digital camera)

Standard letter page: 8.5 x 11 : crop from 9 x 12: 4.3 MP

In short, for anything you print or show at home, 4 MP will be ample. If you want to sell posters, you need big film (or a big inheritance).
If you really think it'd be cool to make a print that's just a few centimeters wider than you otherwise could, you'll be tempted to go for 6-8 MP, but as explained in my first three paragraphs, the returns diminish rapidly.

And yes, I ordered my new camera and my new computer together - my old computer just would be too slow to process my bulky new images.

 

[vegematic]

If you have an older computer, you will significantly benefit from a USB 2.0 connection upgrade for downloading the pictures. I use a card reader rather than just attaching the camera, but either way would work fine.

What is the benefit of the USB upgrade? Is it simply faster downloading or does it somehow affect image quality?

I guess it's too late, but I would add the importance of filter acceptance and exposure lock. The 5mp will do just fine.
I consider a polarizer essential for images with blue skies; some cameras don't take filters.

The A610 does accept filters which was a feature I specifically wanted. It has exposure lock too. Also, thanks for the complements.

This horse is nearly flogged to death already, but I'd like to take a a moment to make clear *why* the difference between 6MP and 7MP is not really noticable...

no flogging there...lots of excellent information. Thanks.

-vegematic

 

[David Metsky]

USB 2.0 is simply faster than USB 1.1, the images are not affected in any way. It can be important if you are transfering Gigabytes of data, but for most folks it's the difference between 30 seconds and 3 minutes, not a huge deal.

Filters are nice, but you can also do a lot of that in PhotoShop or another image processing program. Both are good and have their uses. Polarizing filters are hard to duplicate in software.

-dave-