|
I have been wondering for a while why the number of mega pixels matter in a camera? What does more or less do? |
|
They don't matter much. Megapixels and absolute resolution are 2 different things. Many companies advertise megapixels but never list absolute resolution. Absolute resolution is a measure of the smallest amount of detail that the camera can capture. Often with even the $300+ point and shoot cameras (eg if you check dpreview) you will see cameras advertising 14-16 megapixels but will only have a absolute resolution of around 2-3 megapixels (yes it is really that big a difference between advertised resolution and true resolution) While a higher resolution is needed for larger prints, you can often get larger prints from a 5 megapixel digital SLR than from a 16 megapixel point and shoot. DSLR's generally have results significantly closer their advertised megapixel rating check here for more information http://www.dpreview.com/reviews PS if you are going to spend more than $200 on a point and shoot, do your self a favor and save up and get a $500 digital SLR, you will get significantly better quality. If needed look at reviews on dpreview of a pint and shoot that is priced close to that of a DSLR, you will see that the DSLR offers significantly better color quality, shadow detail and dynamic range. well a DSLR is in no question the best quality camera shots I've seen once uploaded in the net. (or developed in print) but 500$ and the fragility that comes with it is kinda hard to get by. 1
generally for what most people use their cameras for, A $200-300 point and shoot offers very very little over a $120 point and shoot It just annoys me seeing so many point and shoot cameras having the same price, or even higher prices than many DSLR's It just seems that at that price range, the user seems to want higher quality pictures for a specific purpose. In that case why not get a DSLR with a larger lens that offers significantly better low light. I have used both a $300 point and shoot, and a $500 DSLR and the point and shoot just cant compare. Indoor shots which needed either the flash, or like a stupidly high ISO without flash, worked fine on the DSLR, eg I could do 1/80 at an ISO of 400 while the point and shoot would need 1600 at 1/60 just to avoid underexposure. and best of all the DSLR at ISO 400 will have less image noise than the overpriced point and shoot at ISO 80 yes it's worth every buck I strongly agree. If not a DSLR, I'd just stick w/ an 8mp default cam of my phone... that'd be nice enough i think... |
|
its really to when you enlarge them, with 8 and 10 mega pixels, you probably wont notice a difference, but the 10 will scale up bigger and keep its same quality |
|
Largely depends on your needs. If you will be cropping images or printing at large sizes then yes a better resolution would be recommended. However ensure it is a decent quality sensor because simply shoving more pixels into a sensor will in some cases lower the quality because of them being made smaller. Big numbers don't mean much on their own. I would go with a respectable brand with a slightly lower resolution than one you havn't heard of but bigger numbers. |
|
10... 12... 15 MEGApixels... I'll bet you are impressed! But unless you are going to print murals, you will not NEED those numbers... unless you are filling SD cards and Hard Drives. For posting on the internet, 0.3 megapixels is MORE than the resolution of MOST monitors so if your shots are just to post on the internet, then don't waste your time and space on GIGAPIXELS. Look instead for a good quality lens, like Leica, Optical Zooming to 10 or 12X, something wide angle like 24mm, Night Shots, Automatic Flash and things that count... not just big numbers. And as I have lugged 8 x 10 view cameras around on my shoulder as a squirt, I can take just as good or better shots with my Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10.. and video too! |
|
It doesn't matter about the MP count if the lens is total rubbish! |
