So as to take pictures that are to be taken seriously and to be somewhat competitive with photography today!?
I see some cameras with 8 MP but can you use less !?Www@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>Visual Arts> What is the least amount of MP a digital camera should have to take good qualityQuestion: What is the least amount of MP a digital camera should have to take good quality pictures!? So as to take pictures that are to be taken seriously and to be somewhat competitive with photography today!?
I see some cameras with 8 MP but can you use less !?Www@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I used to use a 3mp camera and when I upgraded to a 9mp the difference was amazing, it all depends on whether you will be printing out the pictures or not but I would go at least 8mp!.Www@QuestionHome@Com First of all lots of Mp don't make the picture any higher quality (more later), it just means you can print bigger!. As an indication a 6Mp sensor will give you files that will print 'natively' (without adding or removing any pixels) at a tad over A4, a 10Mp will print at A3+ natively!. That said most photo libraries require 10Mp, with this large Mp count they can sell your image for any purpose, magazine centre spreads etc!. They will accept smaller files, but it lessens the chances of sales!. The down side to loads of Mp is that your computer will have to move large files around (particularly if you shoot RAW) and may need an upgrade, mainly to the size of RAM it has, otherwise it can slow to a crawl!. The other often overlooked downside is your lenses have to be up to snuff, the finer sensor array will really show up mediocre lenses for what they are!. So if a large Mp sensor can show up mediocre lenses does it mean that they are higher quality!? Well yes and no, if you print at A4 or less the quality will be EXACTLY the same as a 6Mp camera, the software will 'dump' the extra data to make the printed size, if, however, you want to print larger say at A3 then the answer is yes as the sensor can provide genuine data to fill the extra space, the larger sensor also means you can crop half the data away and still have enough pixels to 'natively' print A4 with genuine data!. ChrisWww@QuestionHome@Com Well just think, digital cameras started off as 1 megapixel, 2 being a luxury, and you can get 6x4 inch prints with that!. But by todays standards, as far as point and shoot cameras go, I'd leave 6 mp as the minimum in a new camera!. Besides, megapixels are not the main deciding factor in the quality of a photo, thats just the size of photo i!.e how large you can print it while still keeping quality!. Www@QuestionHome@Com Anything from 4mp up to 6 or 7mp would do just fine for a p&s camera!. Any more than that, and you will be sacrificing image quality!. The more pixels you get on a camera sensor of a given size, the smaller those pixels need to be!. And whilst more pixels will allow for a larger print, and may be able to resolve more detail to a certain degree, it will also introduce more noise into the image and also colour rendition will be sacrificed!. There is a sweet spot for digital camera IMO that is a good balance between detail, image quality, low noise and print size!. Here are my thoughts!. Compact camera 4-6mp Small sensor SLR 8-10mp 35mm sensor SLR 10-14mp Of course there are people who seem to think that SLR's are designed for studio and landscape photography!. These people may need (want) more mp, but they are usually in a more static environment so low ISO isn't usually an issue!. Most people who use 35mm SLR's for pro use are in dynamic environments!. That is what 35mm SLR's were designed for!.Www@QuestionHome@Com The camera manufacturing giants are going hell for leather in competition with each other the produce cameras with ever larger pixel counts, sometimes ignoring the problems that cramming ever more photo site on a fixed size chip has a downside in that it can lead to increased noise, colour fringing!. etc!. A well respected writer in the UK's leading photography magazine, Amateur Photographer, gave the opinion that for normal amateur use 6 megapixels are sufficient!. I've bee using a 6mp DSLR now for nearly 4 years and don't intend at any time soon to give in to the greed of the manufacturers and 'upgrade'Www@QuestionHome@Com I'd say a 6MP camera would do you just fine, it's the quality of the image that matters, not the mega-pixels!. In fact, as of 2008, the amount of mega pixels is just a sales pitch to get you to pay more, you can make great-looking 12-18 prints from a three MP camera, also the more mega pixels the more space they're gonna take up on your memory card!. Anyway, the quality of the image is completely down to you!. The lens is the most important factor!. Take a look at some concrete proof here: http://www!.megapixelmyth!.com/ And some great advice here: http://www!.kenrockwell!.com/index!.htm If you feel like it, check me out on flickr (don't worry, i'm a total beginner!) http://flickr!.com/photos/bozphotography Hope this helps, and get shooting!Www@QuestionHome@Com 3MP will get you decent 4X6 pictures!. With the way the digital camera market is now the average is around 5 or 6MP!. My advice is to not worry about that, but focus on the optical zoom, the software that comes with the camera, the lens quality, and the overall feel of it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |