100 MP camera on your next cruise???

[mountainhouse]

Well, maybe not. But for those who always want more megapixels, this may be your answer:

 

http://www.scannerphotography.com/

 

"For the past three years, I've been taking apart cheap secondhand flatbed scanners and turning them into homemade large format digital cameras. They are well over 100 mexapixel in resolution, and produce results that are both similar to and significantly different from traditional digital and conventional cameras."

[mutual]

I was told by one camera expert at Circuit City that more than 3 megapixels is wasted if you only print 3x5 or 4x6 pictures. Another time I was looking at printers at Best Buy and an HP rep told me a 2 megapixel camera was adequate for the 4x6 pictures that he was printing off to show how good the printer was. A third salesman at Office Max told me that he purchased a 3.2 megapixel camera himself. He didn't get a higher pixel camera because he wanted to get the most pictures he could on the memory.

 

Based on these conversations, two years ago I got a Canon A-75 that is 3.2 megapixels. The picture quality is just as good as my 35mm film camera.

 

If you set your monitor on high resolution (1600x1200) you can do the math for yourself. It's only using 1.9 megapixels. Any more pixels are just ignored.

[mountainhouse]

Based on these conversations, two years ago I got a Canon A-75 that is 3.2 megapixels. The picture quality is just as good as my 35mm film camera.

 

Yes, if you print only 4x6 and do no cropping. If you have needs beyond that: No. You do ANY cropping on a 3.2 MP image, and ability to print it is gone almost immediately. Also, your arguement doesn't take noise into account. A pixel on a digital SLR (due to larger sensor) is cleaner than the same pixel on a point and shoot camera. This is especially true at high ISOs. Lastly, a 3.2 MP camera would usually have less sophisticated electronics, so the color quality would not be as good. (Yes, there are many other benefits to DSLRs beyond what I've listed here) Go to http://www.depreview.com and compare some of the images from various cameras. My suggestion to take a 100 MP camera on a cruise was tongue in cheek, but also I think you've been misled a bit on digital cameras.

 

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

[videopainter]

100 Mp camera... Ppphhhh....

 

Thats nothing, There is a Gigapixel that is used for photography now...

 

Well there needs to be some clarification, It is for Astrophotography, and it is a set of imagers tied together, much like the way they tie multiple telescopes together.

 

As to Mp needs, You are right on the money mountain'.

 

But for those that are reading this, having a dSLR isn't the end all to digital photography. If you leave it in full auto and never learn the extras you pay for, then you will get no better pictures than a nice point and shoot camera.

 

Also be aware, dSLRs have a tendency to have softer and less rich pictures right out of the camera than there point and shoot cousins. One needs to do a little adjustment to get the best results out of the camera.

 

Good luck and good shooting....

[mountainhouse]

If you leave it in full auto and never learn the extras you pay for, then you will get no better pictures than a nice point and shoot camera.

 

Not sure that's true. With the larger sensor size, and therefore reduced noise, I think the DSLR wins out. All the rave about the new Sony R1 is because of it's DSLR sized sensor.

 

A number of reviews on dpreview.com close with the following:

Digital SLR footnote: If you're considering an eight megapixel prosumer digital camera you should also not rule out a sub-$1000 digital SLR while initially more expensive (certainly if you want to achieve the 28 - 200 mm zoom range) these cameras offer higher quality image processing, cleaner images (virtually noise free up to ISO 1600), faster performance, more flexibility and for all intents and purposes (even large prints) as much resolution. On the downside they're not an 'all in one' solution and they're likely to be larger and need you to buy and carry at least a second lens. By sub-$1000 (at the time of publication of this review) we're talking about the Nikon D70 and Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel).

[videopainter]

I still stand by my first statement:

 

If you leave it in full auto and never learn the extras you pay for, then you will get no better pictures than a nice point and shoot camera.

 

To gain the advantages of better noise to ISO ration and better images, you need to not use the stock lens (I have the XT with the Tamron 28-70 2.8) and need to learn about creative control over WB, flash comp, and AE comp.

 

Just something I see alot. At work, we have a couple small p&s cameras for other departments to use, a good Sony p&s, the 707 i believe, an eos 1dm2 and an eos 1dm2n. When someone uses the 1d and does nothing other than basic settings, there is really no improvement. If the person does a little creativity, or has knowledge of camera operation and light control, then there is a world of difference.

 

Just my 2cents, and some may ask for change....

 

edited for spelling (again)

[cruisinbuddy]

They're coming down in price so fast. I have a 3.2 megapixel & bil biught same camera but 5 megapixel for less than what I paid. If you want to print off 8X10's nothing less than 3. and of course the smaller ones will be great too. All of mine turned out great.

[Guest slrman]

It's amazing how many people own these cameras and have opinions without knowledege. I have a 3 MP camera and normally crop, edit, and adjust pictures before printing. My usual size is 5X7 inches depending on how I crop.

 

With a halfway decent printer (Epson 43UX) and the good paper, they cannot be told from film pictures. But, if you have more money to waste....

[mountainhouse]

You should be good if 200 ppi printing is best for you. I prefer printing at my printer's highest resolution of 300 ppi, which requires quite a bit more pixels. ( http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,s=1480&iid=103256,00.asp )

 

Also, it's not just about pixels. I use a DSLR because the APS sized sensor tends to have less noise than a point-and-shoot digital. Noise is a huge factor. ( http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/dslr.htm )

 

If your 3 MP camera works for you, that's great. But to call any other, more sophisticated camera a waste of money. Hmmmm. I guess some people would consider a Porsche on city streets a waste of money. I can't aford one, but if I could. :D

[Cuizer2]

I was told by one camera expert at Circuit City that more than 3 megapixels is wasted if you only print 3x5 or 4x6 pictures. Another time I was looking at printers at Best Buy and an HP rep told me a 2 megapixel camera was adequate for the 4x6 pictures that he was printing off to show how good the printer was. A third salesman at Office Max told me that he purchased a 3.2 megapixel camera himself. He didn't get a higher pixel camera because he wanted to get the most pictures he could on the memory.

 

If you set your monitor on high resolution (1600x1200) you can do the math for yourself. It's only using 1.9 megapixels. Any more pixels are just ignored.

That is not totally true. For example, a 3 megapixel camera will give you a photo that is approximately 1500 pixels by 2000 pixels. A 4x6 print printed at 300 dpi is 1200 pixels by 1800 pixels. So it would seem that a 3 megapixel camera is fine.

 

Unless you crop the photo. Say you crop 50% in each direction. So now you have a photo that is 1000 pixels by 750 pixels, or less that 1 megapixel. When you print this on a 4x6 the best you can do is 667 pixels by 1000 pixels. This works out to 167 dpi.

 

Now lets look at a 6 megapixel camera. That is about 2130 pixels by 2840 pixels. Crop that by 50% in each direction and you still have 1065 pixels by 1420 pixels (1.5 megapixels). When you print a 4x6 you will be printing 947 pixels by 1420 pixels or 237 dpi (a 42% improvement over the cropped 3 megapixel photo). The extra pixels come in handy when you crop a photo.

 

As for your monitor, it will display the entire 3 or 6 megapixel photo, but will not be displaying all 3 or 6 megapixels (as noted, the monitor is closer to 2 megapixels).

 

This photo was taken with a 3.2 megapixel camera. The photo has been cropped to 800 x 600 ...

 

 

Had I been using a five megapixex camera, I could have made the ship (Carnival Triumph) bigger, because I would have the extra pixels I needed.