Resolution Explained: Megapixels 101

Top 2. Aug 5, 2003 2:48 PM

» mcheek - Re: Good Article.

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Thank you for your comments, and you are right on track about the highend megapixels when enlarging photos. It boils down to the more of something (pixels), the easier to take from without any harm done (as in blow ups or enlargements).

Most of the time, a 4 MP or higher camera is high dollar and aimed at the more serious photographers, so they do not skimp on quality of lens, CCD, etc. I would have to wonder about the 2MP camera you mentioned too...is it lighter and therefore harder to steady? There could be several factors that contribute to a poor photo with it.

Great topic of discussion!

-- posted by mcheek

Top 3. Aug 5, 2003 3:45 PM

» Carol Wallace - Re: Re: Good Article.

In response to message posted by nynavey:
To be honest I was impressed with the quality of even my first digital, a fairly low megapixel Vivitar. Since I usually take photos to use online it was more than sufficient and the macro lens on that camera was terrific.

As you know, I had a great deal of trouble getting anything but fuzzy photos from my 5 megapixel camera until you helped me straighten out a few settings. Since these are for print publication they need to be absolutely crammed with pixels. And our local photography processor tells me that he has managed to get photos that looked good blown up to billboard size from that, when using the highest resolution.

-- posted by Carol Wallace

Top 4. Aug 5, 2003 7:42 PM

» Kirk - 4MP vs 2MP

In response to message posted by nynavey:

My 4MP Camera

My Dad's 2MP Camera we bought for $149 at Amazon for his 70th BDay.

Both links above will give our Coop credit if you use them to buy. I paid under $300 for my 4MP but I think Sharp was trying to introduce their first camera and were buying market share since nobody had reviewed them. I did my own review (I'm an electrical engineer who designed optical communication stuff for 20 years so I have fun with optical equipment) and found it was an excellent camera that saved me many hundreds of dollars at the time.

I would have to wonder about the 2MP camera you mentioned too...is it lighter and therefore harder to steady? There could be several factors that contribute to a poor photo with it. Great topic of discussion!

#1 The 2MP, yes it is much lighter so that is probably the reason. It fits well in a pocket while the 4MP has a nice big "handle" to grab that holds 4 AA cells. The 4MP is very easy to steady by comparison.

#2 The 2MP took some good pictures outdoors in good light so I think it is a matter of holding it steady.

We were worried my Dad would not like the camera but he LOVES it. It is very easy to upload into both his MAC and my portable PC I brought on vacation. It also allows you to view the photos on a TV. The 4MP is much more fun as it has so many settings and adjustments once you get off "auto" but it can also lead you astray.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 5. Aug 5, 2003 8:23 PM

» mcheek - Re: 4MP vs 2MP

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Thanks so much for posting these links. I have not read up on the Sharp brand at all, I will confess. I think you're spot on about the great price and the reasoning behind it too. I'm glad you've got use out of it.

I have a 4 MP Finepix (older model) that is very, very slim, and even though the resolution is higher, I have more difficulty in getting a good, clean snapshot. I believe it's just easier to move when I'm pressing the shutter button. My larger Olympus camera I never have a problem with.

Thanks again for the info on the Sharp cameras. I will eventually give the option of occasional guest reviewer, and if you'd be interested in writing one for that model, stay tuned to this topic.

-- posted by mcheek

Top 6. Aug 6, 2003 11:09 AM

» humorous_sage - Tripods

I love my 3.2 Olympic but I'm beginning to wonder whether I need a tripod. Some pictures seem fuzzy.

-- posted by humorous_sage

Top 7. Aug 6, 2003 5:53 PM

» mcheek - Re: Tripods

In response to message posted by humorous_sage:

If you're shooting in lower light situations and using the automatic setting of your camera (conditions which will cause a longer period of time of exposure), this may cause blurriness. Short exposure times leave less room for human error (camera shake). However, a tripod is always a good idea if you want crystal clear shots.

-- posted by mcheek

Top 8. Sep 14, 2003 9:39 PM

» Sunbear - Thanks

Hi Marie,

I have been using your article to research buying a camera and today I broke down and bought a Sony DSC-P92 at a great price. It's a 5.0M with many features and I am enjoying learning how to use it.

I have a previous background in journalism and photography, and had used film cameras in the past (have been inactive t he past few years though).

I am investigating your Suite101 pictures page and will perhps post some there. My freelance writing website has many of my photographs also at http://www.thomasjamesmartin.com .

I have subscribed to your topic and find your articles extremely helpful, well-researched and well-written.

Sorry this is so long-winded; had been meaning to leave you a message for a while now.

Best wishes,
Thomas Martin

-- posted by Sunbear

Top 9. Sep 15, 2003 2:37 PM

» mcheek - Re: Thanks

In response to message posted by Sunbear:

Thank you very much for the kind words, and congratulations on your new camera purchase. I think you'll find some great things about having a digital camera. The almost instant gratification is very addicting. I look forward to your contributions to this topic in the future, and am off to check out your websites.

-- posted by mcheek