Digital Camera question

[Marvin]

OK, obviously the higher the pixels, the better the quality of the picture, but what I would like to know from all of you digital camera guys is whether or not there is a huge difference between 4.0 megapixels and 5.0 megapixels? I am looking to get a reasonable compact digital camera to supplement my many SLRs so I wanted some feedback. Thanks in advance.

 

[hitrack]

Unless the sensor is better quality you won't notice any difference. Going 4 up to 5 MP will allow a bit more room for cropping pics, but chances are no increase in quality at all.

Check out sensor size at dpreview.com

 

[Marvin]

what are you going to be doing with the pics.....viewing on your pc, printing, etc?

HFS

Most likely both. I think it would just be more convenient to have a small digital camera around ... especially for the upcoming Robson Street reports - one can't have behemoth digital camera like SWG, otherwise I could bring my SLR with the zoom lens.

Unless the sensor is better quality you won't notice any difference. Going 4 up to 5 MP will allow a bit more room for cropping pics, but chances are no increase in quality at all.

Check out sensor size at dpreview.com

Thanks, that helps. I was trying to decide between the 4.0 or 5.0 Canon Elph.

 

[Butterball29]

Camera

The Canon Elph's are a good choice (as stated in numerous websites such as dpreview.com) but also look at the Nikon Coolpix S3. Very sheek looking piece and is 6 mp for less the the Canon's 5mp. Another to look at is the Nikon Coolpix P1. It's got wifi so you can bring your laptop with you (if it's wifi capable) and beam all the Robson report shots from your camera as your shooting them to your laptop without wires!! Just a thought. 2 year warranty on Nikon - 1 on Canon and everyone else for that matter!

Bball

 

[Teabagger]

Pay attention to the size / quality of the lens. My 3.2 blows the doors off of most 5.0 compacts. Some of the compact formats are limited in their ability to set timing / aperature in challenging light conditions.
More often than not, pictures I get from a buddy with a slick new Canon compact 5.0 are fuzzy or grainy.

 

[Daytime Owl]

I agree eith Teabagger. The quality of the lens is more important than the megapixels. If you are going from 4.0 to 5.0 megapixels you likely will not see any difference in quality of the pictures, unless you plan to blow and print the pictures on a billboard! It maybe less grainy with the large blowup pictures, but I don't think there is a notable difference.

 

[The Copulator]

It's not all about size

You can get great photos with a good camera but low pixel size if you have a good lens, set the exposure yourself (don't use manual), hold the camera steady, carefully focus and think about the composition.

I get good photos at 1 or 2 Megapixels, the file size is anywhere from 300 K to 800 K. These are printed at Blacks. I even made an 8"x11" calendar with these photos. They're not National Geographic quality, but I am satisfied.

 

[Marvin]

Thanks for all the advice.

 

[nixnix]

i didn't want to start a new thread...i have a question bout cameras...

i'm looking for a very compact camera...

debating between the canon sd400 and the panasonic fx9

which one should i go with? or any other suggestions for about the same price range

thanks

 

[Dakota Wood]

debating between the canon sd400 and the panasonic fx9

I just got the Panasonic FX9. It's the first digital I've owned, so I have nothing to compare it to, but I think it's fabulous. Easy to use, large monitor, easy to download pics, really clear video. The only negative is that it doesn't have a view finder, so the monitor is difficult to see if the sun is behind you.

 

[CEG]

you dont require anymore than 2 megapix for decent shots, spend your money on the good lens, so go to a kerrisdale camera, lens shutter, london drugs even if you get the actual photo guy there. A larger size camera generally allows for a better lens, also increased weight will give you a better lens, now what i mean by this is better and less expensive as well.

You will have to decide on size you want versus weight and price. I have a cheaper kodak 200 dollar 2megapix camera that is fairly large and about 4 yrs old, and its pics are better in many instances than my 5 megapix, 500 ultracompact....why even though the ultracompact has an excellent lens, size does matter.

hope that helps....

 

[Butterball29]

Cameras

Canon's usually rate pretty high on the printed picture quality scale but if you are printing only 4X6 or 5X7 prints you won't notice much of a difference from the Canon or the Panasonic. The Panasonic has an Optical Image Stabilizer and an insanely larege 2.5 inch rear LCD. The biggest knock on the previous FX7 was that the battery doesn't last that long. The FX9 has WAY better battery life and nearly doubles the capacity of the old one! You can't go wrong either way!! Bite the bullet and buy one or the other - they're both pretty good.

 

[Herb_The_Perb]

As a rule of thumb, the bigger the chunk of glass, the better the lens.
Tiny lenses aren't likely to give the best resolution and light-gathering ability.

But for more specific info, go to dpreview.com snd look up specific models.