• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1 megapixel digital cameras don't seem to cut it

O

oblivion2888

Banned
I picked up a 1.3 mpix digicam for $127 the other day. It is decent, but simply does not offer the clarity of a traditional film based camera. I believe I need a 2-3 megapixel camera instead
 
You are right. I recently won a Kodak DC3200 (1 megapixel) which normally sells for about $300 Canadian. It is just a toy. If you only want to play with small photos for email it's OK but you don't get high enough resolution for prints. I was considering the new Minolta Dimage 7 (5 megapixel) but I think I'll stick with film for now.
 
You're kinda right.
I have a 3-4 year old Kodak DC120...and it's 1.2 or 1.3mp's, and the pictures come out half decent, but it's more up to the lens quality than it is the megapixel count.
I know for a fact that my dads friends Sony Mavica 0.6mp with 10x high quality zoom lens takes pictures the same quality as mine....
 
Digital cameras dont come worth it untill at 2mpix, I have a 3mpix Olympus3030z and I love it, rarely use the highest resolution though.
 
Depends on what size pictures you want. If you want like 5x7's, yes you do need a 3.34. If you want like 3x5's, then go with a 2.2.
 
2.1 s10 has amazing clarity 🙂 too bad i ain't got it no mores.

but yeah, a 1 megapix is just not enough. But the olympus d460 actually does a decent job at it (it's 1.3) i think. not the best, but very nice.
 


<< I picked up a 1.3 mpix digicam for $127 the other day. It is decent, but simply does not offer the clarity of a traditional film based camera. I believe I need a 2-3 megapixel camera instead >>



If you keep the image at 4x6 or smaller you will not be able to tell the diffrence... Any larger than that &amp; You get a grainy effect.....
 
I have a 1.3 and it does a great job! If you only shoot pics to burn or post on the net...you really dont need to spend mega dollars for a decent camera. Of course I am not a professional photographer.
 
I have a 4 megapixel Olympus E-10. It's very good, but there are much better ones out there. There are digital backs for medium format cameras that go to 16 megapixels and higher.
 
I've got a 1.3 MP camera and it's ok for basic stuff, but I want a LOT more out of digital before it becomes my main method of photography.

I'm going to hold out quite a while for my next digital camera. Some of the things I want to see before I make my next move are:

  • Through The Lens Viewing - Having an LCD is great, but I hate the offset viewfinders. I like to do closeups of flowers and insects and stuff and the paralax of the offset viewfinder stinks.
  • Manual Focusing Override - Autofocus is fine for most stuff, but I often find that the camera is focusing on something a little forward or behind what I want.
  • 6 Megapixels - What can I say... I want good clarity to at least a 11 X 14 inch blowup.
  • Interchangeable Lenses - Higher quality and greater range of options
  • Hot Shoe for External Flash - I find that the internal flashes in most cases just aren't powerful enough for indoor pictures at the highest resolutions
  • More Exposure Control - Ability to set aperature priority, shutter priority and full manual would be nice... also a way to set timed exposures for night time etc.
  • Various Metering Methods - Average, Spot, balanced... also the abitlity to lock an exposure (say on a dark area) and then hold it while you move the scene to the picture you want.
  • Dual CF Slots - this is something my current camera has and I like it. It would be awesome to have 2 256Meg CF's and be able to take loads of 6MP uncompressed TIFs without having to download to a 'puter

Obviously, it's going to be a few years before I get another digital camera... that wish list, when it ALL becomes available in one unit is going to be expensive... until then I'll do any &quot;serious&quot; stuff with 35mm.

Joe
 
I have a 1.3 Fuji Finepix 1400 which I purchased for several reasons:

Cost me only $50 (Amazon.com $300 - $150 MCI GC - $50 rebate - $50 coupon = $50)
I wanted at least 1.3 not some kiddy toy 640x480
Built-in USB (too lazy to use a card reader)
Viewfinder thingie
Nice shape/size

Ok ok it was mostly the price but my next digicam will prob be a 3 Megapixel.
 
Netopia, that would be the camera i want too 🙂 but for the time being, i would settle for pro90 or the new minolta and a canonG1/olympus 3040(1.8 woohoo!)... wait.. i don't have the money... damn 🙁
 
Okay, there are others out there but a quick search turned this up. They are well out of the price range of most ametuer photographers, and even most pros for that matter. I'm not sure what this one costs, but $20,000 is not too ungodly for one like this. Obviously, these will not find their way into our homes anytime soon, but one day the sensor in this piece of equipment will be just a toy. With resolutions of this magnitude the resulting images have far surpassed film quality. 16 MPixel sensor.
 
Shit, that is sweet. But you sure as hell don't bring this to Disneyland to take pictures with the kids. Looks bulky. 1 picture = 50 megs?
 
Thanks lirion. That's quite impressive. PochiePooh has a good point. The storage requirements are steep. I think that portable memory will have to scale up pretty fast to keep pace with the CCDs if really high rez digital cameras are to be available for the masses. Anyone know what's around the corner for really high density portable memory?
 
The microdrive is about to get better. With the new &quot;Pixie Dust&quot; technology they are hoping to get them over 3 gig. The back I linked to is made to tether to a computer, so storage isn't really a problem, you just have to lug around a laptop. It only takes one shot at a time anyway because one shot fills the buffer. Unreal. I said the images would surpass film quality, but the equipment still has a lot of catching up to do. Speed and usable ISO are the limiting factors for really high quality digital sensors now, not resolution.
 
It seems like most of the posts here assume that the eventual goal is to get prints - &quot;3x5&quot; or &quot;5x7&quot; or whatever.

Personally, I dont like prints. The reason I really like my digital camera is because I dont have to worry about photo albums and the like.

Personally I find 1152x864 sufficient for now, because thats the best res. my current monitor will do.

However, my next digital camera will have to be at least 3MP because I am sure I will go to higher res. when I get my new machine.

My Prediction: the days of prints are dying. It wont be so long until the concept of wasting precious trees/paper to print images sounds archaic, or even barbaric.

-jothaxe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top