12 megapixel is amazing *now with random pics!*

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

Deadtrees

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2002
2,351
0
0
I prefer as much MP as possible... only when it's worth it. In other words, What's the point of useless extra pixels?
Clearly, your camera can't handle 12.1 MP. What you got there is smeared pixels multiplied by the extra MP. Even worse, all the pixels that could've been better became worse off due to too much density. It's not even a trade-off, it's lose-lose situation there.

Try comparing your image to Canon 5D which has excellent 12.8 MP.
 
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,935
13,932
126
www.anyf.ca
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
I prefer as much MP as possible... only when it's worth it. In other words, What's the point of useless extra pixels?
Clearly, your camera can't handle 12.1 MP. What you got there is smeared pixels multiplied by the extra MP. Even worse, all the pixels that could've been better became worse off due to too much density. It's not even a trade-off, it's lose-lose situation there.

Try comparing your image to Canon 5D which has excellent 12.8 MP.
Click to expand...

True MP is not everything, but still, those pics are insane compared to my existing camera (3.1mp). The more MP = the more data so you get more detail. Normally I would reduce those by at least 50% depending on what I want, then crop the part I want. For general storage though I usually keep them as originals.

Lense and other factors come to play, but you also get into th e 600+ dollars for just a lense alone. I'm not really a photographer I use it for mroe general purpose stuff.

In the future I might get a super fancy one though, either that, or a movie camera. They've gone down like crazy and lot of them even do HD.

Oh that's another thing, for a still camera, the movie feature on this cam is quite good. probably more then enough for youtube vids and stuff of that sort, or even regular TV.

The downside is I noticed there is no option to control shutter speed. That's really too bad as I find that can make a big difference for night pics. That and there's no option to put the date on the pics, but that's not a HUGE issue, I usually date them on the pc anyway.
 
KeithTalent

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Boy, a lot of wrong forum posts today. Must be the nice weather.

Anyway, nice cat!

KT
 
S

Suspicious-Teach8788

Lifer
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Originally posted by: Deadtrees
I prefer as much MP as possible... only when it's worth it. In other words, What's the point of useless extra pixels?
Clearly, your camera can't handle 12.1 MP. What you got there is smeared pixels multiplied by the extra MP. Even worse, all the pixels that could've been better became worse off due to too much density. It's not even a trade-off, it's lose-lose situation there.

Try comparing your image to Canon 5D which has excellent 12.8 MP.
Click to expand...

True MP is not everything, but still, those pics are insane compared to my existing camera (3.1mp). The more MP = the more data so you get more detail. Normally I would reduce those by at least 50% depending on what I want, then crop the part I want. For general storage though I usually keep them as originals.

Lense and other factors come to play, but you also get into th e 600+ dollars for just a lense alone. I'm not really a photographer I use it for mroe general purpose stuff.

In the future I might get a super fancy one though, either that, or a movie camera. They've gone down like crazy and lot of them even do HD.

Oh that's another thing, for a still camera, the movie feature on this cam is quite good. probably more then enough for youtube vids and stuff of that sort, or even regular TV.

The downside is I noticed there is no option to control shutter speed. That's really too bad as I find that can make a big difference for night pics. That and there's no option to put the date on the pics, but that's not a HUGE issue, I usually date them on the pc anyway.
Click to expand...

It'll be a problem with night pics but most people don't realize... turn off the flash! There are workarounds that you can use to get good night shots with even a P&S, and I'm sure most of us even DSLR users don't take that many night shots in general.
 
Modelworks

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
4 x 6 would need 1200 x 1800= 3 MP
5 x7 would need 1500 x 2100 = 4MP
8 x 10 would need 2400 x 3000= 7 MP
11 x 14 would need 3300 x 4200 = 14MP

Those are the optimum file resolutions for the standard print sizes.
It is always nice though to be able to scale from a larger image to a smaller one.

 
GodlessAstronomer

GodlessAstronomer

Lifer
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
Originally posted by: Modelworks
4 x 6 would need 1200 x 1800= 3 MP
5 x7 would need 1500 x 2100 = 4MP
8 x 10 would need 2400 x 3000= 7 MP
11 x 14 would need 3300 x 4200 = 14MP

Those are the optimum file resolutions for the standard print sizes.
It is always nice though to be able to scale from a larger image to a smaller one.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, no, print size don't scale linearly like that. Small prints are looked at from a less than 1/2 a meter away, large prints are designed to be hung on walls and seen from 1 or more meters. No one looks at a 24" print from the same distance as a passport photo.
 
Modelworks

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: Modelworks
4 x 6 would need 1200 x 1800= 3 MP
5 x7 would need 1500 x 2100 = 4MP
8 x 10 would need 2400 x 3000= 7 MP
11 x 14 would need 3300 x 4200 = 14MP

Those are the optimum file resolutions for the standard print sizes.
It is always nice though to be able to scale from a larger image to a smaller one.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, no, print size don't scale linearly like that. Small prints are looked at from a less than 1/2 a meter away, large prints are designed to be hung on walls and seen from 1 or more meters. No one looks at a 24" print from the same distance as a passport photo.
Click to expand...

Those are the optimum resolutions for printing. Ask any printer.
 
GodlessAstronomer

GodlessAstronomer

Lifer
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: Modelworks
4 x 6 would need 1200 x 1800= 3 MP
5 x7 would need 1500 x 2100 = 4MP
8 x 10 would need 2400 x 3000= 7 MP
11 x 14 would need 3300 x 4200 = 14MP

Those are the optimum file resolutions for the standard print sizes.
It is always nice though to be able to scale from a larger image to a smaller one.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, no, print size don't scale linearly like that. Small prints are looked at from a less than 1/2 a meter away, large prints are designed to be hung on walls and seen from 1 or more meters. No one looks at a 24" print from the same distance as a passport photo.
Click to expand...

Those are the optimum resolutions for printing. Ask any printer.
Click to expand...

You didn't address my point, but whatever, I have prints much larger than 8x10 with my 8mp 30D. The prints look good because no one is stupid enough to look at them from 6 inches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom