towzer

Is it really worth paying the extra for a 4 million mega pixel camera?

Phil

Iain Young

Depends what you want to use it for. You get a higher resolution image on the 4 megapixel, and so you tend to get better definition and colour reproduction. Having said that, if you're just using it for snapshots, and (for example) you're not blowing the pictures up to print out on A4 paper, you may not notice a great difference.

Mines a 6.3 megapixel, and you definitely notice the difference there

chiark

As Iain said, it depends. But if it's a compact camera then in my opinion the lens is starting to become a limiting factor at that sort of resolution...

Iain Young

Very true Nick. (That's why I bought a digital slr).

pslewis

Really depends on whether you want to print off at a largish size?

I have a 3.3 million and never have it set on the maximum anyway - so anything more would be a waste.

My daughter has a 2.1 million Olympus, and, given my time again I would have got that one instead of the 3.3 million as the difference is minimal for what I use the images for. Would have saved me a cool £300 as well!!

Pete

Dave_A

I've got a fuji finepix 3.2 mp camera, and the photos on the highest settings print out a4 size fine, so long as you resample to a decent dpi and use a quality printer. It all depends on how large a photo you want to print out - I use the 1 mp setting most of the time unless I know I want to do a good size print, so for 99% of the time I could have got a way with a 1 mp camera.

Dave
www.scoobyphotos.com

towzer

It's a christmas present for my wife. I was looking at the Pentax Optio S ('coz it's small) but then for another £80 odd quid there's the Optio S4 with 4 million mega pixels.

She's only going to use it for snaps so the 3mega pixel version is probably sufficient.

Phil

Iain Young

Yep, sound like the 3 megapixel will do the job

Luke

balance the Pixs against the lens. ...Take a look at any of the Canon G series (My all time favourite compact digital) and some of the others..the lens look krap on some of the cameras. The Canons look like real lenses. I also belive the pixs bit is a bit of a con... make of that what you want. They just want us to spend more and more.

pslewis

IMHO the GT Lens on the Minoltas is cracking!!

If she is just taking snaps then a 2million pixel will be more than adequate - don't get caught on the pixel bandwagon!

Pete

gregh

you seen the new Ixus?

Hobo_Jojo

i have a 4 megapixel kodak camera and i do see a difference between the resolution settings, i always take photos at 4 megapixel anyway just incase i catch something i want to use in some of my digi art

Iain Young

It depends a lot on the lense. If you have a good one, then you're a lot more likely to notice a difference in the number of megapixels than if you have a naff lense, simply because the images being projected onto the chip of a higher quality to begin with. If you have a lense which projects fuzzy images onto the chip for example, increasing the megapixels will only result in you getting a larger fuzzy picture.

Obviously this is an exageration, and increasing megapixels will improve the image, but you'll notice more improvement by having a good lense than you will by increasing the megapixels.

Note that megapixels isn;t the only deciding factor either. Some chips (of the same megapixel rating) are more sensitive to light / colours etc than others, so you can have large differences in picture quality between cameras with the same pixel count. Also, different cameras handle different light conditions in different ways, with varying levels of success.

There are so many variables that the only way to be sure that the camera will do the job is to read the reviews, and try to get to your local camera shop and try one out.

However, if all you want is a reasonably cheap snapshot camera, 2 megapixels will do fine. You'll still get better pictures than when using one of those orrible disposable cameras

Luke

Pete..

very true .The minolta cameras are excellent. Just love the canon a bit more. Also the flip out screen is better and save it from getting scratched etc.

Hobo_Jojo

also i only realy got the 4 mega pixel cam over the 3.2 one i was lookin at cuz it was almost the same price due to an offer where it was reduced by around £70

Mick

iTrader: (1)

We have a 2.2 mega Pixel camera - Kodak DX3600 thingy with docking station. Docking station is really worth having. Picture quality is fine for family use.

Most annoying thing about the camera is poor viewing screen - sometimes you cannot see the image very well on screen esp when dark & relying on flash AND also major gripe - the fact that it takes a picture about 1/2 second after you press the button - so for anything moving it is a bit of a lottery as to whether you get a good picture or not - or even a picture of your subject at all

So perhaps look at other features of camera as well as just No. of pixels...

Mick

King RA

Mick on my kodak if you hold the button down half way it focus's and then press it down completely to take the picture, which it then does instantly.

Hobo_Jojo

mine doesnt have a delay either, mines an easyshare one 4 mp and i have got some realy good photos out of it also no problem with viewing screen, can turn it off to save power and use the viewfinder instead if need be

Iain Young

My old Fuji had about a half second delay between focussing and taking the picture. Not much, but annoying if you are trying to capture a fast moving object. The response time seems to vary from camera to camera, so as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's a good idea to read some reviews, and get to a camera shop which will let you try a couple...

LeeMac

iTrader: (1)

Ive just bought a Fuji S5000 from PCWorld and can say it really is a great camera, ive just upgraded from a 1.3 pixel so I am going to notice a big difference but it is well worth the money and the 10x zoom is excellent 6 mega pixel but 3.1 pixel actual, think its £60 cheaper online but when i went in they let me have for the online price because I used vouchers i got due to my old one broke right near the end of its 5 year guarantee

AllanB

You'll only notice the difference if using the full resolution images or are printing it out.

I'd mirror the comments about the lense.

The Pantax Optio is a cracking bit of kit. I'd stick to Pentax, Fuji myslef. Some of the others like Casio have lenses not quite as good as some of the others and the images can appear a bit soft at the edges .

My dad has an old Fuji camera and the quality is superb even if the resolution is much lower than my Nikon. All down to the lense.

Also make sure your get a camera that uses a Lithium Ion battery pack as these last for ages and you won't have to replace them for years.


AllanB

Danny B

The human eye cannot distinguish any differences over 3 mega pixels when viewing pics on screen, printing however is different, and that is what you pays your money for.

chiark

Danny, that's nothing to do with the human eye: your PC is resizing (interpolating) the image to fit your screen. If you're running 1024x768 then your display is only around .8 megapixels, so you're compressing information to make it fit.

If you zoom in to view "native" pixels, you will notice a difference between 3MP and 4MP. There's potentially 33% more information in a 4MP image providing the lens can resolve it.

Print will show more variations that you simply cannot see on screen IMHO.

Anyway, don't get carried away with thinking that more pixels = better image. A mate bought an Olympus E-10 from Dixons last year during their silly offer, and despite being 3MP it will put many of the latest gen 4/5/6MP to shame IMHO. Why? Quality of lens, sensor, everything...

I have a Fuji 6900z still. It's 3.3MP native sensor with 6MP output due to the jiggery pokery that is SuperCCD, and it's good. I reckon it's on a par with a good 4MP despite being about 3 years old.

I may upgrade to a full SLR next year if I can afford to do so as I think the technology surrounding sensors is somewhat stabilising.

Another final point: the number of megapixels that is traditionally used to describe a sensor is, IMHO, incredibly misleading. It's actually the number of photosites that the CCD has, and these are normally arranged in a Bayer matrix (G-R-G-B), which is then interpolated to make an RGB (or probably YUV) image. The Foveon X3 sensor is different, as for each pixel it has three photosites, so despite being labelled a 3.3MP camera, it's actually equivalent to a 10MP camera.

Confused? Sorry - see dpreview.com for more info

Cheers,
Nick.