What is the best “megapixel” rating for someone who just wants to take casual photos? Just the type of pictures you’d take with your regular point and shoot. Nothing fancy, yet not sacrificing too much in the way of quality?
Thanks.
What are you doing with the pictures? If you’re e-mailing them to people or putting them on webpages, 2-Megapixel is overkill. That produces images that are 1600x1200, which you’re going to need to shrink or crop anyway. If you plan to print them, you’ll want to go higher. I’m sure someone with more experience with real world print usage will come along shortly to advise you.
The idea is to print them.
I’d get higher than 2 even if I was not going to print them for several reasons.
Resampling a large image produces a sharper photo than taking the photo at a lower megapixel rating.
With higher mp ratings you have more freedom to crop.
I’d look for a 3 mp camera (you can alway set them to take at lower ratings if you don’t like fannying about with resizing them on your comp)
In what size? If you just want 5x7 photos, 2M is probably sufficient.
This article at Imaging Resource has a handy little table equating resolution to acceptable print size.
The truth is, it’s sorta difficult to tell. I went through a long research and decision process before choosing the camera that the UnaBoard members gave to me (the Kodak DC4900 4 Megapixel), and found out that the pixels aren’t everything. Some cameras simply seem to take much better pictures at 3 MP than others at 4, and some at 2 are comperable to 4.
In general, with the costs being so low, I would still try to get the best 3-4 MP one I could find, paying careful attention to the features and reviews of the actual photo quality - especially the colour, and the level of optical zoom (not digitial zoom - some people disagree, but many find digital zoom to be less than useless). Fierra’s 1 MP camera (another Kodak) has such fantastic colour, optical zoom, and sharpening functions that is seems superior to some 3 MP ones I’ve seen, for example.
If it’s at all possible, I found the best way to judge this is to find other people that have cameras and borrow them. Barring this, detailed reviews in digital photo magazines can give a much better expert comparison.
Well, most decent printers require an output of about 200 pixels per inch, or more. For a 6x4 print, that gives about 1200x800 pixels, or only about 1 megapixel.
The problem, as Anthracite has suggested, is that the megapixel count does not tell the whole story. All digital cameras have their own internal software that “processes” the image in the camera and gives a finished output, usually in JPEG format. The level of compression of the JPEG output (JPEG is actually the name of a compression algorithm) will be a key factor in determining the quality of the picture.
For example, my 5Mp camera (Minolta Dimage 7Hi) has three different JPEG compression settings–extra fine, fine, and standard. At full 5Mp resolution, the file sizes are:
X-fine: ~4 megabytes
Fine: ~2 megabytes
Standard: ~1 megabyte
These figures are all for the same size image. The reason for the different file sizes is that some are compressed more than others, and thus are of lesser quality.
The thing is that many of the lower-priced cameras, and cameras with lower megapixel counts, also have less-sophisticated internal processors, and a higher JPEG compression ratio, leading to lower quality output. So, while a 1Mp picture might turn out OK on my camera (i can select from 4 different sizes), with its Extra-fine JPEG setting, the same picture would probably not be as good on a cheap 1Mp camera.
Of course, all the technical talk in the world is useless unless you can see what the results from any particular camera are like, and thus determine whether it’s the right one for you. As others have suggested, you should read reviews and, if at all possible, examine prints produced by the cameras you are interested in. You really need to learn about how good their printing output is. It’s very hard to make a comparison on a computer, because a heavily-compressed 500 kilobyte JPEG might not look very different on a computer screen from a 2.5 megabyte JPEG.
If you have any more specific questions, feel free to post them and i’ll give any help i can. You should also check out Digital Photography Review. They have great reviews, and forums where you can talk with digital camera owners and ask them questions. I spent a good month or so there learning the jargon and the technicalities of digital cameras before deciding which one to buy.
Hiya
Even better than reviews in mags are reviews on websites, like those found on www.dpreview.com. These are the most amazingly comprehensive reviews I have ever seen (of anything!), and are extremely useful when you’re looking to buy. They contain a lot of technical info, most of which you can safely skip over, and the last page is a “pros and cons” summary, where the main reviewer, Phil, suggests flaws that may cause people problems (very useful for consumer level purchases).
Additionally (on dpr, at least) you can compare two models side by side, comparing attributes, which is useful for making a decision between two similar cameras by different manufacturers. Each review comes with a bunch of sample pics, as well. these are taken under varying conditions and of many subjects.
On top of that, there is a huge discussion board community there, with a large mixture of amateurs, semi-pro’s and pro shooters. If you’re looking for info or help on a specific model, you can ask in the relevant group (or search for existing posts of course). If this camera purchase represents a big investment for you, sites like this are well worth checking out beforehand - sales people in shops will not have your best interests in mind, necessarily.
While you don’t give much detail regarding what you plan to shoot with your camera, there are a few blanket statements I can make:
o These days, you get what you pay for. Competition between manufacturers is pretty stiff, so prices are down low. As **Anthracite ** said, not all 3mp cams are created equal,but you can generally use the price as a good guide. The cheapest cam is gonna take crap pics, regardless of how many mp it is.
o When you’re checking for prices, make sure you check if that price includes things like cables, batteries, and similar essential accessories are included. Some online retailers are a little shady in this dept.
o Check if you recharge the camera itself, or the batteries separately. Depending on your style of shooting, you might require to be away from mains power for a long time, so the ability to charge several batteries before you leave, and be able to change them is invaluable. Some cameras, you have to plug the camers itself into mains to charge it (kinda like modern mobile phones). Some cameras take normal alkaline batts, which is generally not a good idea as you’ll spend a fortune on them. Li-Ion, or NiMh batts are probably a better way to go.
o Similar issue with memory cards (the data storage method that holds your images before you download them to your computer). In really cheapie cameras, you cannot remove these, so you can only ever take 30 images before you need to stop at a PC. Most decent cameras have removable media (Memory Stick, Compact Flash, etc). Propriitory media, like Memory Stick by Sony, are much more expensive, so keep that in mind. of course, Sony cameras only take Sony cards.
o You mentioned that your main goal is to print images. One of the main things that will affect print quality is the printer you use, of course. I never print images (even tho I shoot several thousand images a week!), so I don’t know much about them, but there are review sites out there for “photo quality” printers. Like cameras, competition between manufacturers is fierce, so prices are low. Literally photo quality prints can be produced from a $180 printer (tho, you do have to use special paper).
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask for more info, and welcome tot he world of digital shooting. You’ll never touch a film camera again.
abby
Holy crap!
What the hell are you shooting?
BTW, where are you in Sydney? I’m a displaced Sydneysider living in the US.
My cousins just got back from a vacation in Mexico. I’ve got to tell you, people never looked more like the living hung-over. (Got the giardia-crypto first day). But it was the color that tipped it off. It was fricking PERfect.
The formula: 3 megapixel pointyshoot Kodak, one digital processing lab, 5 samolians. Add cash to lab, fold in a CD or funky-uretouched teeny floppy, wait four days at even heat, serves 2-256, depending on quantity of CD. You get a photo-quality print, with matte finish, a border and a whole bunch of logos on the back.
Or you pony up some green for a photo printer. Since you take a lot of snaps, think about this. It will keep your photo work relatively unadulterated; I’ve found even the best casual digital snaps never make it to print – and therefore never become magneted by Bugs Bunny or The State of Ohio to the fridge – even though they would have been had they been on photo paper.
I should enforce some kind of rule in my family: if it’s in the camera, it gets printed out 4x6, matte finish, .25" border portrait, .1875" border landscape, medium white. No exceptions uless marked “arty,” then filed to the server under “g:\files\daddy’s artistic crap.”
I’m trying to get into Amazon to buy me an Olympus C5050 as we speak. Site’s down.
i’ve got a 2.1mp canon digital elph… best thing i’ve ever bought!
check out http://www.steves-digicams.com they have some GREAT REVIEWS over there… dpreview is also a great site.
you really need to go demo the cameras in the store
STAY AWAY FROM ONES THAT ARE “USER FRIENDLY” if you cant select compression, or specific resolutions, the camera is CRAP, theres nothing that is going to make it worth buying. A lot of the kodak’s i looked at had “good better best”… wtf is good better best… this was about a year ago so maybe they have shaped up, but this was a 3mp camera at the time, it didnt even list what resolution you were shooting in, just “good better best”.
MAKE SURE your camera can select resolutions… most likely 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200 for 2.1mp with normal fine and superfine compression settings…
fine compression and 1600x1200 is great for 5x7 and 4x6 prints… i have a epson photo stylus 785epx and its AMAZING…
keep in mind most places like walmart will have a kodak booth you can bring your memory card to, put it in, and print out 4x6’s for 29 cents apiece…
Two points:
-
Even with a higher megapixel camera, you can usually set the camera to take lower quality/smaller size images. Then, if you did want to take a hi-res, ultra high quality photo at any time - eg to get printed out professionally, like a wedding or graduation photo - you would still have this capacity.
-
The bigger and better photo you start with, the better the end compressed result. So you if you have access to something like photoshop, and you have enough flash memory space to take bigger images, you’ll get a better final result (with Adobe’s “save for web” feature) than just taking low-res stuff to start off with.
As you’ve said you want to print them - I would go for the best quality. Digital cameras are PLUMMETING in price. A Sony Cybershot FIVE mega-pixels now costs less than a THREE megapixel did a year ago.
I would say don’t go below 2MP, there’s no point. You can always shoot at lower quality if you like. I bought my Canon Digital Elph (IXUX V in Europe) a year or two ago, and I believe that a 3MP camera now costs what a 2MP one did back then. However, even the 2MP ones work now have more features than mine and cost less…
The other golden rule is to buy a brand that is already known for its CAMERAS, and not its personal stereos, inkjet printers or devices for removing nasal hair, etc. This means preferably one of the “big five,” i.e. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, although I have heard that the Fuji cameras aren’t bad either.
I have a Canon Digital Elph (2.1.MP) on the recommendation of a professional photographer friend of mine and love it. Another friend recently bought a newer version of the same thing, which is also gorgeous and has a brighter display and various goodies like three-point focusing etc. Also, they’re made of metal, which is a rarety these days.
I’ve also heard very good things about Olympus digital cameras, but haven’t had a go on one yet.
God, my last post was very incoherent. Apologies for the typoes and cutties & and pasties.
Aaargh!
Abby is definetly a hell of a photographer, in my experience. I’d trust her opinion on cameras. 
In my experience, 2 megapixels is the cutoff for an 8x10 sized print. If you look at it close up, there will be crappy areas or blurry bits. But it might be good enough for you. It will produce excellent 4x6’s.
I agree with SmackFu that 2mp is adequate for 8x10s but only if you don’t crop.
With 3 and 4mp cameras at a reasonable price level and memory cheap get something that will allow for flexibility.
The drawback is that large MP images eat up memory fast. Smartmedia memory tops out at 128mp as does the previous generation of Sony memory sticks. Compact flash memory has no inherent limit and remains the cheapest per megabyte. A single large capacity memory card allows you to take a camera on vacation and not have to download until you get back. You can do the same with multiple smaller cards but at more expense and risk of losing or damaging cards the more they are swapped and handled.
Und so…
All other things about the two cameras being equal, is it true that there is no advantage to getting a 5 MP camera as opposed to a 2 MP camera, if you never plan to print anything bigger than a 5x7?
For the most part no because a print that small won’t reveal a lot of differences, certainly not with consumer inkjet printers. I know Epson claims astronimically high resolution figures in the thousands of dots per inch but this is rendered meaningless when you dither discreet ink dots to form a continuous tone image.
You’ll probably get less random noise when downsampling the larger image as the noise is averaged out while the detail can be the same as the 2mp image. Also 5mp cameras will have physically bigger CCDs than a 2mp camera which means less noise to begin with but the difference won’t be huge in small prints. The difference shoes up when comparing a 5mp digicam with a 2/3 size CCD to a 6mp DLSR built on a 35mm camera body. When they are cropped they have the same number of pixels but the larger CCD will have less noise and more dynamic range.