Digital cameras - 4.1 Megapixel vs 5 Need help

Looking for a camera for someone. I have an old Kodak 2.0 mpx and it’s decent, so I figure anything higher will be a big step up.

This is the camera I’m interested in.

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4003323

It’s a Sony Cybershot. I knew someone with the old 2 mpx version, and the thing is sweet. They raved about it. Tiny as hell, good battery life, good pictures, etc. Anyway the new one is 4.1 mpx, so much better right?

Here’s my question.

I was drawn between a 5 mpx with a few more bells and whistles, but I think this little 4.1 mpx is better in the quality of life catagory. You can carry it around in a purse and such. I know there will be a difference in picture quality, but will it really be noticable?

Feel free to mention any other cameras in a $200 - $300 range.

Bigger pixel counts don’t automatically result in better picture quality. Particularly with compact cameras, cramming in more pixels means each sensor is smaller - and smaller sensors (all other things being equal) means more electrical noise, and so degredation of picture quality. But it all varies from camera to camera - you need to go on first-hand advice and reviews, and not just the headline rating (although I guess you’re doing this already :wink: )

I have the Cybershot 5 Mpxl, and the only complaint I have about it is the delay between the time you push the button and when it actually takes the picture. Otherwise I like it. FWIW, if I were to do it over again, I’d get the 4.1 Mpxl. I don’t have a really high quality photo printer and I don’t tend to blow pictures up to poster size, so I generally don’t even set it at 5 Mpxl. It just fills the memory card up quicker.

The only time I’ve actually used the higher setting is when I wanted to zoom in more than it would. After the picture is taken I can crop it and zoom it in some more with a picture editor and the quality will still stay fairly good.

I’d say that just for regular old casual picture taking, 5 Mpxl is more than you would need.

That’s good to know. If that’s the case, I would rather go with something small and compact.

I second this. If the lens isn’t good enough, you’ll just get more pixels with no more detail. And if the sensor isn’t great, you’ll get more noisy worthless pixels. The only way to see is to look at sample photos, like on dpreview.com.

One other thing to keep in mind is that if you crop a photo, you just threw away a whole lot of pixels. That’s why you can never have too many, even if you’re just printing snapshots.

Is that a neutral site? I assumed any “sample” pictures from a manufacturer would be photoshopped to kingdom come.

Yep, neutral, and the best digicam review site by a country mile, IMHO. Sample pics straight out of the camera for you to download (many of them taken just across the road from my office, coincidentally), and extremely in-depth reviews. Highly recommended.

Yeah, DPReview is the digital camera site. It’s even considered the bee’s knees by digital camera folk in Europe, Asia and Australia. The reviews are comprehensive, and the camera and lens test examples they provide have not been manipulated or enhanced in any way. They have examples of full-size (not reduced) images from nearly all of their reviewed cameras, even the massive 11 and 16 megapixel jobs. If you have any questions, i always found their forums very helpful also. Just make sure to do a search first, as people tend to get irritated with answering the same questions over and over.

It’s certainly true that megapixels (“resolution” is the term used in digital photography to describe this aspect of the picture) is not the whole story. As others have pointed out, the size of the sensor (and hence of each pixel) is important. A 6 megapixel SLR like the Nikon D70 has a 23.7 x 15.5 mm sensor, and has considerably better image quality than the 8 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 8800, whose sensor is only 8.8 x 6.6 mm. Basically, you’re not going to be able to get the large sensor unless you move up to an SLR, and you’re apparently not in that sort of market. Rest assured that small-sensor 4 and 5 megapixel cameras nowdays can provide perfectly good picture quality.

It’s not only resolution and sensor size that is important, though. Another issue is compression. For compressed images, you’ll be shooting in jpeg format, and it’s here that some cameras are better than others. To produce a jpeg, the camera takes the raw data and processes it, compressing it to produce a jpeg image that is smaller than a raw image. Some cameras have better inbuilt software than others for doing this. Most cameras have more than one jpeg setting, allowing you to make a trade-off between image quality and file size. My camera has three jepg settings—normal, fine, and extra-fine. The normal setting produces a jpeg of about 1Mb, fine gives a picture of about 2Mb, and extra-fine (which is my default setting) gives a jpeg about 3-4Mb in size on a 5Mp camera. I don’t think the Sony you’re looking at has a choice of jpeg settings, but if the default setting is good enough, then that shouldn’t be a problem.

My camera is a Minolta Dimage 7Hi, which i’ve had for almost two years. I’ve been very happy with it, and 5Mp is certainly enough for regular snapshots. I don’t print many pictures, i just have them on my computer, but i’ve seen really good 14x11" prints produced from cameras exactly like mine. I wanted something more than just a snapshot camera, so i made sure to get a model that allows a reasonable amount of creative control, things like a fully manual mode, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc. The Sony you’re looking at doesn’t have those things, but if you don’t need to mess with the settings yourself that shouldn’t be much of a problem.

I’ve got some of my pictures on the web here if you’re interested in seeing some examples from a mid-range, two-year-old 5Mp camera. Remember, though, that these online pictures are much smaller (generally 800x600 or 600x450 pixels), and that they’ve been compressed quite heavily for the web. Remember, also, that computer screens only display 72 pixels per inch, and so a camera that produces good-looking pictures for the web still might not produce great pictures for printing.

Oh, one more thing. Unless digital camera manufacturers have changed their practices rfecently (and i doubt they have), you’ll have to allow some space in your budget for a larger memory card, as most manufacturers ship their cameras with a crappy 16Mb card, which is effectively useless for a 4 or 5 megapixel camera. I can fit exactly 5 extra-fine jpeg shots on the card that came with my camera. What a fucking joke.

The good news is that compact flash and other memory cards have become much cheaper over the past couple of years. When i bought my 512Mb Lexar 24x Compact Flash card two years ago, it was about $300; now i could buy that same card (only even faster at 40x) for $49.99 at B&H Photo in New York (which is where i bought my camera; fantastic camera store).

Forgot to add:

One thing i didn’t like about Sony when i was shopping for my camera was their proprietary memory card format. Not sure if this has changed at all, or if it even worries you, but i thought it was worth mentioning.

even 3.1 Megapixels is plenty if you have the right optical zoom. I only have a 3x and I really wish I’d plunked down the extra $75 to get the 10x.

I have the Sony Cybershot P-92 5.0 megapixel camera. Pretty good camera, no real complaints. I only occasionally take pix at 5mpx, e.g., very special occasions. Most of the time, 3.1mpx is more than sufficient. The camera has all the bells and whistles. I particularly like the capability of shooting MPEG videos (sound and all).

[hijack]

If I want a digital camera that can shoot detailed, small objects up close, (e.g. jewelry) can anyone tell me what is the most important aspect?

pixel count?

optical zoom?

digital zoom?

Will I NEED an SLR?

Mhendo – any shops in Baltimore that you’d recommend for a camera purchase that aren’t Best Buy or Circuit City?

I know there’s that photography place down around Charles and 22nd.

Trunk, the term for that kind of shooting is macro photography. Any camera should be able to do it, but usually you have to put it in a special mode that locks the focus at a close distance. What would you plan on using the pictures for? That will determine what quality of camera you need.

Although in general, I would argue that the most important thing to making good product photos is good lighting. No flash, and from every direction.

Mostly photographing new pieces of my wife’s jewelry.

She has a professional photographer do her slides for juried shows, but for things like her wholesale catalog and her website, it’s not essential to have something professionally done, but. . .we’d still want something nice.

AND, we don’t care about having a nice camera otherwise. We’d like to get something as minimal (feature-wise and cost-wise) as possible that will still do the job.

Trunk:

As SmackFu says, you’ll probably want a camera with a macro setting. Essentially, this is a setting that allows the camera’s lens to focus at closer-than-normal distances. How strong a macro function you need will depend on how close you need to get.

I’ve taken a bunch of pictures of my wife’s jewelry for insurance purposes, and in fact for some of the shots i didn’t use the macro function at all. But i did use it to get in close on small items. Here are a couple of examples, a ring and a pair of earrings. Note that these pictures are a lot smaller than the originals, but i only really needed them for identification purposes. Also, i didn’t take any real care with the light, just used daylight coming in the window. A bit of thought and preparation could give you much more professional-looking images.

As for buying in Baltimore, it’s generally acknowledged that the hands-down best camera store in the city is Service Photo. This store wins the Citypaper’s Best of Baltimore award every year. It is full of professional and knowledgeable sales staff who don’t make you feel like an idiot is you don’t know what you’re talking about. The only reason i didn’t buy from them when i bought my own camera is that i wanted a Minolta, and they are not a licensed Minolta dealer. But they purchased my old SLR equipment from me at what i thought was a fair price, and if i were in the market for a new digital camera i’d definitely go there.

They used to be near the corner of 22nd and Charles, but from their website it looks like they’ve moved to Falls Road. Give them a call.

If you want to buy online, you can’t beat B&H Photo in New York City. They are generally not quite the cheapest location on the web, but they have a reputation for outstanding service, honesty, and a good return/exchange policy, unlike many of the other web photo dealers based in New York.

Interesting.

That service photo is pretty close to where I live.

I don’t KNOW if that’s the same place I’m thinking of, but it might be. I can’t remember the name of it for the life of me, but they did our passport photos. They had cameras in the back.

Im just rambling. Thanks for the info about “macro” setting. I’m not looking for anything that does any better than those pics you posted.

Big help everyone thanks. Mhendo (I now know the secret of your name :stuck_out_tongue: ), those pictures look great. I also have an urge to visit San Fran now. Funny you should mention B&H, thats where I intend to buy it. Between them and J&R, they’re the best places in the city.

I have a Nikon D100 and it’s an aweseome camera but my everyday camera is a 3 megapixel Canon A75. Not spectacular or sexy but does everything it does well and has more than enough resolution for nice 8x10s. It has exremely good battery life so I often use mine with alkalines rather than NiMH rechargables. It also uses compact flash memory so it is compatible with my Nikon, not to mention that CF is the cheapest per megabygte of any type. It’s very flexible with full manual control as well as being automatic as you could want.

You will find that the point and shoots (not the DSLRs) will have the best macro.

My old CoolPix990 could focus as close as .26 inches from the lens. We have taken some amazing insect shots with them, and even used them to identify bugs that were too small to see with the human eye.