i got a 4mp camera last year and my friend has a 3.2 and its much better http://www.pcworld.ca//news/column/074a75ec0a01040801fdf17c121f4e28/pg0.htm
For printing, if you don't need it in super high resolution for printing, then is isn't 100% necessary
exactly. The glass is much more important and beyond that - the sensor. the MP war is consumer driven...b/c they think more is better. It was the same way with "digital zoom". DZ is 100% worthless. What's his cam and yours or is it discussed in the article. Knowing how to use the camera also helps
Depends what you mean by distant But that's true, more MP gives you more of an image to crop; more pixels to work with if you will.
yeah but tape cameras are the best. You can compare a 80's PRO camera with new 8mp cameras and the 80's pro camera is a lot better!
I've seen photos of a city at night. They're really quality images with large buildings and you can even zoom it for God knows how many times. I suppose you can't do that in a 4 mega pixel camera. --Joe
VHS Film has distinct advantages too but at this point (for the purposes of this discussion) who knows. Maybe the pictures you've seen from the 8MP cameras, the user hasn't a clue whereas the FILM camera pics were taken by pros who knows if it's digital though. Obviously someone who knows what they are doing. with 4MP though it would be a stretch to be able to retain quality, especially for stuff @ night when the images are much more susceptible to noise being introduced.
I think a decent balance of things is more necessary in the purchasing of a camera, as is with most things.
I have a Nokia N73 with 3.2 MP Camera and has Carl Zeiss lenses.... Lenses matter and thats why sometimes it removes better pictures than my old 5.0 MP Digital camera too...
With more MP you get the freedom to edit the images on your PC with the best results coz you have a larger resolution picture to work with.
BUT, like I keep saying, best results may not always mean the cleanest. When Canon went from 8MP on the Rebel XT to 10MP on the Rebel XTi, they did not change the sensor size. So basically they changed the pitch of the exisiting pixels. I.E. they crammed more pixels into the same sensor. As you can see from this, the ISO noise levels are par or slightly worse with the XTi over the older, smaller MP XT
Practically 4-5 megapixel camera is more than enough if you are making standard 4"x7" or similar sizers. You wont be able to tell the difference in picture quality if the pictures you will be printing are small in size. If you will be developing poster size or bigger images then yes pixels play important role....... For normal use.... i think 4 mp camera is more than enough! Cheers!
Right and even then, 6MP is big enough to "go large" using programs such as "Genuine Fractals". I've had several 16x20's done from my 6.3MP pics and they looked great
it is important if you want to print pictures with high quality, try nokia n95, with 5megapixel camera
If you'll be needing high resolutions pics then you'll have to get one at least 6 MP or higher. Another thing that should also be considered is the camera's image stabilization.
No the amount of pixels does not play an important roll in photography unless u want to make high resolution prints or big printouts. The most important factors are the lens and moire over the ability of the lens, the sensitivity of it to the light. More over if the lens has an image stabiliser feature which is a good adition. But anyway megapixil is not a crucial thing which u have to consider in a camera. A 3megapexil onwards will be more than enough for a normal consumer.
Yeah, I bought the N95 last week and the camera is awesome. The best ever camera on a mobile phone. I'm loving it!