View Full Version : Megapixels
erin anne
10-16-2007, 03:48 PM
So I've been researching cameras since Kathleen's photos inspired me to get a new digital camera. I've been reading advice on the internet that says if you have an SLR and you don't need to blow up photos past 8 by 10, that there isn't a huge diff. between 6.1 and 10.2 megapixels (quality wise)...and that you'd be better off with the 6.1, and put the saved $$ towards a better lens (BTW, I'm looking at getting a Nikon D40)...or D40x depending on all your expert opinions...what do you think? or if you have a camera that you love ($500 range) what is it?
Luckylove
10-16-2007, 05:20 PM
Here's the link Jackie gave me when I asked her the same question: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
:clap yay Kathleen! I couldn't find that link.
Yeah, megapixels mean nothing. I had the d50 (i think it's around 6mp??) and now have the d200 (just over 10mp i think?? I don't even know.. that should tell you how important they are, lmao) and I have a BEAUTIFUL 20x30 printed over my mantle from the d50.
Luckylove
10-16-2007, 05:41 PM
LOL I bookmarked it b/c the rest of the site has a ton of good info too. :D
*I* personally really like Ken Rockwell. A lot of people don't like him and think he's a knowitall, but i kind of think "well, maybe he does know it all" ya know? He seems to have great information about everything.
becky
10-16-2007, 06:55 PM
i was just researching that too and i love what ken rockwell posted. His site is filled with tons of great info and i have spent many hours reading LOL I recently did some research between the d40 and d40x which are both great BTW. My BF has a D40 and it takes beautiful photos. If i wasn't in the market looking for a pro camera i would have gotten one of these. I'm a Canon girl myself though. I would also recommend taking the time to hold the camera and go with what also feels well in your hand. Sometimes that can help make the choice easier.
Luckylove
10-16-2007, 07:28 PM
If i wasn't in the market looking for a pro camera i would have gotten one of these.
What makes a camera a pro camera?
nothing. A camera isn't capable of being a pro. A person is.
Just like a camera doesn't take good photos. A person does. If in the wrong hands, my d200 (which is marketed by nikon as a "pro camera") can result in some pretty horrific photographs.
Luckylove
10-16-2007, 08:51 PM
That's what I thought, thanks Jackie! I do have to correct you though, a camera can take good photos (or fairly good) if the user puts it on auto like some of the lazy photogs out there do! No fun! :tongue
that's true. You've heard this rant from me before, though. A lot of people think if they spend a ton of money they get some magic device that just cranks out award winning photographs, and it isn't the case. A camera is a tool. It's like a spatula or a hammer. Can a spatula make an awesome omlette? No. Can a hammer build an amazing treehouse? Absolutly not. BUT with the right blueprints or recipe, and most importantly a chef or handyman who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING they can come out with an amazing end result. It just frustrates me b/c people think good camera = good photographer. Not the case. J. K. Rowling isn't a good writer b/c she happened to find a really great pen.
off my soapbox
Luckylove
10-16-2007, 08:57 PM
LOL, good point! I have noticed a lot of people, now that I have my camera, have really nice ones but obviously don't know how to use them. Its way more common then I thought. You just figure if someone is willing to spend that kind of money on a camera that they would know what to do with it but they dont!
Brookepanda
10-16-2007, 09:37 PM
that's true. You've heard this rant from me before, though. A lot of people think if they spend a ton of money they get some magic device that just cranks out award winning photographs, and it isn't the case. A camera is a tool. It's like a spatula or a hammer. Can a spatula make an awesome omlette? No. Can a hammer build an amazing treehouse? Absolutly not. BUT with the right blueprints or recipe, and most importantly a chef or handyman who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING they can come out with an amazing end result. It just frustrates me b/c people think good camera = good photographer. Not the case. J. K. Rowling isn't a good writer b/c she happened to find a really great pen.
off my soapbox
:yeah to everything you said Jackie!
erin anne
10-16-2007, 11:39 PM
Thanks for the resources ladies! I did come across Rockwell's reviews and info last night (when I researching cameras from 3-5:30 am) we'll see what camera I get (early X-mas present maybe?) I am a good "student" so I'm looking forward to learning about photography (as a hobby)
becky
10-17-2007, 03:17 AM
everything Jackie said is exactly right.
I was a little unclear in my statement about the pro camera and didn't mean pull things off topic or upset anyone. What i really meant and I should have said was that I'm looking for a camera with a metal body which I have gotten used to calling a "pro" camera because that is how its marketed. :rolleyes I can be rough on my equipment so I figured it is worth the extra money for me to invest in a metal body. I love my old 35mm AE-1 which i still use often becuase its a metal body and can take a beating. I can only shoot manual with it though so when I'm lazy I will just use my point and shoot LOL
justamom
10-17-2007, 03:36 AM
While I do agree that it is the talents and skills of the photographer that play an important roll, I think the camera is important to some degree. I mean if you booked an appointment with a pro photographer and they show up with a cell phone camera that is 1.5 mp, or one of those children's digital Barbie cameras wouldn't you cancel, lol.
To some degree the skills and talent are important, but the camera does have some importance.
becky
10-17-2007, 03:38 AM
I mean if you booked an appointment with a pro photographer and they show up with a cell phone camera that is 1.5 mp, or one of those children's digital Barbie cameras wouldn't you cancel, lol.
:biglaugh you are too funny Tina. That really made me laugh tonight. Thanks :thumb
tina: I have to respectfully disagree, and I'll give the same reason I give everyone else.
There is a reknowned professional photographer who actuallly works strictly for sports illustrated now who is so amazing with his skill that he shoots with a disposable camera due to eye problems.
That's why many photographers still use Holgas. Obviously if someone shows up with a camera phone, you'd cancel. but I think that's really a moot point. It's like saying "I have a easy bake oven, i'm going to start making wedding cakes professionally". Noone said anything about camera phones. We are talking about high MP consumer cameras. And ftr, there are people who show up to sessions with point and shoot cameras and want to be called pro... there are also people who show up with a $5k "pro camera" and don't know how to use it. It me, those people are on the same level.
Marisa
10-17-2007, 11:01 AM
While we're on the subject... I have *absolutely* no photographic talent and I'm okay with that! However, my Kodak P&S is old and has a huge! lag-time between me pressing the button and the picture actually being captured. I would like to upgrade to a faster, nicer P&S... anyone have any recommendations?
Jackie, you mentioned the fuji... you think that's the best one? What "feature" is it that dictates the lag-time? What should I look for?
i used to have a fuji and i liked it a lot at the time. Now, i Can't stand it but that's mostly b/c it's such an old camera it doesn't stand up to the competition.
I also have a canon powershot SD550 ELPH which i loathe and consider flushing down the toilet on a weekly basis.
Delay time is really just a part of the camera. Most point and shoot cameras are going to have a delay b/c ... well, here's the best way i can explain it.
Point and shoot cameras are more "digital" than slr's. Between seeing the live preview on your screen and all the optical zoom crap that comes on them, there is so much more going on that it sometimes needs more time to process. whereas DSLRs are made to function like SLRs... the shutter opens and closes, and the image is transposed onto the "film". So you can shoot a lot quicker with a DSLR/SLR.
You really just need to check out a few diff p&s cameras and test them out. The one thing i recommend is trying it in a lowlight situation (not in a camera store with all the flourescent bulbs).
The one main complaint I ALWAYS hear is "my pictures are blurry when it's dark and i don't use a flash" and tat's just the nature of the beast. There is no way to fix that. Every camera known to mankind had a minimum amt of light it needs to be able to "see" what is going on and capture the image. IF you have very little light, your shutter speed drags, so instead of opening and closing in 1/500th of a second, it may take 1/50th of a second. Whether you realize it or not, there is a LOT of motion around you in 1/50th of a second. You even have to consider just camera shake from using your camera hand held (tripods cut down on some hand-held camera shake but aren't always a logical option for every situation). So if you have a slight shake to your camera and the kid moves in that 1/50th of a second, you now have blur. If you have more light, the shutter can move faster (it needs less time to allow in the necessary amount of light) thus getting you a clearer image. So you need to find a place that has a camera you like, and check out their return/exchange policy. Take that puppy home and play with it in NON IDEAL lighting situations. That means away from windows. Maybe in the evening when it's not super bright in your house. If it doesn't perform as well as you'd like (but be realistic, a camera IS just a tool, and even the $25,000 Hasselblad cameras will have some motion to them if your shutter is too slow so be sure you have realistic expectations of what you are going to get out of a point and shoot camera) then return it for something else. Also remember that flash isn't always a bad thing. Yeah, natural light is in. I'll be the first to tell anyone that b/c that's all I'm willing to use. HOWEVER, for day to day snapshots it's important to remember WHY you are taking a photo. Are you taking it so it's an award winning photograph that everyone oohs and ahhs over for years to come, or are you taking it so you have a memory of your daughter twirling in her princess dress? If it's the latter, then just use the flash. Otherwise you'll regret missing the moment later when you have a blurred out, under exposed image that you won't be able to use for anything.
Marisa
10-17-2007, 12:10 PM
That makes total sense. So, if I can't decrease the lag time with a newer P&S then maybe my Kodak is just fine. Yeah, I'm usually shooting Brianna around the house with less than ideal light conditions but it seems like even outside during the day, I get blurry pics cuz she won't hold still for even 1/400 second. LOL
you MAY find a newer P&S which a quicker built in "thinking time" (between pressing the button and actually firing) but i have no idea where you should look. I just know that you SHOULDNT get the one I have b/c it's obnoxiously long.
jellybeanmichelle
10-18-2007, 12:56 AM
Jackie - I like what you have to say about the flash.
To be honest, I usually leave my camera on auto all the time.
It will tell me when to raise the flash. I have the canon powershot S3 IS 6mp.
I'm still learning new things everytime I use it though.
The sports feature comes in handy. The shutter speed is really fast - I can catch Dan in mid-air blocking a soccer ball.
The only problem I have right now is with the focus and AV setting. I think I'll have to pull the book out on that one.
michelle: My old Jufi had a sports setting and I loved that also.