
Tardis
|
CAN SOMEONE HELP RE THIS MEGAPIXEL THINGMy camera purports to have 4.1 megapixels. I bought this about 2 years ago.
The newest cameras now have much higher megapixel ratings for the same money.
Can anyone here please explain what the deal is with megapixels? Like:
The higher the number the clearer the image?
The lower the number the poorer the image?
What are the advantages of a 10.1 over a 4.1?
Which would be better for long range shots and/or close-ups?
Finally, I am looking for a new point and shoot camera for general work and capable of tripod/macro photography for watches. I intend to work on a budget of about US$335.
Replies and recommendations will be appreciated.
Steve
|
uncle aj
|
Here's a couple of links to megapixels.
http://cameras.about.com/cs/choosingacamera/a/megapixels.htm
http://reviews.cnet.com/Digital_cameras/4520-7603_7-5023995-2.html
As to which camera to buy, well I only have experience of a Pentax Optio 550 which I bought a few years ago. It does just about everything I want from wide angle to macro. You can't go wrong with any of the major manufacturers like, Nikon, Canon etc.
|
Tardis
|
Thanks for the links AJ.
I've bookmarked them for a longer look at later.
|
Flatlander
|
I also wanted a point and shoot camera, or as my wife calls it a "press here dummy" camera. We're both a bit challanged with electronics and after some research I went with the Canon Digital ELPH Power Shot SD550, which is a 7.1 megapixel.
It's my understanding that the higher pixels allow for better detail and bigger prints but how many of us want a poster sized print. Most of the time I set it on automatic but it does have some manual controls that are easily understood by a novice.
I have been extremely happy with it and one of the main features that attracted me to this model was the size. It's very compact and easy to carry, which is a definite plus when traveling and on vacation. It also takes short movies.
It has a lithium-ion battery which doesn't develop a memory. You also need a second battery and a larger digital card. I have two 512 cards cards and each will hold from 156 to 4,317 photos, depending on the resolution (pixels) you set them at. My usual setting will do about 900 pics on each card.
My model is not being made now but here's a site listing the current models. You can't go wrong with the ELPH's.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer...ctCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=113
|
Tools
|
Steve,
I wouldn't worry about the pixel count too much....anything from 4 to 10 will probably produce the affect you wand unless you were interested in magazine or museum quality work.
The quality of the lens is still what puts the image on either film or a digital chip.
Canon Power shot series and Nikon Cool Pix cameras have good reviews and top brand name back-up.
Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic Lumix are also top quality digitals.
|
Tardis
|
| Tools wrote: | Steve,
I wouldn't worry about the pixel count too much....anything from 4 to 10 will probably produce the affect you wand unless you were interested in magazine or museum quality work.
The quality of the lens is still what puts the image on either film or a digital chip.
Canon Power shot series and Nikon Cool Pix cameras have good reviews and top brand name back-up.
Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic Lumix are also top quality digitals. |
Yes, the lens is as important as a watch movement. The Panasonic Lumix have Leica lenses which are superb, I know this as I have got Leica binoculars and the resolving power is unbelievable.
|
uncle aj
|
| Tardis wrote: | | Yes, the lens is as important as a watch movement. The Panasonic Lumix have Leica lenses which are superb, I know this as I have got Leica binoculars and the resolving power is unbelievable. |
I'll second that. I have a pair of Leica Trinovids, 10X32 BN. The brightness and clarity of the subject is outstanding. Great for bird watching.
|
|