# need more megapixels?



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

Nikon's newest beast - 24.5 Mp


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

I want one... Second thoughts: My Canon lenses won't fit!


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

probably a good thing that it's so slow loading I gave up waiting :laugh:


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

If you really want to see mega-mega, here is a real gigapixel photo


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

that is an amazing photo!

so whats is that like a hundred photos put together?


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

220 images stitched together


----------



## jamiemac2005 (Jul 5, 2007)

Wow, if only i had $13,999... And i like that gigapixel photo, just because of how detailed it is when you zoom in.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

if you had some photoo enhancing software I bet you could make the faces pretty clear


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

I did - look at the photgrapher's stand at the back. Almost read the serial numbers on the lenses! (I did say almost)

Next question, looking at all those lovely lenses, what is your extimate of value on just the lenses? :grin:


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

those lenses look real fancy around $ $2,500 to 3,000 each


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

And the rest!... (& some of 'em would fit my camera!)


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 16, 2005)

Question re pixels:

Does the number of pixels a camera states as having really matter to the end product? Or is it a mixture of the pixel count and the processing chip(s) in the camera?


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

DonaldG said:


> If you really want to see mega-mega, here is a real gigapixel photo


What's up with the guy on the rail with the hat with red & white hearts (next to the lady with the blue scarf)? Distortion at the margins. Also, I wonder who's telephone number that is: 646-734-9499? EPA?


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

Glaswegian said:


> Question re pixels:
> 
> Does the number of pixels a camera states as having really matter to the end product? Or is it a mixture of the pixel count and the processing chip(s) in the camera?


Boy, this is where I put my head on the block again! :grin:

The real short answer is: yes & no

It very much depends on what you want to achieve with your photography. Taking it from one extreme to another, if all you need to do is to email images no bigger than say, 600px over the widest point, then pixel quantity can be quite small. However, if you want to print out to A4 or A3 or more, then a higher pixel count is important.

There is also a vast difference in the quality of sensor for any given pixel size. Different manufacturers use different sensors & sensor technology. Then there is the difference of onboard processing.

Personally, I would suggest than any camera that has a true optical pixel count of 4 megapixels or more will print out up to A4.

A reasonable rule of thumb when choosing a camera is the cost. With cameras, the adage ‘You get what you pay for’ is very true. I recently did some work on some images taken with a cheap 5mp camera – they showed poor colour rendition, not sharp & poor definition. This was a result of a cheap quality glass up front. Quality lenses cost money to make. 

If you are looking for a new camera, get some photo magazines and read up the reviews and select one that appears to fit your needs now and the needs for the next few years too. Once you have decided on a couple or brands/models, take a sd/cf card to the local shop and ask if you can take a couple of shots with them. You can then take your time at home to decide on which pleases you most.


----------



## McNinja (Jun 22, 2008)

I think my best friend's Bro got this camera for christmas

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120301

They spent 5 hours taking pictures of water dripping from a tap


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

Glaswegian said:


> Question re pixels:
> 
> Does the number of pixels a camera states as having really matter to the end product? Or is it a mixture of the pixel count and the processing chip(s) in the camera?


There are also a number of other factors .. 

I seem to remember that the light sensitive area can be used in interlaced mode thereby having half the pixel area but twice the pixel count .. was it interpolated or something .. obviously the CCD (Charge Couple Device) that is being used would have to be able to react to light extremely fast .. so that no effective time difference would be seen from one run of the picture to the next. 

that problem is shown in the "big picture" above .. where the pictures have been stitched together to create on extremely large picture .. basically it's a con job because by the time they have moved the camera to cover one area people may well have moved away from the field of view. Hence some parts of the photo not merging well with the adjacent shots.

They mus have been using a panoramic software to stitch that lot together which is great for pictures where nothing is moving but leaves much to be desired in a crowd photo. not to mention, for me IMHO, the picture quality sucked at max zoom .. I couldn't even peep through the windows to see who was watching :grin:

as Don says .. most of the money in a camera is in the lens or lens plus mechanics .. take care about method that is used to "capture" the picture a single CCD used to be considered better than a single picture using multiple scans.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 16, 2005)

Thanks guys - the question was really to satisfy my own curiosity (and anxiety...:grin

I bought a Nikon Coolpix 5900 5.1MP about 20 months ago. The reviews I read stated that the picture quality was excellent, mainly because of the processing etc. I have to say that the quality of pictures are indeed first class - even at a medium setting.


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

I have a coolpix 4300 and whilst I have no problems at all with performance ( apart from the time it takes to get ready after powering on) I think it's a great little camera that fits in my pocket and is easily carried around. The only thing that would improve it is a much more expensive camera like the ones that turn me green with envy in this forum :laugh:


----------

