does megapixel count make that big of a difference?

[themadness]

how important is mp count? in the grand scheme of things does composition + lighting = win, no matter what the mp count of your camera? do lens attachment play an important role in photo impact or are they really just an accessory?

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by themadness

how important is mp count? in the grand scheme of things does composition + lighting = win, no matter what the mp count of your camera? do lens attachment play an important role in photo impact or are they really just an accessory?

Not unless you are printing huge prints, or heavy cropping higher MPs don't matter that much. Light, and composition are at the top of the list. Not sure what you mean by lens attachments though? Good lenses are far more important than bodies. If you mean filters, and such, they all have their place, but it just depends on what you want to do with them.

[themadness]

i have a kodak 7mp that a bought a couple of generic lenses that came with an adapter a few years back. i want to upgrade to around 12mp but i cant find a camera that is compatible w/ those attachments. the kodak i have is a bridge camera and all i have been able to find are the point shoots(do not want), the mid grades that around 300 dollars or the really $$$$ dslr that i cant afford. i am open to all brands but i am on a tight budget. i am not a pro so dslr is a non issue. so i was wondering if i by a mid grade higher mp would i get better quality even w/o extra lenses.

this is my budget range and even these will require some saving.......


Walmart.com: Nikon Coolpix L110 Black 12MP Digital Camera with 15x Optical Zoom: Digital Cameras

Walmart.com: Kodak Easyshare Z950 Black 12MP Digital Camera with 10x Optical Zoom: Digital Cameras

Walmart.com: Olympus SP-600UZ Titanium 12MP Digital Camera, 15x Optical Zoom, 2.7" LCD HD Movie/HDMI Control, AF Tracking: Digital Cameras

kinda torn on get a new one or stick with the old one? i just want to get more out of my shots while i practice..........

[OsmosisStudios]

This is gonna sound like a Nikon Fanboy talking but...

Anything above 12mp is unnecessary, except for very very rare circumstances. The first is fine-art prints, big ones, where the larger resolution allows for greater quality in the print. The second is with studio work or product work, where more resolution means larger prints.

In either case, its a very limited list.

[themadness]

i am very limited with funds!lol............ seriously tho i just want to get great prints smaller than 8 by 10 max. as a traditional/ mixed media artist i just wanna try something new to morph my work a little. i messed w/ photog in college but didnt put forth a great deal of effort. now i am a little more focused. any thoughts on the last link to the olympus??

[santacruz]

Here are the printing size versus resolution (MP)

PRINT SIZE PIXELS MEGAPIXELS
3½×5 in. 700×1000 <1
4×6 in. 800×1200 1
5×7 in. 1000×1400 1.5
8×10 in. 1600×2000 3.2
11×14 in. 2200×2800 6

[themadness]

so hi resolution is over kill if unless u are going to use a large final print. then why do companies put out such high res cameras when most people arent going to print larger than 4 by 6?

does mp effect the capabilities of manual settings or is the role reversed, manual settings effect mp?

sorry for all the q's..i thought i new a little about photog until i started trying to learn manual controls!

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by themadness

i have a kodak 7mp that a bought a couple of generic lenses that came with an adapter a few years back. i want to upgrade to around 12mp but i cant find a camera that is compatible w/ those attachments. the kodak i have is a bridge camera and all i have been able to find are the point shoots(do not want), the mid grades that around 300 dollars or the really $$$$ dslr that i cant afford. i am open to all brands but i am on a tight budget. i am not a pro so dslr is a non issue. so i was wondering if i by a mid grade higher mp would i get better quality even w/o extra lenses.

this is my budget range and even these will require some saving.......


Walmart.com: Nikon Coolpix L110 Black 12MP Digital Camera with 15x Optical Zoom: Digital Cameras

Walmart.com: Kodak Easyshare Z950 Black 12MP Digital Camera with 10x Optical Zoom: Digital Cameras

Walmart.com: Olympus SP-600UZ Titanium 12MP Digital Camera, 15x Optical Zoom, 2.7" LCD HD Movie/HDMI Control, AF Tracking: Digital Cameras

kinda torn on get a new one or stick with the old one? i just want to get more out of my shots while i practice..........

I still have my Kodak Z740? I think it is? 5mp. I got the Opteka wide angle adapter, and "telephoto" adapter for it right after I bought it. The only problem I had with it was the wide angle adapter would vignette really bad when zoomed in. Actually one of the best images I have done so far came from that camera. It was an 8x10 of my brother's dog.
So yeah, if you are doing mixed media, and that kind of thing, just stick with what you have, until you have a use for a dSLR. JMO though.

[BCampbell]

Sorry, I go against current generally accepted wisdom and say that you can't have too many megapixels.

Well, okay, you can, at a certain sensor density you'll run into problems, but I don't think we see that with the current crop of DSLRs (possibly with some P&S's).

As has been mentioned larger pixel counts let you print larger and let you crop tighter. You might say well, I have no desire to print larger than 11x14, and you might be right (until you're wrong).

Cropping can be pretty important too; trust me, I'd love to have those sweet, sweet 21MP in the Canon 5DMkII for nature work, if only to get nice tight crops on relatively inexpensive lenses.

But look, you may not think you need 18MP, but once you start crunching some numbers and actually doing some real-world work as opposed to just looking at stats and test shots on the web, You'll appriciate the extra headroom. For our purposes, most quality printers top out at 300dpi (they can print higher, but there's an issue of diminishing returns, and in the case of print services, often 300dpi is the highest output you'll get). So look, 12MP is about 4240 x 2824, right? And 18 is about 5200 x 3464? So that means a 12MP image can be printed to 14" at 300ppi, and the 18Mp to 17". Big deal, right? Well, if you only need to print to 14", the 18MP image lets you resample down to 4240x2824. Why would you do this? Well, you know how your pictures all look much sharper and less noisy on your LCD screen, or at the 500x333 size on flickr? Same idea.

Try it. Take identical photos with your camera set at maximum resolution and at a lower setting. Resample the larger photos down to the size of the smaller ones and print them both. This is what people most often miss in the megapixel discussion, because we're so hung up on getting flickr hits and web presentation that we don't do enough physical printing.

Beyond that, once people start showing interest in your photos and want a 24x24" print, you're going to be disappointed that you can't deliver it.

Some people will say that nobody needs more than 12MP. Some say nobody needs more than 6! But in the future, people will be saying nobody needs more than 18, or 22, or 40. Give me as many as possible.

[themadness]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Sorry, I go against current generally accepted wisdom and say that you can't have too many megapixels.

Well, okay, you can, at a certain sensor density you'll run into problems, but I don't think we see that with the current crop of DSLRs (possibly with some P&S's).

As has been mentioned larger pixel counts let you print larger and let you crop tighter. You might say well, I have no desire to print larger than 11x14, and you might be right (until you're wrong).

Cropping can be pretty important too; trust me, I'd love to have those sweet, sweet 21MP in the Canon 5DMkII for nature work, if only to get nice tight crops on relatively inexpensive lenses.

But look, you may not think you need 18MP, but once you start crunching some numbers and actually doing some real-world work as opposed to just looking at stats and test shots on the web, You'll appriciate the extra headroom. For our purposes, most quality printers top out at 300dpi (they can print higher, but there's an issue of diminishing returns, and in the case of print services, often 300dpi is the highest output you'll get). So look, 12MP is about 4240 x 2824, right? And 18 is about 5200 x 3464? So that means a 12MP image can be printed to 14" at 300ppi, and the 18Mp to 17". Big deal, right? Well, if you only need to print to 14", the 18MP image lets you resample down to 4240x2824. Why would you do this? Well, you know how your pictures all look much sharper and less noisy on your LCD screen, or at the 500x333 size on flickr? Same idea.

Try it. Take identical photos with your camera set at maximum resolution and at a lower setting. Resample the larger photos down to the size of the smaller ones and print them both. This is what people most often miss in the megapixel discussion, because we're so hung up on getting flickr hits and web presentation that we don't do enough physical printing.

Beyond that, once people start showing interest in your photos and want a 24x24" print, you're going to be disappointed that you can't deliver it.

Some people will say that nobody needs more than 12MP. Some say nobody needs more than 6! But in the future, people will be saying nobody needs more than 18, or 22, or 40. Give me as many as possible.

hey! did you hear that?

that was my brain frying!!!