Is this true that a camera with higher pixels is always better than one with lower pixels? I am wondering if I take a picture with very high resolution (like 5MPixels), the size of the picture turns out to be very big. However, if I am only printing a 4R size, will the reduction in the picture size (from very BIG to 4R) cause any loss in photo quality? Am I better off if I just shoot it in lower resolution that are similar to 4R size?
good place to start but the short answer is no - more pixels does not mean better quality.
For printing have a look at http://www.dpreview.com/ for their forums and techniques.
However, the first article does not really answer my question:(. dpreview forum is a good place to start, but i am overwhelmed with the load of information.
I am definitely not into professional digital photography (though the thot of owning a digital SLR is good :D ). I would like to know if I shd upgrade my current Canon IXUS 300 (2.1 Mpixel). I only print 4R photos and thus is 2.1Mpixel the optimal resolution? If I buy a 5Mpixel camera, will the printout be better?
btw, 4R is 4” x 6”. What are the standard sizes that you have in Europe for printing? Isn’t it 2R, 4R, 5R, 6R, 8R, etc?
A digital picture has no concept of image size per se. Assuming that you are using Photoshop / PSP then you should be able to get the image size box up - in here set the image size to 4"x6” and that should just about do….
HTH - I can post more later if you need it but let me know the application that you use
I used to have the IXUS before I changed to a 300D - you should be able to print up to A4 size ok with a bit of playing. For 4R just set the image size and off you go.
oh yes ... tifosiv122, you reminded me of something…
Am I correct to say that more pixels is ALWAYS good, i.e. a 5MP photo is definitely better than a 2MP one, regardless of the photo size. However, the photo quality also depends on the quality of the lens used?
More megapixels does not always mean that a camera will be better. The two much more important factors are the lens quality and the sensor size. I’d say the sensor size is the most important feature that determines picture quality.
Basically, the sensors that capture the actual image are pretty small for consumer cameras. Let’s say you have a sensor that is the size of a postage stamp. Model A and B both have that same sized sensor. Model A is a 5MP camera and Model B is a 8MP camera.
Most people would assume that the 8MP camera will be better. However, it’s likely the 5MP camera is just as good as the 8MP camera. The reason is that Model B has to cram many more pixels onto such a small sensor and that doesn’t allow to the sensor to pickup as much light making it less sensitive. Less sensitivity means more noise. Noise is bad.
Of course, the problem is that most cameras don’t mention in the specs the type of sensor they are using so you’ll need to rely on real photography sites (like DPReview) for that kind of info.
I use a Canon 1D for all my work, wildlife to wedings, and I print up to 20x30 inches, and the prints are fantastic. The size of the pixels in my camera are far bigger than you get in point and shoot cameras and this produces more fine detail. gr00vy0ne is quite right, the glass you use makes a lot of difference. I use prime lenses rather than zooms, it is heavier to carry them around but it is worth it for the better images I get.
It is becoming easier to get into DSLR’s now as both Canon and Nikon make consumer cameras that offer great image quality at a good price. These cameras will not stand up to pro use but for enthusiasts they are perfect.
Yeah, most D-SLRs have great lenses but more importantly have much larger sensors than that of consumer cameras. So, even though some D-SLRs only have 6 megapixels, they are most likely better than any consumer level 8 megapixel cameras…especially in terms of speed, low light noise, and picture quality.
