2007-01-06 13:51:16 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
Ain't gonna happen.
I love my digital camera, and would never go back to film, but let's be honest, film is so much better than digital in a lot of ways.
Maybe when we get to 100 megapixels I may change my mind.
2007-01-06 14:00:30 · answer #1 · answered by Walking Man 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not just the megapixel count. You also have to consider the resolving power of the lens. So some 5mp cameras may produce prints that look as good as some 35mm. I think the native resolution is in the neighborhood of 15 - 20mp to equal optimal 35mm.
Either medium can produce stunning prints. With digital, you lose the "film" look (maybe indefinable, but it's there) Also, with digital, you have less latitude and have to be careful with highlights getting blown. Slide users are accustomed to watching for that already.
In the end, it's the photographer and not the equipment.
2007-01-07 10:25:23 · answer #2 · answered by Ara57 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At least 5 megapixels. The more the better, but another factor that comes into play is the lens on the front of the camera. I could take a 4.1 mp Canon 1D SLR with a good lens and it would blow away a consumer point-n-shoot camera that had 8 or 10 megapixels. A lot of things come into play in the end.
2007-01-06 23:16:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
5
2007-01-06 21:52:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I had a family portrait done at a studio we've been using for years.
They are now using 10mp canons. We have large print family pictures and I cannot tell the difference between the film and digital pics.
As far as everyday, I have a 5mp and the pics look just as good as ones I took w/ my 35mm.
2007-01-06 22:39:08 · answer #5 · answered by KrautRocket 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but I disagree with the answers above me. I've read that you need something in excess of 20 MP to "equal" 35 mm film for resolution. There is no WAY you can blow up a 5 or 6 MP image to poster size the way you can with film. Don't get me wrong, I've pretty much abandoned film, but I recognize the limitations of digital. In the real world, I have found 10 MP to be adequate for pretty much anything I want to do. Snapfish isn't the best for showing off resolution, but check out this photo. It is a crop of only 4% of a 10 MP image. It is 763x545 pixels out of the original 3872x2592 pixels. I think it held up fairly well.
http://www1.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID=57759389/PictureID=2531239723/a=75953750_75953750/t_=75953750
The swan image is only about 6% of a 10 MP image. You can see where it is starting to fall apart at this magnification, even on Snapfish. It's "acceptable," but no longer stunning.
http://www1.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID=57759389/PictureID=2531239748/a=75953750_75953750/t_=75953750
2007-01-06 23:52:24 · answer #6 · answered by Jess 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
about 5MP for a good picture... but megapixels only determine how big u can enlarge a picture before it starts looking grainy.
2007-01-06 21:54:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
not easy to co-relate.... 4 or 5 seems to produce as crisp a print... but not really related factors....
2007-01-06 21:54:21 · answer #8 · answered by waynebudd 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋