2007-01-27 15:15:27 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
Pixels can be important, but far more important is the quality of the brand and the type of lens, sensor and processor the camera uses.
You could have an 8MP camera that has lousy optics which only produces average quality photos...and you can have a camera with only 4-6MP, which has great quality optics, so therefore could easily produce much better looking photos.
So, you really need to consider a decent brand before you concentrate on megapixels. I would suggest Canon as a more than decent brand.
Now, 6MP is more than adequate for most people. I would suggest that as an absolute minimum these days.
You have probably noticed that many manufacturers are bringing out new models in the range of 8-10MP, which is perfectly fine with me.
If I was buying one of the newer Canon cameras, I would certainly buy a 10MP, not only because of excellent photo quality, but because I want plenty of megapixels, so I can crop heavily if I want to.
You can't crop a photo nearly as much if you only have 4MP.
So, I think 6-10MP is perfectly fine...if the camera is cheap enough you may as well go for the most you can afford.
Some of my recommendations for a decent camera...
Canon SD600 (6MP) ultra compact, point & shoot
Canon SD700 IS (6MP) ultra compact, point & shoot
Canon A630 (8MP) full manual controls
Canon A640 (10MP) full manual controls
All of the above cameras also shoot great quality movies.
You just need to buy a fast SD card.
good luck...
2007-01-27 16:06:02 · answer #1 · answered by Petra_au 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pixel count/resolution only tells you how large a picture can be printed. 2 MP is more than enough for a 5x7 or 8x6. You should be more concerned about the overall quality of the camera, not the number of pixels.
If you want to keep it easy, stick to Canon, Nikon or Sony. They have a higher percentage of great cameras compared to other manufacturers. It's hard to pick a bad camera if you choose from those three.
All digital camera sensors have a maximum quality, and it has nothing to do with the pixels/resolution. Pixels only tell you the maximum size print you can make and still retain the sensor's maximum quality. I will trade, today, a brand new 8 megapixel camera for a used (but operational and normally functioning) 4 megapixel camera, so long as I get to pick the 4 megapixel camera in question. Why? Because I'd rather have a Nikon D2HS than a Kodak P880. Go ahead and do a search, and see what I mean.
Why is that 4.1 MP Nikon so much more expensive? First off, the sensor is much higher quality. It's physically larger (about 8 times larger) than the average point & shoot digital camera. And the overall quality is much, MUCH higher as well.
Now, more megapixels would allow you to get a larger print, but the quality wouldn't improve unless the sensor quality improved.
Don't buy a camera based on the megapixels (i.e., volume). You don't buy bottled water based on the volume, you buy it based on the quality. If bottled sewage water was buy 1, get 4 free, would you buy that over the mountain spring water that was the same price, but had no special sale?
If you want a more detailed answer, ask a more specific question.
2007-01-27 23:24:25 · answer #2 · answered by Devil Dog '73 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
To enlarge a photo to 8X10 a 5 megapixel camers is sufficient. Many 4 megapixel cameras will do equal. Do not get caught up in megapixel hype. Other features you may consider is next shot delay. Some delay only 1 second and others 5 or 6 seconds or more. Some eat up batteries quicker than others. Look at Nov '06 Consumer Reports. Do not forget the expense of the very important memory card that could range from $20 to more than $60.00 I haven't even started on optical zoom that ranges from 3X to 12 X. More zoom more money. Again you don't need more than a 4 or 5 megapixel camera for quality 8X10 enlargements. Look into Sony, Fugi, and Canon.
2007-01-28 00:05:42 · answer #3 · answered by Vintage Music 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A good lense is more important than megapixels. For what most people do even a 2 megapixel camera is more than sufficent. Mainly I would look at several brand name cameras in your price range at a local store, and take several pictures with each, and notice how long it takes before it takes the picture (shutter lag), and how long between pictures. Also take note of the picture quality, some cameras are more sensitive to vibrations and such, while others don't care to much if you aren't holding the camera perfectly still.
2007-01-27 23:26:04 · answer #4 · answered by mr5oh 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
6MP is more than enough since most people do not print out at poster size. You really want a camera that has the best sensor. Canons usually have the best sensors for a cheap camera ($200)
2007-01-28 00:30:04 · answer #5 · answered by Koko 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the best would be 8 but i have heard that 6 is decent
2007-01-27 23:23:26 · answer #6 · answered by azn_butterfly2124 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Panasonic Lumix line is also decent. For starters 4-5 is okay especially if you want to go somewhat serious with photography (i mean you could edit it and still retain qulity which is what we want,right? check some article from yahoo tech page bout things to consider when buying a camera. it helped me.
click here.. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1159164,00.asp
2007-01-28 03:55:59 · answer #7 · answered by highness_obri 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
4 is the minimum I will get try a canon powershot A520 it takes great pictures and its pretty cheap about 150 new but cheaper on ebay
2007-01-28 02:03:29 · answer #8 · answered by that guy you are going to report 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
at least 5 megapixels. and these days you can find one pretty cheap
2007-01-27 23:23:44 · answer #9 · answered by jdtal7570 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋