If you don't make enlargements larger than 5"x7", why choose a 8MP camera over a 6MP camera...?

Question

considering that all the other features are the same?

I'll give you best answer if you have a good answer to justify for or against buying the 8 MP camera.

Answer 1

You are assuming that every picture is composed almost exactly the way you want to make the final print without allowing for cropping out part of the original image to make a better print. I have a stock answer, which I will put here, but I also just happen to have a new upload to Flickr that show an example that is precisely what you are asking about.

Look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/634933637/ and then look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/636589061/ The tight cropping is a much more pleasing composition (to me, anyway) than the view of all the flowers. These are not the same picture, but the originals are virtually identical, as I was only testing the different color modes on my SD900 while trying to maintain the same composition. The original image is 3648x2736 pixels or the full 10 MP available. The cropped image is 1484x2077 pixels. This is just over 3 MP. This let me print with almost 300 dpi for a nice resolution print. If I started out with a 6 MP image of 3000x2000, the crop would have been 1084x1518 pixels or 1.6 MP. The 5x7 print would have been at 216 dpi. This would still probably be acceptable, but not to the gold standard. Suppose I only wanted the purple pansies in a photo by themselves? I'd end up trying to make a print at about 100 dpi and it simply would not work.

You might say, "Well, why not take the picture that way in the first place?" As it is, I was only about 10" from the subject. In order to compose with such a tight composition, I'd have to be about 3" away and then, the depth of field pretty much goes away. I'd be lucky if one flower was in focus from front to back - let alone 2 or 3. Cropping is a good thing and you need pixels to do it.

Here's my stock answer. There will be some duplication in principal, but I am talking about larger subject matter. You will also see that I argue on both sides of the coin, as you are perfectly correct. If you do nto plan to crop your image, 5-6 MP is fine most all of the time.

If you always plan to compose your pictures perfectly, you don't need a whole lot of pixels. These days, I'd say that 5 MP or even 4 MP is fine for the average snapshooter and this can be obtained without unreasonable expense. If you want to allow for cropping, which means enlarging only a portion of your image, the more pixels the better.

Imagine taking a scenic view and then noticing that the middle 20% of the photo would make an even better picture. Suppose you take a picture of a whole group of people and Aunt Clara really, really looks great in the picture, but everyone else looks lousy. If you have the pixels to work with, you can still make a decent print of Aunt Clara that she would be happy to have. If you buy an 8-to-10 MP camera and don't want to TAKE large photos, you can always set the camera to a lower file size. You can never go the other direction, though. Unless the cost is a major issue, buy the camera with more pixels. You will never be sorry that you did, but you might one day be sorry that you didn't.

I have a few photos on Flickr to include in a discussion on how many pixels are enough. Go to my page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/ Near the top, click on "tags." In the "Jump to" box, enter the word "Pixels" and then press the "GO" button. Some of the pictures are from a 4 MP or even 3 MP camera, showing you what you might expect without any cropping. I think they are quite acceptable. Some of the pictures are from a 10 MP camera (the swan and the pansies), showing the value of having those large images so that you can crop a smaller image out of the original picture and still end up with a satisfactory image. There is one VGA picture, just to show what you could expect from 640 x 480 pixels - not much.

Having said all that, though, pixels are not the only measure of image quality. The sensor size is important as well as the image processing software included in the camera. (See http://www.flickr.com/photos/7189769@N04/476181751/
You need to read reviews if you want a critical understanding of image quality for particular cameras. Try http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ for more information on the cameras you are considering. Pixels are not the decision maker, but they are the tie breaker, so go for the higher pixel count.

You can go there and click on "Buying Guide" and then "Features Search" to specify how many pixels you want to look at.

You can also go to http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm and click on "Our reviews," where you will find catagories of cameras arranged by pixel count.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the olden days, negatives were 2¼" wide and apportioned into many formats. My brother's first camera used a rectangular format of something like 2¼" x 3½". Man, those negatives were HUGE. We usually made contact prints, which means there was no enlarger involved. Professional cameras used 2¼" square negatives, or "6 by 6," referring to 6 centimeters. As film grain improved, someone had the bright idea to turn movie film on its side and created the 35 mm negative, which was 35 mm x 24 mm. (approx.) Arguments soon followed about who was the "real photographer," someone who used 6x6 (Hasselblad, Rollei, etc.) or those tiny 35 mm cameras like Leica, Exakta,Carl Zeiss, Alpa, and so on. Then came Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Miranda, Yashica, Olympus, Konica, Ricoh, and others from Japan – all making 35 mm cameras. I contend that there were two major reasons for this explosion – and several minors ones that I won't go into for this discussion. One, the technology of making the smaller lenses improved and made real lenses cheap enough for the average person to buy. Two, the quality of film - the recording medium - improved vastly. Film speeds increased and, more importantly, grain size got smaller for each speed. Still, "real" pros used 6x6 negatives. Why? They had more image to work with. Grain did become an issue if you wanted to shoot anything over ASA 50-64 (ISO in modern terms) and you couldn't make more than an uncropped 8x10 enlargement without the image deteriorating due to visible grain structure.

Then there is APS. Or should I say, "was?" APS was made possible because of amazingly fine grain films, but you couldn't enlarge beyond a full frame at 5x7 without getting into trouble with grain.

Historically, I should include the 4x5, 5x7, and larger view cameras like the Speed-Graphix, Linhoff, etc., that were used by serious professionals. The same comparisons can be drawn between a 5x7 negative and 2¼ square that I am making between 2½ square and 35 mm.

My point is...

The "bigger is better" vs. "smaller is just as good" argument is at least a hundred years old. We are just continuing the tradition. In fact, we have expanded the tradition. Not only can we argue about how many pixels we need, we can also talk about how large our sensor has to be!

As you see in my "We Don't Need No Steenkin' Pixels" series, I AGREE that you can make absolutely wonderful photographs with a 3-4 MP camera on a 20 square millimeter (1/2.5") sensor. Please agree with me, though, that you can do a lot more with the image if your starting point is an 8-10-12 MP camera using a 340-800 square millimeter sensor.

AS ALWAYS, when people see my photography and ask what kind of camera I have, I FIRST say, "That doesn't matter." The most important piece of equipment in the modern "workflow" is the human being who conceives the picture before it is even recorded on the film or the sensor.

Answer 2

Hello,

If you don't blow your pictures up you don't need a lot of MP's. MP's come into play when you make really large blow-ups like 24x30. A six MP camera will make wonderful 11x14 prints without looking pixelated. If you never blow your picture up beyond 5x7 or 8x10 you don't need anything higher than a 6MP camera. If all the features are the same, save yourself some money and stick with 6MP.

Donna

Answer 3

Truthfully you really don't need an 8MP camera.
I have a 6 MP and the quality of the pics is great. No reason to get am 8MP unless you plan on blowing the pictures up.

Answer 4

i could ask you to contemplate the Canon A630 as a nearer tournament for the Kodak. The Kodak fairly appears like a valuable digital camera - in accordance to specs purely, as I have not any journey with it - notwithstanding it lacks an optical viewfinder. in case you are able to cope with that, it fairly is obviously priced greater favorably. super liquid crystal demonstrate viewfinders consume batteries. it form of feels valuable to have a brilliant liquid crystal demonstrate visual demonstrate unit, yet howdy are power hungry. you will could desire to do what you are able to to coach the factor off as quickly as you do not choose it from now on. Set it to close off on the shortest a threat innterval once you're taking the photograph. Set it so as that it does not not demonstrate until eventually you faucet the shutter button to wake it up. Even this won't flow an prolonged way in direction of protecting batteries.

Answer 5

there is no choice nowadays buddy
all the cameras want to be better than each other

Answer 6

I can't afford Nikon D2Hs