Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony 8 Mega Pixel camera

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony 8 Mega Pixel camera

 
 
Leo Reyes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2004
I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my friend
has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon with
3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could a 8
mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really a
huge difference.

--









 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jim Townsend
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2004
Leo Reyes wrote:

> I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my friend
> has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon with
> 3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could a 8
> mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really a
> huge difference.
>
> --


If you want to print larger than 8x10, the 8mp camera will be better. Try
your 3mp camera at 16x20 or larger.

Also.. Your friend can crop smaller sections out of his photos and
still be left with a lot more pixels than you have.

There's nothing wrong with 3 megapixels.. But 8 is better


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chieh Cheng
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2004
"Leo Reyes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<jMxHc.10428$(E-Mail Removed) hlink.net>...
> I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my friend
> has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon with
> 3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could a 8
> mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really a
> huge difference.


An easy test would be mounting both cameras on the tripod and shoot
the exact same scene. Then look at the two pictures to see if there
are any difference. And if there are difference, determine whether the
difference matters enough to you to deem an upgrade.

There is nothing wrong with sticking to a 3 MP camera or upgrading to
a 8 MP camera. It is a matter of need.

I have a 3 MP SLR and a 5 MP P&S. For my needs, I found the 3 MP more
than enough. The 5 MP images just takes up more space and more
processing time. But as a purist, I still shoot at the maximum
resolution.

Chieh
--
Camera Hacker - http://www.CameraHacker.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
BF
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2004
Leo Reyes wrote:

> I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my friend
> has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon with
> 3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could a 8
> mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really a
> huge difference.
>

I have an Olympus 3030 3.2 mpixel camera. Personally I find that 3
mpixels is not enough for,what I call, a professional 8 x 10 print. You
may be different however. It depends on what is acceptable and what you
consider good quality. The biggest thing is being able to crop much more
with the 8 and still get a pro quality 8x10. If your framing is always
perfect then this might not be a selling point to you.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leo Reyes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2004
Thanks to all that replied.... It just boogles the mind to think of 8
megapixels....surely by now 35 mm film is dead.


"Leo Reyes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jMxHc.10428$(E-Mail Removed) link.net...
> I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels, my

friend
> has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels. I have a Canon

with
> 3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's. But what in tarnations could a

8
> mega pixel yield, microscopic details on peoples faces, is there really a
> huge difference.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Ballard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Chieh Cheng) writes:

>"Leo Reyes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:<jMxHc.10428$(E-Mail Removed) thlink.net>...
>
>>I just want some insight on any camera that claims 8 mega pixels,
>>my friend has a Sony (do not know model) that has 8 mega pixels.
>>I have a Canon with 3.2 mega pixels and it is sharp on 8X10's.
>>But what in tarnations could a 8 mega pixel yield, microscopic
>>details on peoples faces, is there really a huge difference.

>
>An easy test would be mounting both cameras on the tripod and shoot
>the exact same scene. Then look at the two pictures to see if there
>are any difference. And if there are difference, determine whether the
>difference matters enough to you to deem an upgrade.


If a camera utilizes digital zoom, a camera whose sensor implemented
additional pixels should provide better photos under digital zoom --
less empty (interpolated) magnification. You could test this assertion
using the procedure discussed above.

Under heavy desktop cropping/enlarging conditions, a camera whose
sensor implemented additional pixels should provide better
cropped/enlarged photos -- less empty (interpolated) magnification
required.

'Hope that helps.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mojtaba
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:27:50 GMT, "Leo Reyes"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>..surely by now 35 mm film is dead.


I just bought a new Stylus epic 35 MM, gold edition and the salesman
supplied (strangley enough) a 35 MM film with the camera. God... how
is that possible?

Mojtaba (has seven of them)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sabineellen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004
>Thanks to all that replied.... It just boogles the mind to think of 8
>megapixels....surely by now 35 mm film is dead.
>


Err.. no.

Though it boggles my mind that 8 megapixels boggles your mind.

35mm film gives you potential for far more than 8 megapixels with
problematic-image-quality, and for some, that matters. Digital has its running
advantages, but absolute image quality is not one of them. Some may disagree
citing comparisons made between 35mm and consumer dSLR, but those are usually
comparisons between direct digital capture and conveniently(poorly)-scanned
film. The question is whether it matters to you or not; for a lot of people 3-4
megapixels is enough for casual use, but film still has its uses.

If I had an important, infrequent event and was to choose between an 8
megapixel digital camera and an *equivlanet* 35mm camera, I would definitely
choose the 35mm film. If I want to shoot 50 to 100 images a day, most days, and
iamge quality is a lesser concern, I would choose digital. My friend who's had
an adequate digital camera recently purchased a 35mm camera to photograph her
beloved cat who's got an incurable illness and won't be around for long.

There's really no need for this either/or mentality, both/and is usually a
wiser approach. You can use both digital and film, and some people are
increasingly doing so, not just photography enthausiasts, but also consumers.

There are signs this year that "digital revolution" is about to hit a plateau,
eithr in terms of technological progress or market conditions. Photographic
film, which is an alogether different situation from audiotape or videocassete,
may be safer than thought a year or two ago.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Sabineellen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004
>Mojtaba (has seven of them)
>


Seven of what? Stylus epic? what do you use them for?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ivan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2004

"Sabineellen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >Thanks to all that replied.... It just boogles the mind to think of 8
> >megapixels....surely by now 35 mm film is dead.
> >

>
> Err.. no.
>
> Though it boggles my mind that 8 megapixels boggles your mind.
>
> 35mm film gives you potential for far more than 8 megapixels with
> problematic-image-quality, and for some, that matters. Digital has its

running
> advantages, but absolute image quality is not one of them. Some may

disagree
> citing comparisons made between 35mm and consumer dSLR, but those are

usually
> comparisons between direct digital capture and

conveniently(poorly)-scanned
> film. The question is whether it matters to you or not; for a lot of

people 3-4
> megapixels is enough for casual use, but film still has its uses.
>
> If I had an important, infrequent event and was to choose between an 8
> megapixel digital camera and an *equivlanet* 35mm camera, I would

definitely
> choose the 35mm film. If I want to shoot 50 to 100 images a day, most

days, and
> iamge quality is a lesser concern, I would choose digital. My friend who's

had
> an adequate digital camera recently purchased a 35mm camera to photograph

her
> beloved cat who's got an incurable illness and won't be around for long.
>
> There's really no need for this either/or mentality, both/and is usually a
> wiser approach. You can use both digital and film, and some people are
> increasingly doing so, not just photography enthausiasts, but also

consumers.
>
> There are signs this year that "digital revolution" is about to hit a

plateau,
> eithr in terms of technological progress or market conditions.

Photographic
> film, which is an alogether different situation from audiotape or

videocassete,
> may be safer than thought a year or two ago.


If the marketers really wanted to they could put a spin on film to make it
"sexy" again. They could pick any number of qualities about film and play
them up. If you can convince people that they are hip if they pierce their
tongue, you can convince them of anything. All it would take is subliminal
nuances toward film cameras and the "retro" stampede would be on.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who can recommend a reasonable mega pixel camera phone bissatch@yahoo.co.uk Digital Photography 1 07-19-2006 08:10 PM
Fuji FinePix S9000 9 Mega Pixel Camera Came Out 17 Mega Pixel? WannabeSomeone Digital Photography 5 11-14-2005 05:09 PM
Mega pixel and print size and digital camera Jamie Digital Photography 19 10-20-2004 02:16 AM
Mega Pixel race is like the Mhz Race Hugo Drax Digital Photography 7 01-12-2004 11:07 AM
Good camera 3 mega pixel Pierre Dragh Digital Photography 1 11-14-2003 07:37 PM



Advertisments