Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?

Reply
Thread Tools

STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?

 
 
tiresia2@hotmail.it
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006


I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
And you?

(Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Adrian Boliston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...

> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)


4.1


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)


5,984,187 no more and no less.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rutger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-30-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
>
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>


I've got 8, and nothing to be desired of (in terms of Mp)

Rutger


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Hebee Jeebes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
If it was up to me 15 to 20MP. Moderate amount of noise would be fine. Makes
the images look more real and film like.

R


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
>
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?


Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
"Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?

>
> Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...


That only works at the 4MP level.

You need about a 25% increase in linear resolution to make a noticeable
difference; for example, I can't tell the difference between 5D (12.5MP) and
1Dsmk2 (16MP) prints. Next to each other on the screen at 100%, the 12%
increase in linear resolution is noticeable, but it doesn't translate into
noticeably better textures or detail in prints. (I was irritated that Canon
shortchanged the cheapskate 5D users and didn't give us the same sensor they
used in the 1Dsmk2, so I spent a lot of time with my nose on the prints.)

David J. Littleboy
Who never misses a chance to write something nerdy in response to light
humor in
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:38:29 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?

> . . .
> 5,984,187 no more and no less.


Oh my. I hope that your camera is one that can map out bad pixels
if and when they eventually appear. True pixel purists wouldn't
even tolerate that operation.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>


200 MP

(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
film to digital mosaics).

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:28:26 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>
>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?
>>
>> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>>

>
>200 MP
>
>(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
>film to digital mosaics).



I love my 10D but you know, there's nothing like 100
million pixels from scanned 4x5" film.

This doesn't diminish my lust for a Canon 5D.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
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
Re: Megapixels - An Explanation of Megapixels and How They AffectPhotos Rob Digital Photography 0 10-17-2012 11:31 PM
Re: Megapixels - An Explanation of Megapixels and How They AffectPhotos jdanield Digital Photography 0 10-17-2012 06:56 PM
Is 3, 3.1 megapixels enough? gerryhandke@hotmail.com Digital Photography 18 02-07-2006 08:27 AM
39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ... Bill Hilton Digital Photography 7 07-18-2005 08:37 PM
New to digital cameras: would 5.1 megapixels be enough for my needs? success_ny@yahoo.com Digital Photography 13 03-24-2005 02:50 PM



Advertisments