2mp vs 4 mp will I see much difference?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tripletmomplus2, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far, I
    really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade
    to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    use.
    Thanks so much for any advice.

    --
    Mark & Donna/Indiana
     
    Tripletmomplus2, Dec 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far,
    I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    > albums.


    For that size, hardly.

    Cheers!

    -Jorge
     
    Jorge Alvarez, Dec 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tripletmomplus2

    Koen Guest

    On a printer on that size you will probably see no difference at all.

    "Tripletmomplus2" <> schreef in bericht
    news:LOIzb.14$...
    >
    > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far,

    I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    > albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I

    upgrade
    > to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    > use.
    > Thanks so much for any advice.
    >
    > --
    > Mark & Donna/Indiana
    >
    >
     
    Koen, Dec 4, 2003
    #3
  4. Tripletmomplus2

    Dr. Bob Guest

    "Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote in message
    news:LOIzb.14$...
    >
    > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far,

    I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    > albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I

    upgrade
    > to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    >

    Based on my own experience of going from a 2mp HP618 to a 4mp Canon
    G3....not at those print sizes. At 8x10 there is a small difference, and I'm
    sure larger prints would show even more. Much more critical is being sure
    that you have changed the resolution from the "basic" 72 ppi to 240 ppi
    before printing.
     
    Dr. Bob, Dec 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Tripletmomplus2

    NJH Guest

    For 4 x 6 prints you don't need more than the 2 megapixels you've already
    got. It's unlikely that you'd notice any difference with 4 Mp, all other
    things being equal. In fact I have seen very satisfactory 8 x 10 prints made
    with 2 Mp, though usually more resolution would be desirable for that size
    print.

    Neil


    "Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote in message
    news:LOIzb.14$...
    >
    > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far,

    I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    > albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I

    upgrade
    > to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    > use.
    > Thanks so much for any advice.
    >
    > --
    > Mark & Donna/Indiana
    >
    >
     
    NJH, Dec 4, 2003
    #5
  6. Tripletmomplus2

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:56:27 GMT, in rec.photo.digital
    "Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote:

    >Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far, I
    >really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    >albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade
    >to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    >use.


    As other have said in general for the size prints you are making, no.
    The one possibility would be if you wanted to print only a small
    cropped portion of one of the original images. Here, the 4mp image
    would give you a cropped image at sufficient resolution for a high
    quality print of these sizes.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Dec 4, 2003
    #6
  7. "Ed Ruf" <nospam*> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > As other have said in general for the size prints you are making, no.
    > The one possibility would be if you wanted to print only a small
    > cropped portion of one of the original images. Here, the 4mp image
    > would give you a cropped image at sufficient resolution for a high
    > quality print of these sizes.


    This is the one point people often overlook. Just because you want to print
    a 4x6 doesn't mean you might not want a 4x6 of a small section of the image,
    in which case you would actually be enlarging to 8x10 or beyond but cutting
    out the unwanted sections to fit a 4x6 size.

    Bottom line is if 4 MP can be had for about the price of 2 MP, go for the
    most. Better to have and not need...

    Juan
     
    Juan R. Pollo, Dec 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Tripletmomplus2

    Ben Thomas Guest

    Tripletmomplus2 wrote:
    > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far, I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    > albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade
    > to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    > use.
    > Thanks so much for any advice.
    >
    > --
    > Mark & Donna/Indiana
    >
    >


    I've gone from a 2MP Kodak DC3800 to a 4MP Kodak DX6490. 6x4 prints from the
    new camera look better, but that is probably because I get better focused photos
    from the 4MP camera.

    Higher resolution is not the only feature of newer cameras.

    --
    --
    Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - UNICO Computer Systems
    Melbourne, Australia

    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my employer, UNICO Computer Systems,
    shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
     
    Ben Thomas, Dec 4, 2003
    #8
  9. Tripletmomplus2

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Tripletmomplus2 wrote:

    > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far, I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    > albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade
    > to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    > use.
    > Thanks so much for any advice.
    >
    > --
    > Mark & Donna/Indiana
    >
    >

    Only if you print larger photos, or during editing you want to crop the
    picture to magnify only a small part of the original picture.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 5, 2003
    #9
  10. Tripletmomplus2

    Samuel Paik Guest

    "Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote:
    > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far, I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for albums. Would I see much
    > difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade to a 4mp camera?
    > I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I use.


    Rule of thumb: you don't benefit much from more than 300 pixels/inch
    on a good printer. 300 * 6 * 300 * 4 = 2.2 million pixels. So, a 2 MP
    camera is a pretty good match for that print size. However, more pixels
    allow you to crop while maintaining a good pixel density, and of course,
    make good larger prints. Up to you.

    Cheers
    Sam

    who is reasonably happy with a number of 8x10s I've printed from my 1.5 MP
    camera, although higher resolution would be nice.
     
    Samuel Paik, Dec 5, 2003
    #10
  11. Tripletmomplus2

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    One thing to consider, is the future use of the pictures. While at present you
    might not want to print larger than 4x6, in a few years 4 MP images might give
    you better resolutions to display on monitors and/or TV.
    Today's monitors already can display at 1600x1200 (2 MP) and resolution will
    increase in the next years.
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Dec 5, 2003
    #11
  12. Tripletmomplus2

    VT Guest

    On 05 Dec 2003 15:18:36 GMT, et (HRosita) wrote:

    >One thing to consider, is the future use of the pictures. While at present you
    >might not want to print larger than 4x6, in a few years 4 MP images might give
    >you better resolutions to display on monitors and/or TV.
    >Today's monitors already can display at 1600x1200 (2 MP) and resolution will
    >increase in the next years.



    That's a pretty good thought - however monitor resolution is
    depenedent on the pitch size and obviously the physical size of the
    screen - today's monitors are limited to about 0.19mm pictch and a 19"
    diagonal monitor can just about display 1600x1200 and still be
    comfortable for the eyes. So 2Mp is just about the max that a monitor
    can display unless one goes for one much larger than 19" - which is
    pretty big already and takes up a lot of desk space.......

    The current HDTV and SDTV definitions are:

    ref:
    http://www.audiovideo101.com/dictionary/hdtv.asp

    Resolution
    Horizontal x Vertical/ Aspect Ratio
    1280 x 720 (HDTV) 16:9
    704 x 480 (SDTV) 16:9
    704 x 480 (SDTV) 4:3
    640 x 480 (SDTV) 4:3

    So 2Mp is still more than adequate for any of these.

    There are plans to update the HDTV definition to 1920 x 1080 (HDTV)
    (16:9) and progressive scan. -

    Even here although the width or horizontal resolution is greater, the
    vertical resolution is still less than that of the 2Mp - so to display
    the photo with the correct aspect ratio means 2Mp is still just good
    enough.......

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHES for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Dec 5, 2003
    #12
  13. Tripletmomplus2

    Warren Guest

    On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:56:27 GMT, "Tripletmomplus2" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far, I
    >really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    >albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade
    >to a 4mp camera? I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I
    >use.
    >Thanks so much for any advice.


    Either a 2 or 4 mp should serve well for these smaller-sized prints.
    While not "critically sharp," no one is likely to notice in most
    cases. But the biggest problem you'll have with the 2 mp is when you
    get in and start cropping it, something you almost always need to do a
    certain amount of. You'd be best off spending the little extra.
     
    Warren, Dec 5, 2003
    #13
  14. Tripletmomplus2

    VT Guest

    On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:53:25 GMT, Warren <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Either a 2 or 4 mp should serve well for these smaller-sized prints.
    >While not "critically sharp," no one is likely to notice in most
    >cases. But the biggest problem you'll have with the 2 mp is when you
    >get in and start cropping it, something you almost always need to do a
    >certain amount of. You'd be best off spending the little extra.


    At full frame (uncropped) and printed to 6x4 - as lots of people have
    pointed out it would be probably very hard to see the difference -
    all else being equal.

    If the image is cropped there might be the advantage of having more
    pixels -

    BUT how much?

    To about 240ppi there might not be that much noticable difference in
    print quality - that means for 6x4 - that's 1440x960 - around about a
    1.3Mp digicam or 960/1200 = 20% reduction/crop - that's quite a lot
    cropping....

    OK if one wants to be a stickler about having 300ppi as the quality
    criteria for 6x4 prints then even allowing for 20% reduction/crop -
    a 3Mp (2048x1536) digicam will do it -

    Have you considered a 3Mp?
    - such as the Canon A70 which has had very favorable reviews just
    about from everyone.

    3Mp appears to be the current consumer "sweet spot" -
    for example using:

    http://www.pricegrabber.com/
    http://www.resellerratings.com/

    the Canon A70 can be found for about $269 delivered from a well rated
    vendor......

    BUT Beware of possible vendors with UNscrupulous practices at these
    low prices .......
    Always check vendor ratings, and I always read the NEGATIVE reviews to
    see if I'd be willing deal with such a vendor.

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHES for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Dec 5, 2003
    #14
  15. Tripletmomplus2

    gr Guest

    "Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote
    >
    > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far,

    I
    > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    > albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I

    upgrade
    > to a 4mp camera?


    I haven't seen anyone mention this, so I'll point it out:

    A 4MP image shrunk down to 2MP will look better than a 2MP image from a 2MP
    camera. The Bayer sensors mean that images at full resolution will always be
    a little blurred. But if you shrink them using good software, you can get a
    much sharper and better looking image. (Shrinking also reduces noise.)

    Thus, a 4MP camera will take better 2MP images than a 2MP camera.

    All else being equal, go for more pixels... always.
     
    gr, Dec 6, 2003
    #15
  16. Tripletmomplus2

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:24:06 -0500, "gr"
    <> wrote:

    >"Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote
    >>
    >> Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far,

    >I
    >> really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    >> albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I

    >upgrade
    >> to a 4mp camera?

    >
    >I haven't seen anyone mention this, so I'll point it out:
    >
    >A 4MP image shrunk down to 2MP will look better than a 2MP image from a 2MP
    >camera. The Bayer sensors mean that images at full resolution will always be
    >a little blurred. But if you shrink them using good software, you can get a
    >much sharper and better looking image. (Shrinking also reduces noise.)
    >
    >Thus, a 4MP camera will take better 2MP images than a 2MP camera.
    >
    >All else being equal, go for more pixels... always.
    >

    A very good observation---Bayer sensors have lower spatial resolution
    in color thatn they do in luminance. IF you ever see this it will be
    in color fringes at sharp edges.

    In my 2Mp Canon it is not an issue. Even so, I would expect 4Mp
    downsampled to 2 to be better than native 2Mp. This may also be due
    to noise reduction in the downsampling.

    NOW---Everyone duck before you are hit with the Foveon sermon

    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Dec 6, 2003
    #16
  17. RE/
    >Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade
    >to a 4mp camera?


    As others are probably mentioning, it'll give you some room to crop.
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (Pete Cresswell), Dec 6, 2003
    #17
  18. Tripletmomplus2

    abcdefgh Guest

    NO!!!!

    I printed out a 2Mp 7x5 alongside a 3Mp, both approximately 7x5 using a
    1440dpi 6 ink printer. Both images were identical from identical cameras in
    all but resolution- the difference is very, very minor. A 4Mp would be
    complete overkill unless you are into heavy cropping & enlargements. Don't
    be a marketeers dream !


    "Samuel Paik" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote:
    > > Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so

    far, I
    > > really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for albums. Would I see much
    > > difference in the crispness of a photo if I upgrade to a 4mp camera?
    > > I have a HP Photosmart 7660 printer I use.

    >
    > Rule of thumb: you don't benefit much from more than 300 pixels/inch
    > on a good printer. 300 * 6 * 300 * 4 = 2.2 million pixels. So, a 2 MP
    > camera is a pretty good match for that print size. However, more pixels
    > allow you to crop while maintaining a good pixel density, and of course,
    > make good larger prints. Up to you.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Sam
    >
    > who is reasonably happy with a number of 8x10s I've printed from my 1.5 MP
    > camera, although higher resolution would be nice.
     
    abcdefgh, Dec 7, 2003
    #18
  19. Tripletmomplus2

    Ron Hunter Guest

    gr wrote:

    > "Tripletmomplus2" <> wrote
    >
    >>Hi, I have a Olympia 2mp camera that has taken wonderful pictures so far,

    >
    > I
    >
    >>really only print 4 x 6 or 3.5 x 4 shots for
    >>albums. Would I see much difference in the crispness of a photo if I

    >
    > upgrade
    >
    >>to a 4mp camera?

    >
    >
    > I haven't seen anyone mention this, so I'll point it out:
    >
    > A 4MP image shrunk down to 2MP will look better than a 2MP image from a 2MP
    > camera. The Bayer sensors mean that images at full resolution will always be
    > a little blurred. But if you shrink them using good software, you can get a
    > much sharper and better looking image. (Shrinking also reduces noise.)
    >
    > Thus, a 4MP camera will take better 2MP images than a 2MP camera.
    >
    > All else being equal, go for more pixels... always.
    >
    >

    Ahhh, but all other things aren't ever equal, especially price....
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 7, 2003
    #19
  20. Tripletmomplus2

    Phil Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:


    >> All else being equal, go for more pixels... always.
    >>
    >>

    > Ahhh, but all other things aren't ever equal, especially price


    Not to mention optics. I have a 4 mp Olympus which is way outclassed by
    my 2 mp Oly C-2100UZ.

    Phil
     
    Phil, Dec 7, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    773
    Silverstrand
    Dec 20, 2005
  2. Gabriele

    Original Canon ixus (2mp) photos

    Gabriele, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    406
    Mister Max
    Aug 24, 2003
  3. zxcvar

    Is 2MP or 3 MP enough for traveling pictures

    zxcvar, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    641
    Eric Gisin
    Sep 1, 2003
  4. sjs031

    A lucky shot with a 2MP digital....

    sjs031, Sep 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    802
    George Kerby
    Sep 29, 2003
  5. George Preddy

    Foveon vs 3.2MP Bayer

    George Preddy, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,431
    Ray Fischer
    Oct 30, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page