4mp or 5mp?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jsmith, Oct 20, 2004.

  1. jsmith

    jsmith Guest

    is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?
     
    jsmith, Oct 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jsmith

    GT40 Guest

    On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:30:49 -0230, "jsmith" <>
    wrote:

    >is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?


    Depends on the camrea
     
    GT40, Oct 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jsmith

    Matt Ion Guest

    GT40 wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:30:49 -0230, "jsmith" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?

    >
    >
    > Depends on the camrea


    And the cost.
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 20, 2004
    #3
  4. jsmith

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "jsmith" <> wrote in message
    news:cl65h4$hqr$...
    > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?


    Examine photos from each camera. A higher quality 4pm camera
    will, in my opinion, produce better photos than a lower quality 5mp.
    However if all other factors are the same, 5mp will give you slightly
    sharper results at 8x10 or larger. Printed at 5x7 or smaller, I doubt
    that you could tell the difference.

    Alan
     
    Alan Meyer, Oct 20, 2004
    #4
  5. jsmith

    jsmith Guest

    Thinking of replacing my Kodal 3900 with a Canon S50.
    "Alan Meyer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "jsmith" <> wrote in message
    > news:cl65h4$hqr$...
    > > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?

    >
    > Examine photos from each camera. A higher quality 4pm camera
    > will, in my opinion, produce better photos than a lower quality 5mp.
    > However if all other factors are the same, 5mp will give you slightly
    > sharper results at 8x10 or larger. Printed at 5x7 or smaller, I doubt
    > that you could tell the difference.
    >
    > Alan
    >
    >
     
    jsmith, Oct 20, 2004
    #5
  6. jsmith

    JohnR Guest

    I depends on the cameras. Here is an example of a 3MP camera that is much
    better than a 4MP. The difference betwen 3 and 4 MP is more (25%) than a 4
    and 5 MP (20%).
    http://home.att.net/~jriegle/megapix.htm
    John

    "jsmith" <> wrote in message
    news:cl65h4$hqr$...
    > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?
    >
    >
     
    JohnR, Oct 20, 2004
    #6
  7. jsmith

    hfs2 Guest

    I see two answers that state depends on camera.

    I'd say it depends on what you'll print and how big you'll print it.

    Between 4 and 5? I doubt you could tell the difference on a 6x4 print
    at Walmart, Kinkos or anything you could use at home.

    I couldn't tell the difference between a rebel and my 4330 (3Mp)
    print at Kinkos.

    "jsmith" <> wrote in message news:<cl65h4$hqr$>...
    > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?
     
    hfs2, Oct 20, 2004
    #7
  8. jsmith

    swingman Guest

    One thing the previous posters didn't mention is cropping. If you need to crop your pictures on occasion the extra megapixel gives you more to work with. In other words, you can throw away more pixels and still have enough to make a good print.


    "jsmith" <> wrote in message news:cl65h4$hqr$...
    > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?
    >
    >
     
    swingman, Oct 21, 2004
    #8
  9. jsmith

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "JohnR" <> wrote in message
    news:pUAdd.15193$...
    > I depends on the cameras. Here is an example of a 3MP camera that is much
    > better than a 4MP. The difference betwen 3 and 4 MP is more (25%) than a 4
    > and 5 MP (20%).
    > http://home.att.net/~jriegle/megapix.htm
    > John
    >
    > "jsmith" <> wrote in message
    > news:cl65h4$hqr$...
    > > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?


    John,

    I looked at the images posted on your web page - both
    on the web and by downloading and fiddling with them.
    The photos and the explanation are fascinating. I would
    not have expected those results at all and was quite
    surprised to see them.

    My impression was that if you enlarge the images, the
    3mp Fuji looks worse and worse. The artifacts and
    noise become very intrusive. The 4mp Canon on the other
    hand doesn't suffer nearly as much.

    But in the real world, we don't enlarge our digital
    photos, we reduce them. We usually wind up
    printing fewer pixels than are in the image. With
    reduction, the noise in the Fuji image becomes
    less and less visible and sharpness more apparent.

    Thanks for posting this.

    Alan
     
    Alan Meyer, Oct 27, 2004
    #9
  10. jsmith

    Mike Henley Guest

    "Alan Meyer" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > "jsmith" <> wrote in message
    > news:cl65h4$hqr$...
    > > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?

    >
    > Examine photos from each camera. A higher quality 4pm camera
    > will, in my opinion, produce better photos than a lower quality 5mp.
    > However if all other factors are the same, 5mp will give you slightly
    > sharper results at 8x10 or larger. Printed at 5x7 or smaller, I doubt
    > that you could tell the difference.
    >
    > Alan


    I agree. Go for image quality rather than resolution.
     
    Mike Henley, Oct 30, 2004
    #10
  11. jsmith

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: 4mp or 5mp?
    >From: (Mike Henley)
    >Date: 10/29/2004 6:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <>
    >
    >"Alan Meyer" <> wrote in message
    >news:<>...
    >> "jsmith" <> wrote in message
    >> news:cl65h4$hqr$...
    >> > is the extra 1mp really worth the extra cost?

    >>
    >> Examine photos from each camera. A higher quality 4pm camera
    >> will, in my opinion, produce better photos than a lower quality 5mp.
    >> However if all other factors are the same, 5mp will give you slightly
    >> sharper results at 8x10 or larger. Printed at 5x7 or smaller, I doubt
    >> that you could tell the difference.
    >>
    >> Alan

    >
    >I agree. Go for image quality rather than resolution.
    >


    Image quality and resolution are inseparable. It is lke tryng to seperate taste
    and flavor.


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Oct 30, 2004
    #11
  12. jsmith

    Sabineellen Guest

    >
    >Image quality and resolution are inseparable. It is lke tryng to seperate
    >taste
    >and flavor.
    >
    >
    >Arthur Kramer


    I see what you're saying. Resolution may be one factor of image quality but
    it's not all. What we meant in the context of this thread is that a 5mp camera
    may not necessarily have a better image quality than a 4mp camera, it could
    even be the contrary.
     
    Sabineellen, Oct 30, 2004
    #12
  13. Sorry Art, I don't think you're correct (totally correct anyway) on this.
    Image quality and resolution are only inseparable if you define a "quality
    image" as being sharp with fine detail. Other factors can go into good image
    quality that don't really have anything to do with sharp and fine detail --
    like exposure latitude, color rendition and noise, all of which can be
    superior in a camera with less resolution. The only way to really determine
    which camera is right for you is to see the resulting images from any
    contenders side by side and see which ones look better to you.

    Jeffery S. Harrison


    >
    > Image quality and resolution are inseparable. It is lke tryng to seperate

    taste
    > and flavor.
    >
    >
    > Arthur Kramer
    > 344th BG 494th BS
    > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
    >
     
    Jeffery Harrison, Oct 30, 2004
    #13
  14. jsmith

    Confused Guest

    On 30 Oct 2004 01:28:47 GMT
    In message <>
    (ArtKramr) wrote:

    > Image quality and resolution are inseparable.
    > It is lke tryng to seperate taste and flavor.


    If that were true, the 20D would be leaps ahead of the 300D and close
    to the 1D Mark II. However, the reverse is true. The 20D is noisy
    and closer to the 300D, and the 1D Mark II produces tremendous images.

    Jeff
     
    Confused, Oct 30, 2004
    #14
  15. ArtKramr wrote:
    []
    > Image quality and resolution are inseparable. It is lke tryng to
    > seperate taste and flavor.


    Putting a high-resolution sensor behind a poor-quality lens would not help
    in producing high quality images. Equally, lack of correct anti-aliasing
    might make a high-resolution lens and sensor produce unacceptable results.

    For best results, the whole chain of components needs to considered and
    must work well together.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 30, 2004
    #15
    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. B Young

    lossless rotate of 4mp image- impossible?

    B Young, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    866
    Bob & Anni
    Aug 27, 2003
  2. ArtKramr

    5mp Kodak vs 5mp Canon

    ArtKramr, Oct 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    548
    ArtKramr
    Oct 3, 2003
  3. CNT

    4MP/5MP over again

    CNT, Oct 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    573
  4. measekite

    ??Best 4MP or 5MP Point and Shoot??

    measekite, Apr 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    332
    Markeau
    Apr 12, 2005
  5. mrsgator88
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    463
    Ben Brugman
    Feb 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page