Nikon Coolpix 5700 Digital Camera 5.0MP - Question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Matalog, Dec 30, 2004.

  1. Matalog

    Matalog Guest

    I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
    looking for. But the auction sasys this :-



    "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
    settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
    of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".



    Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
    could get from this camera at maximum res?



    Thanks for any replies.
    Matalog, Dec 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matalog

    Ben Thomas Guest

    Matalog wrote:
    > I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
    > looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
    >
    >
    >
    > "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
    > settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
    > of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".


    That last part is subjective. An image printed at that size would only be
    128dpi, which based on numbers alone, probably isn't enough for a 20x16 print
    unless viewed from 5 or more metres away, in my opinion.

    >
    >
    >
    > Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
    > could get from this camera at maximum res?


    I've got very nice 150dpi 15x10s from my 4 megapixel camera. They look as sharp
    at about 2 metres as a 300dpi 6x4 looks handheld.



    --
    --
    Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

    My Digital World:
    Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
    Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
    Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
    Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

    Disclaimer:
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
    Ben Thomas, Dec 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matalog

    paul Guest

    Matalog wrote:

    > I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
    > looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
    >
    >
    >
    > "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
    > settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
    > of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
    >
    >
    >
    > Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
    > could get from this camera at maximum res?



    That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely passsable but
    probably acceptable if you aren't at all picky. 200dpi is very good,
    more than 300 dpi is not usable. Hint: dpi is Dots Per Inch. That would
    make about a 13 inch print at 200dpi.
    paul, Dec 30, 2004
    #3
  4. Matalog

    Matalog Guest

    "paul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Matalog wrote:
    >
    > > I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I

    am
    > > looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image

    quality
    > > settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is

    capable
    > > of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think

    I
    > > could get from this camera at maximum res?

    >
    >
    > That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely passsable but
    > probably acceptable if you aren't at all picky. 200dpi is very good,
    > more than 300 dpi is not usable. Hint: dpi is Dots Per Inch. That would
    > make about a 13 inch print at 200dpi.



    13 x 16 or 13 x 9 or 10?
    Matalog, Dec 30, 2004
    #4
  5. Matalog

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:25:46 -0800, in rec.photo.digital paul
    <> wrote:

    >That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely passsable but
    >probably acceptable if you aren't at all picky. 200dpi is very good,
    >more than 300 dpi is not usable. Hint: dpi is Dots Per Inch. That would
    >make about a 13 inch print at 200dpi.


    Really ppi, not dpi. And one can use software to interpolate and still get
    acceptable results. Qimage is a good printing util to do just this, among
    other things.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
    Ed Ruf, Dec 30, 2004
    #5
  6. Matalog commented courteously ...

    >> That'd be 128dpi which is not very good, just barely
    >> passsable but probably acceptable if you aren't at all
    >> picky. 200dpi is very good, more than 300 dpi is not
    >> usable.


    Part of visual quality is the subject matter. For example,
    scenics or soft portraits can be printed larger,
    particularly if you soften them a little first. But,
    images with sharpness and detail - for example, my hobby
    is car pictures - demand more PPI.
    >
    > 13 x 16 or 13 x 9 or 10?


    I have an HP 1220C wide-bed ink jet. Even at 1280 x 960, I
    can get reasonable 13" x 19" prints on glossy paper *if*
    I'm willing to stand back and view from 3 to 5 feet.
    That's only 67 PPI!

    Note that I said "reasonable", not "great". If your plan
    is to go to a custom lab and pay some bucks for your big
    prints, then I'd agree that 200 PPI is dead minimum,
    preferably 300.

    But remember, it's not just raw mega pixels (which
    translate to PPI which translates to DPI) that matters,
    its the lens and the camera's electronics that go into
    whether the mega pixels (no matter how many there are)
    actually carry real image information. And then, people
    have been known to blow an otherwise good image by
    overcompressing if they save in JPEG rather than TIFF...

    FWIW, I have a Nikon 5700, and find it a little soft. I
    use Paint Shop Pro's Unsharp Mask at a mild setting on all
    of my pictures, even to view them. But, I need to be
    careful of too much artificial sharpening, else, I'll
    start to see jaggies on the near-horizontal or near-
    vertical lines in my car pictures.

    That's my take, your mileage may vary ...

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

    "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" -
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
    explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

    Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail
    All Things Mopar, Dec 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Matalog wrote:
    > I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
    > looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
    >
    >
    >
    > "The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
    > settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
    > of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
    >
    >
    >
    > Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
    > could get from this camera at maximum res?
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks for any replies.
    >
    >

    Good 8x 10s, some possibly excellent 8 x10s, possibly a few
    good 11 x 14s.
    George E. Cawthon, Dec 31, 2004
    #7
  8. Matalog

    Hunt Guest

    In article <hD_Ad.550$>,
    says...
    >
    >
    >I was looking on ebay at this camera and it seems very fitting to what I am
    >looking for. But the auction sasys this :-
    >
    >
    >
    >"The 5.0 effective megapixel CCD captures images with multiple image quality
    >settings at a maximum resolution of 2,560 x 1,920 pixels, which is capable
    >of producing 16 x 20- inch prints and larger with outstanding quality".
    >
    >
    >
    >Would this be true for this camera? If not, what printsize do you think I
    >could get from this camera at maximum res?
    >
    >
    >
    >Thanks for any replies.
    >


    As others have said, the results are subjective. I would not accept the
    results in 16x20, but that is me. However, I've had a half dozen high quality
    magazine covers, and tons of magazine interior shots published, that were done
    with the 5700. It is a good camera, though, if I were looking for a P&S
    digital right now, I'd opt for the 5000, 5400, 8400 (I think that is where
    they are now), that offers an optical viewfinder, and wider angle on the zoom.
    Check me out on those model numbers, as I cannot seem to keep up with them
    all. The 5000, with its supplemental WA does a better job, than my older 5700
    did, with a tad less pincushion distortion.

    OTOH, how often do you plan on printing 16x20, and what are your acceptable
    criteria for that size print.

    Hunt
    Hunt, Dec 31, 2004
    #8
  9. Hunt commented courteously ...

    > OTOH, how often do you plan on printing 16x20, and what

    are
    > your acceptable criteria for that size print.


    Hunt, one of my doctors who's also a friend swears by his
    Leica film SLR (don't know the model but it was top-of-
    the-line when he bought it). I've ragged him for years
    about going digital.

    He "specializes" in scenics from the American west and
    sub-specializes in Western wildlife photography. He takes
    his Leica negs (not slides, of course) to a local custom
    lab where they'll let him look at the process and pays
    upwards of $150 for a 16 x 20 and another $50 to get it
    mounted. Needless to say, the results are spectacular!
    Both for artistic and technical reasons.

    So, why not digital? He wants in excess of 20 mega pixels,
    won't pay for it because the bar keeps rising and prices
    keep dropping, and says he'll still take his TIFFs to the
    same custom lab for the same expensive enlargements
    because he also doesn't want to pay for a "pro" printer,
    calibration software et al.

    So, as has been said, this is very subjective. Hell, I
    thought 8 x 10's on an old HP 1200C from 1280 x 960 mag
    scans were the cats meow 12 years ago! Now, they're just
    so much crap... Yes, Virginia, the quality target is a
    moving one.

    Just one more piece of philosophy: I've long held the
    belief that it is better to be very good with mediocre
    hardware or software than to be mediocre with excellent
    stuff. So, even $20K doesn't guarantee good pictures. Nuff
    said...

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

    Delete the reverse SPAM to reply by E-mail
    All Things Mopar, Dec 31, 2004
    #9
    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

    Kodak CX7530 5.0MP Digital Camera @ ThinkComputers.org

    Silverstrand, Nov 22, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    607
    Silverstrand
    Nov 22, 2005
  2. Lawrence L'Hote

    Nikon Coolpix 5700 Off to Nikon for Repair

    Lawrence L'Hote, Oct 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    578
    Lawrence L'Hote
    Oct 13, 2003
  3. scorp

    5.0MP vs 2.0MP???

    scorp, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,455
    Alfred Molon
    Jan 26, 2004
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Nikon Coolpix 5700 or Nikon D100

    Larry R Harrison Jr, May 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    653
    misifus
    May 17, 2004
  5. All Things Mopar
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    670
    All Things Mopar
    Dec 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page