Sony 8 Mega Pixel camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Leo Reyes, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. Leo Reyes

    Leo Reyes Guest

    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.

    --
    Leo Reyes, Jul 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Leo Reyes

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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 :)
    Jim Townsend, Jul 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Leo Reyes

    Chieh Cheng Guest

    "Leo Reyes" <> wrote in message news:<jMxHc.10428$>...
    > 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/
    Chieh Cheng, Jul 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Leo Reyes

    BF Guest

    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.
    BF, Jul 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Leo Reyes

    Leo Reyes Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:jMxHc.10428$...
    > 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.
    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Leo Reyes, Jul 9, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    (Chieh Cheng) writes:

    >"Leo Reyes" <> wrote in message
    >news:<jMxHc.10428$>...
    >
    >>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
    Richard Ballard, Jul 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Leo Reyes

    Mojtaba Guest

    On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:27:50 GMT, "Leo Reyes"
    <> 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)
    Mojtaba, Jul 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Leo Reyes

    Sabineellen Guest

    >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.
    Sabineellen, Jul 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Leo Reyes

    Sabineellen Guest

    >Mojtaba (has seven of them)
    >


    Seven of what? Stylus epic? what do you use them for?
    Sabineellen, Jul 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Leo Reyes

    Ivan Guest

    "Sabineellen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >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.
    >
    >
    Ivan, Jul 10, 2004
    #10
  11. Leo Reyes

    Sabineellen Guest

    >
    >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.



    Although I will stress again that photographic film is entirely different from
    the audiotape or videocasette*, I'll cite the example of the white stripes
    band, which is famous for its preference of the simpler analog audio devices
    and sparked a retro-cool thing.

    You're right. If i had a fashion-conscious occasion and I wanted to look
    "sexy", I probably wouldn't take a digital camera. I would probably take my
    Olympus RC.

    http://tuaupe.50megs.com/images/olympus_35rc.jpg

    Cute thing, isn't it?


    ----------

    * (photofilm captures the image *directly* on a *molecular* level by
    photosensitive media, whereas both audio and video are encoded by machine and
    don't really have the quality advantage over the
    similarly-machine-encoded-process of digital audio or video, that's why digital
    audio and video is better than analog, but photographic film and digital image
    capture are different and digital is not better)
    Sabineellen, Jul 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Leo Reyes

    Ivan Guest

    "> Although I will stress again that photographic film is entirely different
    from
    > the audiotape or videocasette*, I'll cite the example of the white stripes
    > band, which is famous for its preference of the simpler analog audio

    devices
    > and sparked a retro-cool thing.
    >
    > You're right. If i had a fashion-conscious occasion and I wanted to look
    > "sexy", I probably wouldn't take a digital camera. I would probably take

    my
    > Olympus RC.
    > * (photofilm captures the image *directly* on a *molecular* level by
    > photosensitive media, whereas both audio and video are encoded by machine

    and
    > don't really have the quality advantage over the
    > similarly-machine-encoded-process of digital audio or video, that's why

    digital
    > audio and video is better than analog, but photographic film and digital

    image
    > capture are different and digital is not better)


    Points well made...and worth making. Thanks
    Ivan
    Ivan, Jul 10, 2004
    #12
  13. Leo Reyes wrote:

    > Thanks to all that replied.... It just boogles the mind to think of 8
    > megapixels....surely by now 35 mm film is dead.


    Leo, just take a look at Phil Askey's review of the Sony 828. In it, he
    has a comparison between it and the Canon Digital Rebel, a 6 mp camera
    of equally low price. The Canon image is so much better, it is
    excitingly better, smoother and less noise throughout the range. THAT is
    what counts, not specs. I doubt you would notice a whit of difference in
    resolution between the two.

    I mean, I wish the Sony were a terrific camera - I love the technology
    and the design behind it, but after seeing that comparison, I just would
    not be able to get excited about it again.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 11, 2004
    #13
  14. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:uC%Hc.42296$...
    []
    > Leo, just take a look at Phil Askey's review of the Sony 828. In it, he
    > has a comparison between it and the Canon Digital Rebel, a 6 mp camera
    > of equally low price. The Canon image is so much better, it is
    > excitingly better, smoother and less noise throughout the range. THAT is
    > what counts, not specs. I doubt you would notice a whit of difference in
    > resolution between the two.

    []
    > Gary Eickmeier


    Whilst I agree that the larger sensitive area of the DSLR can produce a
    lower noise, what counts is which camera meets the user's requirements.
    Perhaps they do not find the noise as objectionable as you do, or they do
    not wish the inconvenience or higher total cost of a DSLR, and one of the
    8MP point-and-shoot cameras would be just the job for them.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2004
    #14
  15. Leo Reyes

    Tiny Johnson Guest

    its not just the camera, try a good quality printer, such as an epson
    r800
    Tiny Johnson, Jul 11, 2004
    #15
  16. David J Taylor wrote:

    > Whilst I agree that the larger sensitive area of the DSLR can produce a
    > lower noise, what counts is which camera meets the user's requirements.
    > Perhaps they do not find the noise as objectionable as you do, or they do
    > not wish the inconvenience or higher total cost of a DSLR, and one of the
    > 8MP point-and-shoot cameras would be just the job for them.


    All we can do for the "which camera should I buy" questions is point
    them to various data and let them look for themselves. When they have
    all the facts, opinions, and data, they will make up their minds.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 11, 2004
    #16
  17. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:9dbIc.32867$...
    []
    > All we can do for the "which camera should I buy" questions is point
    > them to various data and let them look for themselves. When they have
    > all the facts, opinions, and data, they will make up their minds.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    "We" should also encourage people to actually try the cameras in their own
    hands where possible, as usability may be the most important factor, if
    other things are about equal.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2004
    #17
  18. Leo Reyes

    Don Forsling Guest

    "Sabineellen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >

    And what are some of those signs? I'm really interested. And what is safe?
    Safe from extinction? Does safe mean bottoming out (and staying there)
    with, say, 1% of the market reflected in whatever measurement would reflect
    the state of the market? Let's say we measure "total" shots taken (which
    would, I'll admit, not be the way to measure, but I can't think of anything
    else at the moment). How _little_ film usage would qualify film for being a
    medium that is "alive and well." Horse and buggy's are "safe" in the sense
    that they aren't going to disappear, but they're certainly not a major
    factor in the transportation market. Likewise, would you say that film is
    "safe" when it's sales to consumers fall to say, 1% of what they'll be this
    year. That might happen. And when it does, I'd say that film is safe in
    terms of not being extinct, but that it's hardly safe in terms of its use by
    the photographic community--either popular consumer or professional.
    Don Forsling, Jul 11, 2004
    #18
  19. David J Taylor wrote:

    > "We" should also encourage people to actually try the cameras in their own
    > hands where possible, as usability may be the most important factor, if
    > other things are about equal.


    Good point. I know I fell in love with the E10 when I just picked it up
    and looked through that optical viewfinder. I wanted to like the Sony
    717 or the Minolta A1, but it just wasn't the same experience.

    I really do hope the video viewfinders eventually become fine enough and
    big enough to surpass the optical ones for usefulness. I just love the
    idea of a live histogram, but...

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 12, 2004
    #19
  20. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:NGlIc.34927$...
    []
    > I really do hope the video viewfinders eventually become fine enough and
    > big enough to surpass the optical ones for usefulness. I just love the
    > idea of a live histogram, but...
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier


    Agreed. I recently tried a Minolta A2 and the viewfinder was excellent -
    VGA resolution (not 1MP like they advertise on the box...). So if we
    could get a 1024 x 768 EVF that would be great! May be the next
    evolution, as number of pixels now seems adequate.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 12, 2004
    #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. Pierre Dragh

    Good camera 3 mega pixel

    Pierre Dragh, Nov 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    343
    Andy Hewitt
    Nov 14, 2003
  2. Hugo Drax

    Mega Pixel race is like the Mhz Race

    Hugo Drax, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    446
  3. Jamie

    Mega pixel and print size and digital camera

    Jamie, Oct 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,266
    Summitar
    Oct 20, 2004
  4. WannabeSomeone

    Fuji FinePix S9000 9 Mega Pixel Camera Came Out 17 Mega Pixel?

    WannabeSomeone, Nov 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,097
    WannabeSomeone
    Nov 14, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    293
Loading...

Share This Page