Is 2MP or 3 MP enough for traveling pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by zxcvar, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. zxcvar

    zxcvar Guest

    Greetings! I rarely print pictures from digital cameras. [Even in film
    days, I always used slide films in 99% cases.] For traveling to UK in
    2004 or 2005 I want to use an shirt pocketable digital camera. I shall
    view the pictures only in the computer screen. Is 3 MP will be enough
    for travel? There are many shirt pocketable 3 MP zooms are available
    now. At present I use a Olympus D-510. D-510 just fits in the shirt
    pocket with difficulty. I would like something smaller. With thanks.
     
    zxcvar, Sep 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. zxcvar

    MA Guest

    Greetings! I rarely print pictures from digital cameras. [Even in film
    Well, assume you have a resolution of 1280x1024 pixels on your computer
    screen, that would mean 1280*1024=1310720 pixels. Since the computer
    screen is able to display roughly 1.3 Mpixels in this case, there is no
    need for more. One other aspect though is that an expensive camera
    probably will take better pictures since it is equipped with better
    optics, sensor and so on. I think you can settle with 3 MP or even 2 MP
    for viewing on screen mostly and sometimes making small printouts. Just
    don't go with the very cheapest models.

    Best regards, Magnus
     
    MA, Sep 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. zxcvar

    JK Guest

    The problem is that if you do get a few great images, and want
    very nice 8"x10" prints from them, a 3 megapixel camera will
    probably not do the job so well. There are shirt pocket sized
    5 megapixel cameras now. They have slow lenses(let little
    light in)at the telephoto end which makes low light photography
    difficult without using a flash or tripod or the ISO 800 mode. I
    expect that there will be improvements in sensors next year,
    and new shirt pocket sized cameras may have much lower
    noise ISO 800(and perhaps even 1600 ISO?)mode than do
    current shirt pocket sized cameras with an ISO 800 mode
    When this happens,I might be tempted to buy a shirt pocket
    sized digital camera as a second digital camera?
     
    JK, Sep 1, 2003
    #3
  4. zxcvar

    NJH Guest

    If you're only going to look at the photos on a computer screen, 3 MP is
    more than enough. And it's enough for prints up to at least 8 x 10 if you
    should ever want to do that.

    A few weeks ago I bought a Minolta DiMAGE Xt (my seventh digital camera). I
    STRONGLY urge you to consider this little jewel of a camera as it sounds
    perfect for your purposes. It will very easily slip into a shirt pocket. It
    is actually smaller than a 3½-inch diskette in width and height, and is only
    0.8 inch thick. Weight with battery, Secure Digital card and wrist strap in
    place is about 5 ounces. It has a 3X zoom lens, f/2.8 to f/3.6 maximum
    aperture, and equivalent to a 37-111mm lens on a 35.

    The most ingenious thing about this camera is the arrangement of the lens.
    The front element is in the upper left corner, behind that is a right-angle
    prism and then rest of the zoom lens is built VERTICALLY below that inside
    the camera. So no part of the lens ever extends from the camera.

    It also has a feature I haven't seen on other digital cameras, which at
    first I thought just gimmicky but which actually has turned out to be very
    useful: Whatever resolution you shoot a photo in, you can later save it as a
    copy for e-mail in either 640 x 480 or 160 x 120 pixels. Doing that saves
    the new file in a separate e-mail folder and at the "economy" setting
    (highest file compression). I have used this to send photos to my sister of
    friends she hasn't seen in years. The results were tack-sharp on the
    computer screen, really much better than I expected for 640 x 480 at
    "economy" setting.

    Any questions, just ask. I love this elegant little instrument and love to
    talk about it.

    Neil Harrington
     
    NJH, Sep 1, 2003
    #4
  5. zxcvar

    Eric Gisin Guest

    3MP is almost entry level. Computer screens are going to be 2-3MP in a few
    years.

    | For what you have stated, it is overkill.
    |
    | | > Greetings! I rarely print pictures from digital cameras. [Even in film
    | > days, I always used slide films in 99% cases.] For traveling to UK in
    | > 2004 or 2005 I want to use an shirt pocketable digital camera. I shall
    | > view the pictures only in the computer screen. Is 3 MP will be enough
    | > for travel? There are many shirt pocketable 3 MP zooms are available
    | > now. At present I use a Olympus D-510. D-510 just fits in the shirt
    | > pocket with difficulty. I would like something smaller. With thanks.
    |
    |
     
    Eric Gisin, Sep 1, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.