If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:27:38 -0800, Episteme wrote
(in article >): > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ Well, it is not like he discovered the megapixel myth. Others have noticed it, too. In fact, there is considerable evidence that in the point and shoots, anyway, the quality *decreases* as the megapixels increase, mostly because of increased noise, but also because more megapixels magnify the effects of camera shake. Pogue is absolutely right. Most people do not get *any* benefit from having more than 5Mp and most of them actually take worse pictures with more. Thom Hogan pointed out that even with a DSLR, picture quality degrades for most people once you get above 8Mp. Most people shoot handheld and do not put the time or care into getting all the value out of more resolution than that. Of course, if you do put the time and effort into it, more pixels will reward you handsomely. But for most people it is just a waste of money. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:27:38 -0800, Episteme wrote
(in article >): > http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/ One other thing I would point out. Not only is the printer the limiting factor on prints these days, but most people never print anything larger than 4x6. Or they just keep their pictures on their computer. For them, anything over 2 or 3Mp is a waste of money. No computer screen can take advantage of any more. I have a 17" MacBook Pro, one of the finest screens available among laptops. And the best it can do is 1.7Mp. It is incapable of showing any improvement my Nikon D200 has over most cell phones, let alone my D70 or Coolpix 7900. Then consider printers. Few home printers are capable of displaying more than about 4 or 5Mp. No wonder Pogue couldn't tell the difference printing an 8Mp picture. There wasn't any! They were all 5Mp photos by the time they were printed. So, why bother with more pixels? The downside -- more blur from camera shake and more noise -- is substantial, yet there is little benefit to be realized. Well, for most of us, we are used to cropping our pictures, sometimes considerably. More pixels gives us the ability to do that without losing displayed quality. More pixels are like having a cheap telephoto. :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cameras to watch the cameras. | Brent P[_1_] | Driving | 111 | January 31st 07 10:56 PM |
TheTtruthAabout Digital Cameras | Episteme | Auto Photos | 30 | January 12th 07 08:05 PM |
Digital Radio (UK)? | Peter[_2_] | Audi | 3 | August 15th 06 07:43 PM |
FreeFlatScreenGuide (Site to get free ipods, digital cameras, more) | Stinkbud | BMW | 0 | November 5th 04 03:27 PM |
DIgital Radio | Michael | Saturn | 2 | July 11th 04 07:52 PM |