8 Mpix or 6?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Hi there!

A friend says it's not worth getting a 8 Mpix camera. He said the
images are not much better printed and it doesn't matter for web photos
or emails.

Do you agree?

I just want something to drag around that has a good zoom, a flash,
where I have some control over exposure and flash use. I've looked at
Lumix, Sony, Minolta and others. Manual focus would be best and I'd
like it best if the zoom was manual too. I have an hp photo printer
that does pretty good on small prints (like drugstore size to 8 1/2 by 11.)

Do these cameras do okay left in the car in the hot sun or in the cold
(below freezin)? (Say under the seat).

Will 512 of memory be enough? I guess I'd shoot a couple dozen photos a
week. I don't do much touching up, pretty much print em as is, so I'll
probably save in JPEG mode.

Advice?

Thanks!
Ck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Chuck Deitz commented courteously ...

> Hi there!
>
> A friend says it's not worth getting a 8 Mpix camera.
> He said the images are not much better printed and it
> doesn't matter for web photos or emails.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> I just want something to drag around that has a good zoom,
> a flash, where I have some control over exposure and flash
> use. I've looked at Lumix, Sony, Minolta and others.
> Manual focus would be best and I'd like it best if the zoom
> was manual too. I have an hp photo printer that does
> pretty good on small prints (like drugstore size to 8 1/2
> by 11.)
>
> Do these cameras do okay left in the car in the hot sun or
> in the cold (below freezin)? (Say under the seat).
>
> Will 512 of memory be enough? I guess I'd shoot a couple
> dozen photos a week. I don't do much touching up, pretty
> much print em as is, so I'll probably save in JPEG mode.
>
> Advice?
>
> Thanks!
> Ck
>



--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

All Things Mopar commented courteously ...

Oops! Tried to cancel this but I guess it didn't take.
Please ignore...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Chuck Deitz wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> A friend says it's not worth getting a 8 Mpix camera. He said the
> images are not much better printed and it doesn't matter for web
> photos or emails.
>
> Do you agree?

Images from 8MP cameras should have slightly better resolution, which you
would see on close inspection of 10 inch x 8 inch prints. Given the same
sensor size, the images may have a little more noise at a given ISO.

> I just want something to drag around that has a good zoom, a flash,
> where I have some control over exposure and flash use. I've looked at
> Lumix, Sony, Minolta and others. Manual focus would be best and I'd
> like it best if the zoom was manual too. I have an hp photo printer
> that does pretty good on small prints (like drugstore size to 8 1/2
> by 11.)
> Do these cameras do okay left in the car in the hot sun or in the cold
> (below freezin)? (Say under the seat).

That's not something I would do - read the working and storage
environmental specifications for the cameras which interest you.

> Will 512 of memory be enough? I guess I'd shoot a couple dozen
> photos a week. I don't do much touching up, pretty much print em as
> is, so I'll probably save in JPEG mode.
>
> Advice?
>
> Thanks!
> Ck

512MB should be fine in JPEG mode, but memory is cheap.... How much
memory you need is determined by how long the card will be away from the
computer! Get yourself a memory card reader.

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Chuck Deitz wrote:
>
>>Hi there!
>>
>>A friend says it's not worth getting a 8 Mpix camera. He said the
>>images are not much better printed and it doesn't matter for web
>>photos or emails.
>>
>>Do you agree?
>
>
> Images from 8MP cameras should have slightly better resolution, which you
> would see on close inspection of 10 inch x 8 inch prints. Given the same
> sensor size, the images may have a little more noise at a given ISO.

One 'pair' I'm comparing is the Konica-Minolta A2 (8 mpix) and A1 (5
Mpix). I like the anti-shake feature, and I like the camera.

The A2 has 3264 pixels wide. So that should print well for almost 11
inches on my printer when it's set to 300.

The A1 has 2560 pixels in that same dimension, so I'd get 8 1/2 inches
at 300; or 11 inches if I can set the printer to about 230 dpi (I don't
know if I can set it that way yet. PS takes whatever dpi I set).

I would bet a 230 dpi print would look fine.

>
>
> 512MB should be fine in JPEG mode, but memory is cheap.... How much
> memory you need is determined by how long the card will be away from the
> computer! Get yourself a memory card reader.

Thanks for your reply David.


--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Irritating Usenet Signature Here.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Chuck Deitz wrote:
[]
> One 'pair' I'm comparing is the Konica-Minolta A2 (8 mpix) and A1 (5
> Mpix). I like the anti-shake feature, and I like the camera.
>
> The A2 has 3264 pixels wide. So that should print well for almost 11
> inches on my printer when it's set to 300.
>
> The A1 has 2560 pixels in that same dimension, so I'd get 8 1/2 inches
> at 300; or 11 inches if I can set the printer to about 230 dpi (I
> don't know if I can set it that way yet. PS takes whatever dpi I
> set).
> I would bet a 230 dpi print would look fine.

The 25% increase in linear resolution should be just noticeable with
critical examination. I think you need to compare other features.

By the way, the fault in the A1's firmware which creates extra JPEG
artefacts (compared to the supplied RAW to JPEG software convertor) was
still present in the A2 I bought. The image quality of the A2 was only
about on a par with that from the Nikon 5700 it was intended to replace,
so I got a refund as I'm not prepared to be forced into using RAW mode all
the time.

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> The 25% increase in linear resolution should be just noticeable with
> critical examination. I think you need to compare other features.
>
> By the way, the fault in the A1's firmware which creates extra JPEG
> artefacts (compared to the supplied RAW to JPEG software convertor) was
> still present in the A2 I bought. The image quality of the A2 was only
> about on a par with that from the Nikon 5700 it was intended to replace,
> so I got a refund as I'm not prepared to be forced into using RAW mode all
> the time.

So what did you get?

I'm not worried about RAW. Memory is cheaper than I thought and I doubt
I'll be filling up cards very often.

I also like the Lumix Panasonic FZ5. 4.9 meg. It's also stabilized,
but in the lens.

Ck


--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Irritating Usenet Signature Here.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Chuck Deitz wrote:
[]
> So what did you get?
>
> I'm not worried about RAW. Memory is cheaper than I thought and I
> doubt I'll be filling up cards very often.
>
> I also like the Lumix Panasonic FZ5. 4.9 meg. It's also stabilized,
> but in the lens.

In the end, I kept the Nikon 5700 and supplemented it with a Nikon 8400
for wide-angle shots (it is 24mm at widest zoom). My wife got herself a
Panasonic FZ20 and is delighted with it. I don't want to carry round two
cameras, but I do sometimes want long zoom. However, my wife is likely to
want that at the same time as me, so being able to borrow her FZ20 is
unlikely.

To be continued, I suspect....

Cheers,
David