New to digital cameras: would 5.1 megapixels be enough for..

[Guest]

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

I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
professional digital cameras.

Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
and 8x10 in size.

How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
think?

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

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

success_ny@yahoo.com writes:

> I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
> this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
> these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
> very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
> professional digital cameras.
>
> Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
> choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
> high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
> 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
> and 8x10 in size.
>
> How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
> high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
> think?

You won't have a quality problem with the digital relative to the film
for the specific cameras, films, print sizes, and audience you
mention.

Which camera is easiest for you to work with may actually make a
bigger difference to the quality of photos you get.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http/noguns-nomoney.com/> <http/www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http/dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http/dragaera.info/>

 

[Guest]

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

success_ny@yahoo.com wrote:
> I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
> this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
> these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
> very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
> professional digital cameras.
>
> Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
> choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
> high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
> 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
> and 8x10 in size.
>
> How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
> high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
> think?
>
> Thanks.
>
You wouldn't see any difference at 4x6 or 5x7, but you might see some
minor differences, up close, on an 8x10. Unless you are quite picky, or
prone to examining you pictures under magnification, you probably would
be quite happy with the digital at 5.1mp.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

On 23 Mar 2005 11:22:26 -0800, success_ny@yahoo.com wrote:

>I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
>this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
>these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
>very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
>professional digital cameras.
>
>Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
>choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
>high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
>5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
>and 8x10 in size.
>
>How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
>high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
>think?
>
>Thanks.

Check out the dpreview.com and steves-digicams (among otheres) reviews
of the Nikon Coolpix 5400. Then go to pricegrabber.com and check
prices from stores that offer the $200 rebate. You can get on for
about $250 net. There's not a better deal on a digicam if the size
fits your needs.

 

[Guest]

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

I use a 5MP Canon G5 (non SLR).

It produces smashing enlargements up to 12x8 at least (I haven't printed
anything larger). Better quality, I have to say, than prints of the same
size from my Nikon SLR.

Go for it.

Carrigman








<success_ny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111605746.929072.45450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
> this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
> these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
> very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
> professional digital cameras.
>
> Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
> choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
> high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
> 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
> and 8x10 in size.
>
> How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
> high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
> think?
>
> Thanks.
>

 

[Guest]

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

There is no way that a Canon G5 will produce better enlargements than any
Nikon film camera, it is not possible, there must be other factors.

That said pretty much any 5MP camera will probably be better than many point
and shoot film cameras.

"carrigman" <carrigman@deathtospammershotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1sg6l$shu$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>I use a 5MP Canon G5 (non SLR).
>
> It produces smashing enlargements up to 12x8 at least (I haven't printed
> anything larger). Better quality, I have to say, than prints of the same
> size from my Nikon SLR.
>
> Go for it.
>
> Carrigman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <success_ny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1111605746.929072.45450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
>> this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
>> these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
>> very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
>> professional digital cameras.
>>
>> Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
>> choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
>> high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
>> 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
>> and 8x10 in size.
>>
>> How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
>> high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
>> think?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

>Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
>choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
>high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
>5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
>and 8x10 in size.
>
>How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
>high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
>think?

A high-quality print requires only 400dpi (300dpi is pretty good,
too). So to get a good 5x7, you only need 3.1Mpix. So 5.1 will give
you a really good 5x7 (about 380pdi), and a fair 8x10 (250dpi).

If you have a good lens on the Pentax camera, film will give you a 5x7
of the same high quality, and a better 8x10.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http/www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

success_ny@yahoo.com wrote:
> I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
> this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
> these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
> very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
> professional digital cameras.
>
> Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
> choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
> high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
> 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
> and 8x10 in size.
>
> How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
> high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
> think?
>
> Thanks.
>

Get the digital. It will easily be capable of excellent 8x10s if you focus
correctly.

Judging from my experience you'll need a minimum shutter speed of 1/60 and 1/80
would be even better if people are moving around and not simply posing.

If it's a bit dark, you'll need to use the flash. The flashes built into most
point-and-shoot digital cameras have limited range. If you want to stay out of
people's way to get more candid images I suggest you buy a camera that has
either a hot-shoe or PC connection so you can connect a bigger stronger flash.
If you go down that route and you're shooting indoors, get a flash that can be
tilted upwards and bounce the light off the ceiling. You will get much more
natural looking photos, unless the ceiling is bright pink. One such example is
the Kodak DX6490 (which I own), but that's a bit old now, and I'm sure they have
a newer model with that feature but without some of the DX6490s bad features.
Get the camera with a hotshoe flash connection in preference to the PC flash
connection if possible.

Go to dpreview.com to find a camera that has those features and any others you
think you need.

--
Ben Thomas

 

[Guest]

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

Well, maybe "better than" is *slightly* overstating it but "as good as"
would be correct.

I was comparing a range of 12x8 prints from scanned Velvia slides (Dimage
Scan Dual 3, typical TIFF file size at 300 dpi: 20MB) with same size prints
from the G5. All were commercially machine printed by a number of different
processors.

To my eyes and to those who have seen them they are indistinguishable in
print quality terms: nice crisp detailed saturated shots.

When I saw the quality of G5 enlargements I was astonished. Like you, I
figured there was no way they could match the 35mm prints. But they did!

I compared some glossy 12x8 Ilfrochromes with the digicam prints. The
'chromes had, perhaps, a slight edge overall but not as obvious as one might
expect.

I checked some 35 mm colour print film prints (I don't shoot a lot of print
film) with the digitals: no contest - the G5's are superior. It may well be
that had I got the 35mms hand printed professionally I would see a distinct
difference. However, as far as good machine prints are concerned - and let's
face it, they are what most of us will only be interested in - the digitals
are better.

I still use 35mm slide film for most of my photography and will be for some
time yet. I have a significant investment in good quality equipment and it
has served me well. But as far as quality is concerned 35mm no longer lords
it over digital, in my view.

Regards,

Carrigman


"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:WEj0e.9214$C7.1184@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> There is no way that a Canon G5 will produce better enlargements than any
> Nikon film camera, it is not possible, there must be other factors.

 

[mort]

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

Metz has a small flash with a built-in bracket and slave unit, that is ideal for
compact digital cameras with no external flash connection. The Metz flash
automatically synchs to the camera's flash and ignores the camera's pre-flash, after
just one test exposure to teach" it. It's called Metz Mecablitz CS 28-2 Digital, and
street price is around U.S.$140.00.
Morton

Ben Thomas wrote:

> success_ny@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
> > this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
> > these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
> > very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
> > professional digital cameras.
> >
> > Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
> > choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
> > high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
> > 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
> > and 8x10 in size.
> >
> > How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
> > high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
> > think?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> Get the digital. It will easily be capable of excellent 8x10s if you focus
> correctly.
>
> Judging from my experience you'll need a minimum shutter speed of 1/60 and 1/80
> would be even better if people are moving around and not simply posing.
>
> If it's a bit dark, you'll need to use the flash. The flashes built into most
> point-and-shoot digital cameras have limited range. If you want to stay out of
> people's way to get more candid images I suggest you buy a camera that has
> either a hot-shoe or PC connection so you can connect a bigger stronger flash.
> If you go down that route and you're shooting indoors, get a flash that can be
> tilted upwards and bounce the light off the ceiling. You will get much more
> natural looking photos, unless the ceiling is bright pink. One such example is
> the Kodak DX6490 (which I own), but that's a bit old now, and I'm sure they have
> a newer model with that feature but without some of the DX6490s bad features.
> Get the camera with a hotshoe flash connection in preference to the PC flash
> connection if possible.
>
> Go to dpreview.com to find a camera that has those features and any others you
> think you need.
>
> --
> Ben Thomas

 

[Guest]

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

When you say "high quality", if you want real high quality sent your digital
images to a commercial lab for printing. The weakest link is the printer.

 

[Guest]

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

I have a Nikon 5400, which is a 5 MP digital.

I have printed full size on 8.5" x 11". It looks great.

GC


<success_ny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111605746.929072.45450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
> this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
> these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
> very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
> professional digital cameras.
>
> Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
> choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
> high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
> 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
> and 8x10 in size.
>
> How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
> high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
> think?
>
> Thanks.
>

 

[Ron]

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

Go with the digital. As a side business I do some construction and
landscaping photography, using primarily an Olympus 5060, which has
great wide-angle capability, which becomes even better with a
relatively inexpensive wide angle converter. This photography requires
considerable detail (the quality of which is evaluated not just by me,
but by my customers). I am getting excellent results
at 8x10.

You may be able to get equal results with 35mm, but if you learn to use
one of a number of modestly priced imaging programs (I prefer Photoshop
Elements 3.0) you will be able to tweak your photos significantly to
make up for backlighting or other problems not easily fixed using 35mm
and over the long run your costs will plummet.

I might add that a couple of years ago I shot my daughter's wedding
with both an Oly 2020z (2.1megapix) and my Pentax SLR. The results up
to 6x8 were indistinguishable
(sometimes after a bit of tweaking) and I have also had excellent
results up to 8x10 with a very small Oly 560 3.0 megapix.

When you raise this question you will always step into a debate between
35mm and digital users, and you can engender quite a bit of heat and
technical details, but at the end of the day 5.0 megapix will be just
fine (remember that there are several very costly digital slr's that
use 'only' 6 megapix...)

Go have fun.

 

[Guest]

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

success_ny@yahoo.com wrote:

> I read quite a few articles online about digital cameras, pixels, how
> this whole concept is different from film cameras and such. But most of
> these articles compare professional, high-quality film camera shot by a
> very expensive high-performance cameras with performance of
> professional digital cameras.
>
> Practically, I need to make some pictures of a family event. I have a
> choice: film it using my Pentax compact film camera (cost me $300, not
> high end) using regular Kodak or Fuji 400 Film or buy a new Sony DSCW5
> 5.1 MP digital compact camera. I need to have high-quality photos 5x7
> and 8x10 in size.
>
> How would the quality compare between the above 2 methods? Would I get
> high-quality pictures if I use 5.1 MP digital camera? What do you
> think?
>
> Thanks.
>
You can certainly get good 5 x 7 prints from a digital camera. The big
question is why are you interested in digital photography? If you have
a decent film camera, there has to be some reason other than just the
fact that you CAN do it with a digital. Do you want to edit your
photos, or just print them as taken?

It is possible that by not printing ALL your images, just a select few,
you can save a bit of money in the long run, but you have to amortize
the cost of the digital camera into the calculation.

So, the answer to the original question you asked is- yes a 5 MP camera
can give you good quality prints. The other, unasked question, is
whether, for your specific needs and desires, digital is better than
film. The answer is very hard to answer without your giving us much
more information about how you do photography.