For those interested in pixel counts

realspeed

realspeed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,827
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No


As the heading says its not anything special EXCEPT it was taken on my first digital compact camera a Kodak CX3200 with only 2 meg pixels. Yes just 2, so how many pixels are really needed for a good clear photo.

As I said it is for those interested in pixel counts mainly not for photo content or anything else

(In the grounds of Warwick Castle)

Realspeed
 
Well, I still use an old Nikon D70 (6Mp) for my scuba diving shots.
To buy a new housing for my D7000 or D700 would cost me around £2,500.
I can't justify that sort of cost for something I use infrequently.
Heres a shot using it.
Remember, only 6 Mp. . .


Turtle with Remora by G_H_Photography, on Flickr
 
realspeed said:


As the heading says its not anything special EXCEPT it was taken on my first digital compact camera a Kodak CX3200 with only 2 meg pixels. Yes just 2, so how many pixels are really needed for a good clear photo.

As I said it is for those interested in pixel counts mainly not for photo content or anything else

(In the grounds of Warwick Castle)

Realspeed
Click to expand...


Not being funny or anything, but there are phones out there can take more detailed images these days. It's very 'mushy' - looks a bit 'painted' in the sky and the trees. There is a distinct lack of smoothness in the clouds especially.

Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with using ANY camera, ever. I used a 1mp camera for ages when digital first got going. Can't say I ever got any impressively detailed images ... but it was fun at the time.

But this image doesn't really say much for lower pixel count. The Turtle shot at 6mp, however, does.
 
ZDWJV.jpg


6mp on a 8 year old camera. The full sized version looks great on my retina MacBook (which is 220ppi), so as long as you don't crop and don't print huge, megapixels aren't as important as you think!
 
I do agree there. And again, that is a better example. To me, ISO performance is much more important than the MP count. It's the main reason I upgrade at any time. Well, that and better overall image quality.

Older cameras are still used today, like the D40 - they're just no good for pushing above the ISO 400 mark, usually.
 
Cagey75

I did say quote " As I said it is for those interested in pixel counts mainly not for photo content or anything else"

Realspeed
 
Aye, and I am, a bit. That's what I commented on, not the overall image, just the quality ;)
 
Before I knew anhthing about photography and confused myself with the term megapixel my dad told me "megapixels just mean how big you can print the image without losing quality - what makes a good image is the lens".

That's how I summarize now and I use it a lot.

Fuji X10 is my latest purchase I bang on about - it is an amazing camera because of the optical quality. Small sensor so terrible low light performance but the lens is very good and images are sharp and very detailed.

The image is great for 2mp as a web based image...but it wouldn't be so great when printed on canvas, that's perhaps what people (like me years ago) don't understand.
 
fuji-DSCF0043.jpg


2.1 megapixels from a Fujifilm compact that's the size of half a brick, and has a screen the size of a postage stamp. I still use this from time to time if there's a danger that it might get soaked or damaged in some way.

Here's a 100% crop from the corner, with no sharpening or any other touch-ups.

fuji-DSCF0043-crop.jpg


Not wonderful, but usable. I'm not likely to crop from the corner anyway (as there's no autofocus point there).
 
We should all sell our modern dslrs and buy old first gen digi-compacts!!!


Not really.
 
I used to have an IQon digi cam, it wasn't even 1mp, it just said some amount of KB, it had a little tiny digital watch sized LCD that showed the shot count. It was free with a PC I bought at the time. The images were crud, but mostly because you had zero option over any controls. You just aimed, and shot. Like the good old days of P&S film cams. But then, and for a while after, film was still > digital. It has taken a long time to get the digi right.
 
MWHCVT said:
I might just crack out my 1mp Kodak for a little fun :D
Click to expand...

My DC215 accumulated so much muck/dust inside/on the sensor that it became unusable - looked like everything was taken in a snow-storm. I despatched it to silicon heaven :'(.
 
weybourne said:
My DC215 accumulated so much muck/dust inside/on the sensor that it became unusable - looked like everything was taken in a snow-storm. I despatched it to silicon heaven :'(.
Click to expand...

That's what I have too :) somewhere in the house :help:
 
For screen display, even 1MP is plenty - given that the longest side of an image here is supposed to be 800px (if hosted in the gallery) and 200KB, for a standard 3:2 ratio (DSLR), that equates to 426,666pixels in the image and VGA resolution (?480x640?) is just 307,620. So, for e-bay snaps and the like, people who have forked out a small fortune for a DSLR and a macro lens may be overgilding the lilly!

Where higher pixel counts do help is when you print, especially if you like to prnt large (over A4). With the ultimate resolution reckoned by some experts to be 300dpi, you need a fair few MP to get there. Of course, in the real world, 200dpi or even 150 gives prints perfectly acceptable at normal viewing distances, so the 6.1MP of a D70 is enough (as long as the image doesn't ned too much cropping! From memory, the D70's sensor delivers 3000px x 2000px -@300 dpi, that's 10" x 6 2/3"; @ 200dpi, 15" x 10"; 150dpi, 20" x 13 1/3". Can't remember the px dimensions of the D700 but the maths is easy enough.

As with so many things in life, it's horses for courses. 1MP is enough for many screen uses while 12+ give better options for large prints. Using specialist software (or even PSE, if you go in several small steps), small images can be upscaled for larger prints, but there is a limit before you notice details are being lost.
 
Nod said:
1MP is enough for many screen uses
Click to expand...

In terms of pure resolution, yes, of course, but resolution isn't the reason these early cameras were crap though is it? Colour fidelity, truly atrocious dynamic range and usually rubbish lenses all made them completely and utterly useless.

Just look at the quality of that pic at the top of the thread. It's diabolical!
 
Since the thread title refers to pixel counts, I ignored the obvious shortcomings of the posted photo since colour rendition and JPEG artefaction wasn't under discussion! I was refering purely to pure resolution, and for screen use, I stand by my post.
 
It will be impossible to seperate the pure changes in MP from all the other advances in sensor design, image processing (in camera) etc,. so not really camera like for like.

You would need to get a current camera with a 2MP sensor to know how good they could be. Can't see anyone making one of those...
 
ernesto said:
It will be impossible to seperate the pure changes in MP from all the other advances in sensor design, image processing (in camera) etc,. so not really camera like for like.

You would need to get a current camera with a 2MP sensor to know how good they could be. Can't see anyone making one of those...
Click to expand...

I think this is highly relevant to any debate on this topic.

Low ISO output from an EOS 1D (Mk1) and some decent lenses might give you a fair approximation as that has only 4 Mpx, though.

Or a Nikon D1, which had only a 2.74 Mpx sensor.

Samples I've seen from either stand up well to the 'web test'.
 
I think we have a D1 at work. I'll see what I can do :)
 
I've got a kodak 4mp camera bought back in 2001 which was top of the line in terms of compacts back then. Still works as well :D
 
Taken with a 4Mp Canon Powershot S40
20020617-194619-122-2215IMG-b-L.jpg


This image was lightly cropped, rotated slightly, printed to A3 and used as the centre image in my LRPS panel.
Annoyingly, the print quality was better than most of the rest of the panel which were taken with an EOS 20D.

Hence I always tell people you only need 4mp to print to A3, anything extra is just extra.
 
a few years ago ( 2003 -2005 ) i had a minolta dimage 5 for a 3mp camera it was surprisingly good for a camera of that era but technology has come a long way since then

a couple of example of the dimage 5 taken in 2004
PICT0902_zpsafd206b3.jpg


PICT0815_zps13d2bb37.jpg


i rembember craving the dimage 7 for the extra pixel count at the time just couldn't afford it :(
 
ernesto said:
It will be impossible to seperate the pure changes in MP from all the other advances in sensor design, image processing (in camera) etc,. so not really camera like for like.

You would need to get a current camera with a 2MP sensor to know how good they could be. Can't see anyone making one of those...
Click to expand...

Quite. You couldn't imagine that, say, Curiosity, the Mars Rover, would use such a low res cam... hang on a minute! What's this?
 
rugger_zpsdbad29ff.jpg


Canon D30, 100-400L. 1/640th, f/9, 400 ISO. Canon D30 has a 3.1MP CMOS sensor. This was my first digital press camera. We managed.
 
you can't really compare 2mp of old with 2mp of today as dynamic range and noise have drastically improved.

the IQ of that camera is pretty horrific

realspeed said:


As the heading says its not anything special EXCEPT it was taken on my first digital compact camera a Kodak CX3200 with only 2 meg pixels. Yes just 2, so how many pixels are really needed for a good clear photo.

As I said it is for those interested in pixel counts mainly not for photo content or anything else

(In the grounds of Warwick Castle)

Realspeed
Click to expand...
 
jon ryan said:
Quite. You couldn't imagine that, say, Curiosity, the Mars Rover, would use such a low res cam... hang on a minute! What's this?
Click to expand...

there is however a dam good set of reasons why it has said camera - given the choice they would go for a much much better camera
 
my first digital camera was a compact sony with 5megapixals took some good shots that got me hooked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top