PDA

View Full Version : 3.2 MP verses 4.0 MP Help



rallison
09-19-2005, 10:38 AM
I need a straight answer about printing an 8X10 from a 3.2MP verses a 4.0MP. I'm getting ready to purchase my first digital camera. Based on the reviews for entry level cameras and online sample pics, I'm either going to buy the Canon A510 (3.2MP) or the A520 (4.0MP). Is there really any discernable difference in the print quality between 3.2MP and 4.0MP in an 8X10 print?

FYI, I'll only be printing 8X10s every now and then and am not looking to be a pro. Just want something nice to frame on the wall of my family from time to time.

I've read a lot of professional reviews about this but nobody seems to agree so I thought I'd ask the real users. Can anyone help? :confused:

Thanks!
RAllison

Norm in Fujino
09-19-2005, 10:45 AM
I need a straight answer about printing an 8X10 from a 3.2MP verses a 4.0MP. I'm getting ready to purchase my first digital camera. Based on the reviews for entry level cameras and online sample pics, I'm either going to buy the Canon A510 (3.2MP) or the A520 (4.0MP). Is there really any discernable difference in the print quality between 3.2MP and 4.0MP in an 8X10 print?

Disclosure: I know nothing about the specific cameras you mention, but all else being equal, you should experience no discernible difference in an 8x10 print when using files of the size you note. I've printed out 8x10 shots from a 1.4mp camera and they turned out great. --The sheer number of pixels is less the issue than the other aspects of the sensors/cameras involved.

NeilM
09-19-2005, 11:08 AM
The higher the pixels the higher the rez. If u can afford the 4.0 then go with that. Some pictures it will show others it wont in the rez.
I shoot at 2500 and then reduce to the size I want for DPI.
Hope this helps.
:)

D Thompson
09-19-2005, 03:49 PM
I need a straight answer about printing an 8X10 from a 3.2MP verses a 4.0MP. I'm getting ready to purchase my first digital camera. Based on the reviews for entry level cameras and online sample pics, I'm either going to buy the Canon A510 (3.2MP) or the A520 (4.0MP). Is there really any discernable difference in the print quality between 3.2MP and 4.0MP in an 8X10 print?

FYI, I'll only be printing 8X10s every now and then and am not looking to be a pro. Just want something nice to frame on the wall of my family from time to time.

Thanks!
RAllison
I'm with Norm - I don't know much about the camera specifics, but I did take a quick look. To me it looks like the extra .8mp costs you about $45 or so. I doubt you will be able to tell on a 8x10 which is which. It gives you just a bit more to crop if needed. IMO whichever you choose will fit your purpose.

tim11
09-19-2005, 05:21 PM
I found this link on resolution as a guide.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1646274,00.asp

The more Megapixel capture more detail. For large prints, you may get away with (slightly) blurry pictures more often if you have a large MP camera. With 3.2MP you may be able to print 8x10" providing your picture is sharp enough. As you can see from the link, with 3.2MP you are pushing at the upper the limit.

ReF
09-19-2005, 07:02 PM
i haven't done any direct tests either but i've heard many times that 3.2 mp is the minimum for an 8x10. from experience i'v found that pictures don't aways come out perfectly framed. okay so you have a nice shot from a 3mp camera and in theory you will be able to get a nice 8x10 from 3mp. what if it's not framed just right and you have to crop? not perfectly level = rotate + crop? subject is a bit small leading to cropping? the sensor aspect ratio doesn't match the paper standards? you guessed it: crop that thing! crop crop crop crop crop. cropping can chop away huge amounts of pixels fast! so you want to get as many pixels as you can. the extra cost for 4mp is minimal.

Rob vdKam
09-20-2005, 07:44 AM
I've printed many shots from a 2.1 MP Nikon coolpix 775 at 8x10 and even as a 36x24" poster (using powerpoint to stretch the image) and they all look great. But this is normal paper and I often wonder what the difference would be on photo paper. I agree that there are numerous factors other than resolution that affect your print, but that more resolution = more flexibility in the end. I now have an 8MP camera even though I usually only view them on a computer monitor. It gives me the ability to crop crop crop which ends up being the same as magnify magnify magnify since I rarely see any pixelation.

rallison
09-20-2005, 11:50 AM
Thanks to all of you for the feedback! If you've read each others replies, you see what I mean by differing opinions. Some of you say 3.2MP is fine and there's no meaningful difference from 4MP while others say otherwise. I'm learning that few things in digital cameras are definitive.

ReF, you do bring up a good point about framing and such. Since this is my first digicam, I'm sure my photo skills leave much to be desired so a tweak here and there may be necessary. On the other hand, it's digital. I can always take more pictures to get the framing right on the 3.2MP and still have $45 left over to put towards a memory card, case, tripod or whatever is needed.

On the third hand, maybe I'm making too big a deal out of this. LOL! :p

Thanks again to all of you. If you have any more insight, I'm open to suggestions, competitive cameras, etc. Anyone know anything about the Olympus 765 UZ? 4MP, excellent pic quality but with a 10x optical zoom.

Take care!
RAllison

ReF
09-21-2005, 03:33 AM
Thanks to all of you for the feedback! If you've read each others replies, you see what I mean by differing opinions. Some of you say 3.2MP is fine and there's no meaningful difference from 4MP while others say otherwise. I'm learning that few things in digital cameras are definitive.

ReF, you do bring up a good point about framing and such. Since this is my first digicam, I'm sure my photo skills leave much to be desired so a tweak here and there may be necessary. On the other hand, it's digital. I can always take more pictures to get the framing right on the 3.2MP and still have $45 left over to put towards a memory card, case, tripod or whatever is needed.

On the third hand, maybe I'm making too big a deal out of this. LOL! :p

Thanks again to all of you. If you have any more insight, I'm open to suggestions, competitive cameras, etc. Anyone know anything about the Olympus 765 UZ? 4MP, excellent pic quality but with a 10x optical zoom.

Take care!
RAllison

$45 will come and go, but there will be many moments where you will only have one chance to capture it. the extra MP will allow some room for error. plus you never know when you'll go somewhere on vacation or whatever but find that while the image looked good on that tiny lcd, but viewing on a full screen might review some unwanted details or composition errors. just my opinion.

rallison
09-21-2005, 10:06 AM
ReF,
Just when I think I've figured it out, ReF, the voice of reason, well...reasons. LOL! :p You bring a valid point. And as if that wasn't enough, I'm now shifting my attention towards the A610 coming out soon. Seems that this little camera may clear it all up assuming the picture quality is excellent. Hard to beat the price for what you get! Do you know anything about this camera, particularly it's photo quality? If this camera is what it says, it may be worth saving a couple extra dollars to upgrade. What do you think?

RAllison

ReF
09-21-2005, 06:32 PM
wouldn't know much about the 610 until reviews come out, but i'd be surprised if it didn't do well, given reputation of the a-series. the new, lower MSRP is a nice touch as well; hopefully the price will drop even lower. you'll also love the rotating lcd (i still have the a80, it came before the a95).

your main purpose for the camera is for taking pictures of kids or baby right? i wouldn't spend beyond $300 for a point and shoot to take pics indoors or of moving subjects. btw, if your subject is kids/baby, do have a camcorder or considered one? i always say that one can't replace the other. some things just can't be recorded in a still image and vice versa.

rallison
09-22-2005, 09:34 AM
ReF
I do have a Sony digital camcorder. That's one of the reasons I haven't made too big a deal over the movie capabilities of some of the cameras, particularly the A510 which was rated poorly in that regard. Thanks for thinking about it.

Yes, you're right, the main purpose behind the camera is for pictures of my toddlers which can be outside at the zoo or inside playing with dolls (they're both girls). From time to time I may use it in a convention hall for business functions but rarely.

I met a guy on a train the other day who had the A75 and he and his wife just absolutely loved it! They said the pics they printed were fabulous and were quite satisfied with the 3.2 MP; looked just like a film photo. So that's encouraging.

The other camera, which I think they're discontinuing, that I liked was the Olympus 765 UZ. I thought I'd enjoy taking pictures of some of the animals at the zoo for my girls to look at as well as the rabbits and birds in our yard. With the 765 going away, if I can find one, I might get a great deal on it, don't you think?

RAllison

rallison
10-03-2005, 08:59 AM
I just wanted to say thanks to the folks that gave me input on my first digital camera purchase. I ended up getting the Canon A520. The image quality was rated as excellent at every site I visited and since most of my pictures would be during the day and outside of my kids, a low-light performer (where the 520 has a little difficulty) wasn't as important.

Interesting note: I went into the photo shop to actually get the A510 and as luck would have it, they were out of the 510 and the 520 was selling for the same price. This enabled me to get a a camera, memory card and rechargables for the normal retail of the A520 alone. The place I bought it from also included a full version of Photo Finale (don't know anything about it), a 2 hour photo class and a year of free digital prints! :D

While I toyed with the idea of a long zoom, at the end of the day, I felt that since this was my first digital camera I'd better stick with something simple and low-cost until i knew how I was going to use it. I can always give this one to my wife and pick up a more powerful camera if I take to photography more.

Anyway, thanks again for the advice!

RAllison

Norm in Fujino
10-03-2005, 10:20 AM
I just wanted to say thanks to the folks that gave me input on my first digital camera purchase. I ended up getting the Canon A520.

Congratulations--now lets see some photos! :)

rallison
10-03-2005, 07:19 PM
I'll be taking pictures like mad for the next couple weeks just learning the camera but as I get some good ones I'll post 'em.

Tried a few macro shots and a couple in the different scene modes but I'm still reading the manual. As I'm finding out, this little camera has a lot of manual controls that can dramatically affect any given photo so for a newbie like me, I've got a long way to go! :eek:

Which forum is the best to post those?

RAllison

ReF
10-11-2005, 04:30 AM
congrats. photos go in the gallery and questions on settings/techniques can go in this tips and techniques thread.

rallison
10-21-2005, 11:30 AM
Have been trying to post a couple photos in the gallery but I can't figure out how to do it. It keeps telling me that the image is too big but others in the gallery are twice the size of mine. Any tips? What's the easiest way to do it? :confused:

RAllison

John_Reed
10-21-2005, 03:16 PM
Have been trying to post a couple photos in the gallery but I can't figure out how to do it. It keeps telling me that the image is too big but others in the gallery are twice the size of mine. Any tips? What's the easiest way to do it? :confused:

RAllisonThat's if you post your photo here directly. But if you use a 3rd-party hosting site like http://www.smugmug.com as one example, you can upload your full-size photo to that site, where it gets its own URL. You can then paste that URL here or elsewhere to show a photo at any size you want, keeping in mind that many viewers are dialup customers, so it's something to be done in moderation.

ReF
10-23-2005, 03:41 AM
Have been trying to post a couple photos in the gallery but I can't figure out how to do it. It keeps telling me that the image is too big but others in the gallery are twice the size of mine. Any tips? What's the easiest way to do it? :confused:

RAllison

without a hosting service you'll just have to resize and compress the file. i believe there is something like a 113kb file size limit on this site. there are many free photo programs out there that let you do this. the only one i know of is irfanview (google it) since i have photoshop and don't see the need to try out the other free programs. your image ratio is different than mine, but on photoshop i resize to 600 x 400 pixels or less, and usually compress at quality level 9 (out of 12) in a JPEG format. other programs have different compression ratings, but i just listed that as a rough guide.

rallison
10-24-2005, 11:08 AM
Thanks, guys. I'll look at both avenues. Have a great week!

RAllison

TUFFYCHICK08
02-19-2006, 02:12 PM
HI. I need some help real quick. What do I do if I have Kodak Easyshare c330 model digital camera and when I turn it on it says lens error:14? I have tryed taking the batteries out and putting new ones in but what can i do because that didn't work?HELP!!:confused:

sridharao
02-28-2006, 05:12 AM
I too ended up with same problem. I tried to figure out the problem in the Kodak website but could not find anything. I then looked for answers in the web and i found the answer in this forum itself. I guess that the problem is because the lens tried to open up but something prevented it. For more details check this url: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8228.

I feel that the camera needs to be serviced or repaired by authorised personnel.