[inane5]

Anyone got a 5 megapixel camera? Can you post a picture taken in 5 megapixels (or link it) so I can see if getting 5 MPix is worth it? Give me a good one that really tests the quality

-inane5

[hewee]

Look here http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM?view=res

[slipe]

Here are a couple of pages of sample 5Mp photos:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...0_samples.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...1_samples.html

You need to view them at 100%. According to your screen resolution you won’t be able to tell the difference between a 2Mp or even 1.3Mp image and a 5Mp one if you let IE resize it to fit the screen. Tools>Internet Options>Advanced and under Multimedia remove the check from “Enable Automatic Image Resizing”. You are wasting your time if you don’t do that.

The extra pixels are useful for printing – especially if you crop the image a lot. I have two 5Mp cameras and a 4Mp. I have a wide format photo printer and if I don’t crop the image at all the best 13 X 19 I can get from a 5Mp image is 135 PPI, which isn’t as good as a higher pixel image would be. So 5Mp isn’t really good enough for my needs. If you are sure you would never print larger than 4 X 6 then 5Mp would be a waste of money and memory space.

A 3Mp image displayed on screen is going to look just as good as a 5Mp, even with some cropping. Some cameras are better than others. There are issues like noise, chromatic aberration, lens distortions etc that make one image better than another independent of the number of pixels.

[Moby]

I'm in complete agreeance with Slipe. I think the true test of what the difference looks like, or a difference that you can actually plainly see, would be to print out an A4 size for example, pic taken at 5mp and compare it to one taken at 2 or 3mp which you could do from the same camera. I think the differences in sharpness or crystal clarity are the things that would jump out at you. I have a 4mp camera and have experimented myself. While the differing results on screen are unremarkable (adequately passable may be a better way of describing it) the differences in print must be seen to be fully appreciated.

[Alex Ethridge]

Well, I guess it's already been said; but, I'll support others' statements. You cannot see the difference on a computer mnonitor between a 300K picture and a 5 Meg picture.

You gotta' print it to tell the difference.

If your end product is for web use, a 300k camera will give you all the quality you can see on a web page.

If your final product is for viewing on a computer monitor in your home, 640x480 will do fine.

It is when you get into the printing of the pictures that the number of pixels begins to shine. I have a friend who is what I think the best wedding photographer in my city (of about 2 Million). He went entirely digital about two years ago and he shoots with the Fuji S2, a six-megapixel camera.

Personally, I use a 3-Meg camera, the Fuji S602z, and on very close examination, I can see the difference between his 8x10 prints and mine; but, I am satisfied enough with mine that I'm not considering trading it in for quite a while.

If you really want to do a comparison on how much difference more and fewer pixels makes, it has to be a direct comparison to be accurate--same subject, same camera, same distance, same lighting, same shutter speed, same aperture, tripod (for steadiness), different resolutions.

I used to shoot pictures of full sheets of newspapers to test my lenses. And to eliminate possible differences in accuracy of focus in processing and differences in photo printing papers, I shot with Kodachrome 25 slide film and projected them on a smooth wall for comparisons.

The point is that any meaningful comparison has to be done scientifically with a procedure that can be duplicated. Just asking to see someone's 5-Meg picture won't give you what you need. (How do you know the person who made it didn't have goo on his lens, or the jitters.) You have to see a group of photos and you have to know they were all made under identical conditions, with only the resolutions being different.

[Davebomb]

You can zoom in on a picture with Windows XP picture viewer, Photoshop, or Paintshop Pro and surely others. Keep track of the resolution of the different pics and zoom equally to compare them. It's kind of sloppy, but that method has worked for me. When a pic is viewed at larger than 100% I don't believe there is distortion in any program. Scaling in factors of two seems to prevent distortion in Photoshop, and probably other apps. 25%, 50%, 100%...

[inane5]

wow. thanks slipe. the sony p10 is actually one of the things I've got my eyes on... no wait, the p92. I think I've ruled out the p10 since it's almost exactly the same as the p92 but 100 bucks more. I think it's going to come down to the p72 or the p92.

-inane5