What could I benefit from a 4 vs. a 2 mega pixel camera? Does it only deal with resolution? or is the image itself. Please do not flame... for I am new to this hobbie. I hear some 2mp are better then some 4mp's could this be true? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, any links for beginners on how to take good pictures.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
4mega pixel vs. 2mega pixel
- Thread starter cbags
- Start date
Larry Mendenhall
Well-known member
it all depends on the size of the print you're making or your end use of the picture. If I wanted a camera just to do 4x6 snapshots or to post on the web, I'd probably opt for the 2 megapixel and save a bunch of money.
However, if you want nice looking prints 8x10 or larger, go for the pixels. Enlarging a photo from a 2 megapixel camera to 8x10 or larger is likely to lead to unsatisfactory response.
--
Larrym
Robert Scoble
Leading Member
This answer is right on the money.
If you never will make prints bigger than 5x7 then a 2MP camera is awesome.
If you'll want to make prints of 8x10 or larger then a 4MP or more is far better (or if you want to crop the image on a smaller print size).
More pixels is better. I have yet to see a camera that breaks that rule.
Keep in mind, more pixels is more expensive. With a 2MP camera you can get away with having only a 64MB card for most things. With a 4 or 5MP camera you'll need 128MB storage cards, or more.
Plus the images take more space on your computer's hard drive, etc.
I have the 2.1MP Kodak LS420 and I came make AMAZING 8 by 10 prints at 2400DPI. I have to admit that if I turn of my printers resolution enhancement I can see pixels but they are VERY hard to see and are only noticeable in slightly oblique lines. But if I enable my printer's resolution enhancement which increases the actual images resolution before printing than it looks perfect! I even took a low quality (0.5MP photo) and printed it on 8 by 10 with resolution enhancement enabled and it looked great but not as sharp as 2.1MP. I think most printers today have resolution enhancement before printing, at least HP's do.
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
I am happy that you are "happy" with your 2meg 8X10's. Please believe that I am not here to argue that.
BUT; also believe that you are NOT INCREASING "RESOLUTION"; and if they call it "Resolution Enhancement" ... they are LYING; (or at least being deceptive).
All they are doing is further "interpolation" to get a greater "pixel-count" ... but it is still working with the original image resolution ... and while it may be indeed creating some new data pixels, and those new pixels may indeed be "correct" .. they can also JUST AS EASILY BE WRONG. The fact is that "interpolation" introduces just as many "errors" as it makes correct "guesses".
Now ... don't get me wrong ... I LOVE INTERPOLATION ... it is a wonderful thing; and does enable us to make enlargements as BIG AS WE WANT ... (even beyond Posters to BILLBOARD size). And this is something we could not do with film; as grain was finite and it was impossible to "hide" in an enlargement.
I also agree that a loss-of-resolution is often impossible to see, (since you sometimes can't see what you are "missing").
So this explains why you can very well be extremely happy and satisfied with an "interpolated" image.
But I just wanted to point out that is was dillusionable ... and there is never any "real" substitute for a higher initial pixel count ... as far as ACCURATE-RESOLUTION is concerned.
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
Roddy Callums
Well-known member
Yes, some will tell you that there are huge differences in a 2 vs 4 megapixel output in 8X10 pints. Actually, I think not. Sure there will be some who claim to see the difference, and they even might. But I'll tell you this: I have run tests on people with both, and guess what: some of these folks actually could NOT pick the 4 vs the 2 on a 8X10. Reminds me of the arguments I'd have with some of my friends who are hi-fi afficionados: often they could not tell the difference between a $200 amp and a $8000 in real-life tests, never mind the claims. So, YMMV. Yes, some differences are there, but it is not huge on an 8X10. One thing though is quite legitimate - if you want to do any significant cropping - you'll quickly see a difference if the source is 2 mp or 4mp.
Btw. it is not true that overall a higher-pixel camera is always better than a lower-pixel one. There are many things that go into a camera other than pixels. In fact, that is not even true of image quality. That way, for example, many will say that the 4mp G2 is a better camera and gets better images than some 5mp cameras out there. Again, YMMV.
If you are just starting out, and just want a learning/training camera you plan on outgrowing in time, and money is an issue, I think you can do quite well with a 2mp camera, and Canon makes several v. good ones. So, don't feel pressured into buying a 4mp when you are just starting out, and you want to save some bucks. The time will come when you'll need to go to 4mp, but you don't have to start out the gate with one. Just IMHO.
Roddy
Btw. it is not true that overall a higher-pixel camera is always better than a lower-pixel one. There are many things that go into a camera other than pixels. In fact, that is not even true of image quality. That way, for example, many will say that the 4mp G2 is a better camera and gets better images than some 5mp cameras out there. Again, YMMV.
If you are just starting out, and just want a learning/training camera you plan on outgrowing in time, and money is an issue, I think you can do quite well with a 2mp camera, and Canon makes several v. good ones. So, don't feel pressured into buying a 4mp when you are just starting out, and you want to save some bucks. The time will come when you'll need to go to 4mp, but you don't have to start out the gate with one. Just IMHO.
Roddy
Peter B.
Leading Member
Another big issue that has been left out thus far is zoom and a good lens. If you plan on doing a lot of nature photography one of the most important thing is going to be the optical zoom of the camera. In many cases my 2.1mp Olympus C2100 UZI with 10x optical zoom can get a better picture than a 4mp 3x optical zoom camera if you are shooting far away.
With a bigger zoom you can crop in camera by zooming. Just another piece of the puzzle.
Peter
--
C2100 UZI
http://www.pbase.com/optionguru
pbase supporter
'Wherever you go, there you are.' Buckaroo Banzai
With a bigger zoom you can crop in camera by zooming. Just another piece of the puzzle.
Peter
--
C2100 UZI
http://www.pbase.com/optionguru
pbase supporter
'Wherever you go, there you are.' Buckaroo Banzai
RoadKingMoe
Forum Enthusiast
A 2 megapixel (1600 X 1200) can give a 8" X 10" print at 150 dpi.
A 4 megapixel (2272 X 1704) can give a 11" X 14" print at 150 dpi,
and 8" X 10" prints at at least 200 dpi.
The maximum resolution of normal human vision is 1/60th of a degree (a minute of angle). This works out to about 300 dpi viewed from one foot away, or 150 dpi viewed from 2 feet away, where most 8" X 10" and larger prints are normally viewed framed on a wall or desk. That's probably the main reason most people can't see the difference between a 2 and 4 MP shot. A photo hobbyist scrutinizing 8" X 10"s in an album from one foot away may certainly see a difference, but beyond 18" it would take exceptional vision to do so.
If you print 3:4 4" X 5.3" prints 4-up on an 8.5" X 11" paper, from a 2 MP, that's 300 dpi, but if you crop it for 2:3 to get 3-up 4" X 6" you're down to 267 dpi... calling for a bit more than a foot of viewing distance.
A 4 megapixel (2272 X 1704) can give a 11" X 14" print at 150 dpi,
and 8" X 10" prints at at least 200 dpi.
The maximum resolution of normal human vision is 1/60th of a degree (a minute of angle). This works out to about 300 dpi viewed from one foot away, or 150 dpi viewed from 2 feet away, where most 8" X 10" and larger prints are normally viewed framed on a wall or desk. That's probably the main reason most people can't see the difference between a 2 and 4 MP shot. A photo hobbyist scrutinizing 8" X 10"s in an album from one foot away may certainly see a difference, but beyond 18" it would take exceptional vision to do so.
If you print 3:4 4" X 5.3" prints 4-up on an 8.5" X 11" paper, from a 2 MP, that's 300 dpi, but if you crop it for 2:3 to get 3-up 4" X 6" you're down to 267 dpi... calling for a bit more than a foot of viewing distance.
Damien*
Well-known member
So now that you've settled on 2MP, figure out how much control you want and how much energy you want to put into learning/exploiting hardware capabilities. If you want something easy (point/shoot), consider Fuji 2800, which gives you a nice "reach" with 6x lens. If you want something "more," you'll have to shop. But I recommend something with some reach. Other comments prior to this suggest that long reach is nice. That is certainly something I find myself yearning for.
Saw a fellow today using an Oly C700 who was happy as a clam with it. Several fellows (here) rave about their 2100UZi's and are also due some consideration...if you can still find them.
Okay, maybe you're not settled. Figure out exactly what you'll do with the images (if you don't print them, don't buy pixels), figure out what you want in a camera, check your budget, and go shopping. Pay close attention to included peripherals (memory, AC adapter, charger, etc.), as this will add up quickly.
Damien*
Epson 3100Z
Saw a fellow today using an Oly C700 who was happy as a clam with it. Several fellows (here) rave about their 2100UZi's and are also due some consideration...if you can still find them.
Okay, maybe you're not settled. Figure out exactly what you'll do with the images (if you don't print them, don't buy pixels), figure out what you want in a camera, check your budget, and go shopping. Pay close attention to included peripherals (memory, AC adapter, charger, etc.), as this will add up quickly.
Damien*
Epson 3100Z
Lucio Cicuto
Forum Enthusiast
--
As previously stated, it all depends what you want do with the pictures. In general 4mp cameras are a little more expensive but usually give you more features and better lenses. (I said generally! Yes there are exceptions).
I went from a 3mp to a 5mp primarily to have the extra cropping capability. I can severely crop a shot and still have enough pixels left to print good 8x10's. I use my camera to shoot everything from stationary macro subjects to sports. Usually don't have to much time to set up tripod etc. Kids and pets don't stand still for too long. With a 4mp you can capture the moment and later crop the picture before printing.
Go for the 4!
Lucio Cicuto
John Ellis
Senior Member
Let me put my 2-cents in. Apparently, something besides pixel count is going on. I printed out the full file on the upcoming Fuji 401 at 8x10 from the web and it is incredible for the 2 megs cameras I am used to, such as my Oly 2500. And my new Minolta D7i takes rapid exposures at something like 11 frames a second but at one megapixel. I feared these would be of questionable use, but again, I am just amazed at how good they are even at 8x10, compared to my earlier one meg DC-10 Kodak of just two years ago. For all conceivable purposes, the 2 meg setting on fine is all I could ask for. And also, the 5 megs take far longer to download via USB. The software algorithms must me getting better all the time. I just ordered a Logitech pocket camera. It is advertised right on Logitech's web site as 1.3 megs, and some sample px look pretty fair. But then somebody tells me that it is actually only a 0.3 meg CCD. Now this is really stretching it, and compared to Fuji and their origiinal criticism of their "file sizes," Fuji is to be actually commmended for being so conservative. All of also tend to forget that when we take rolls of film to get it developed, they usually give us 4X6 prints, and we were pretty well satisfied with that size until now.
L
Lin Evans
Guest
Lots of good information on this thread - some of it a bit incomplete and some a bit misleading, but I think it's possible to sort it out:
All things being equal (they often are not) more resolution is better than less resolution. What needs to be considered is how much resolution is required to properly define the boundaries of fine detail in the capture.
Sometimes that can be done very well with a 1.5 megapixel sensor, and sometimes 6 megapixels is insufficient. If the boundaries of fine detail are properly defined with a 1.5 megapixel capture, noise levels are low, dynamic range is sufficient and colors are proper, then poster sized prints may easily be made with good interpolation software.
If fine detail is so small or distant that even a six megapixel capture doesn't properly define it, and this detail is necessary, then enlarging to the point of revealing the flaw will prove unsatisfactory.
How about some common examples: Let's look at a head an shoulders portrait. Do we "need" high resolution capture to get a satisfactory 8x10 print? Usually, a two megapixel capture is more than sufficient to get a beautiful 8x10 when the subject is this large and the available pixels are vested in a reasonably small area of "geography". There are a couple reasons why this is so. First, portraits are intentionally made somewhat "soft" to enhance the natural beauty and hide flaws. Do we "really" want to see enlarged pores, tiny blackheads, whiteheads, etc? Second, features which actually "count," such as eyes, noses, etc., are defined by sufficient capture pixels that interpolation algorithms can do their jobs and not make "mistakes." So the end result is a pleasing enlargement which doesn't over emphasize flaws and properly defines important features such as eyes, noses, lips and even hair.
Now let's look at the polar opposite: How about a detailed landscape where the foreground consists of several hundred feet of beautiful trees with multi-color leaves turning to Fall shades and the background is rugged mountains with myriad rocks, maybe a bird or two in the sky, etc. What would happen if we were to capture this scene with a two megapixel sensor and enlarge the print. There would not be sufficient pixels alloted to the tiny geography in which leaves of distant trees were painted. The birds in the sky might consist of only a few (half dozen) "marker" pixels, etc. From a distance or in a small print, the human brain would do its own interpolation and we would be quite happy to "know" that those few marker pixels were "leaves" or "birds." But if we enlarge this to poster size, our brains will no longer be "fooled" as they are in oil or watercolor paintings. The interpolation algorithm will instantly reveal that these little "dots" in the sky are just that, dots. Not birds, which we want to believe, but a nice faithfull reproduction of "marker pixels" so that we are ultimately dissatisfied with the print.
Could a six megapixel capture suffice in this case? Maybe - and maybe it would take a large format film to do it, or we would have to view the poster sized print from a greater distance to again allow our brains to work as they have been "trained" to do.
Lower resolution captures are often "better" than higher resolution captures because "all things are not equal". We must choose the appropriate tool for the job. I frequently get much better prints from my 3 megapixel EOS-D30 than I do from my 5 megapixel DSC-F707. Why? Because the D30 makes much "cleaner" captures with near zero noise. Are they always "better" than the 5 megapixel Sony captures? Absolutely not! If I were shooting equipment or books or something with super fine detail and enlarging it greatly, the resolution deficit would immediately be apparent with the D30 capture and the F707 capture would be superior.
The bottom line is that when all other factors are equal, more resolution is generally better. On the other hand, this is rarely the case so no definitive answer can be given except on a case by case basis.
Lin
http://204.42.233.244
All things being equal (they often are not) more resolution is better than less resolution. What needs to be considered is how much resolution is required to properly define the boundaries of fine detail in the capture.
Sometimes that can be done very well with a 1.5 megapixel sensor, and sometimes 6 megapixels is insufficient. If the boundaries of fine detail are properly defined with a 1.5 megapixel capture, noise levels are low, dynamic range is sufficient and colors are proper, then poster sized prints may easily be made with good interpolation software.
If fine detail is so small or distant that even a six megapixel capture doesn't properly define it, and this detail is necessary, then enlarging to the point of revealing the flaw will prove unsatisfactory.
How about some common examples: Let's look at a head an shoulders portrait. Do we "need" high resolution capture to get a satisfactory 8x10 print? Usually, a two megapixel capture is more than sufficient to get a beautiful 8x10 when the subject is this large and the available pixels are vested in a reasonably small area of "geography". There are a couple reasons why this is so. First, portraits are intentionally made somewhat "soft" to enhance the natural beauty and hide flaws. Do we "really" want to see enlarged pores, tiny blackheads, whiteheads, etc? Second, features which actually "count," such as eyes, noses, etc., are defined by sufficient capture pixels that interpolation algorithms can do their jobs and not make "mistakes." So the end result is a pleasing enlargement which doesn't over emphasize flaws and properly defines important features such as eyes, noses, lips and even hair.
Now let's look at the polar opposite: How about a detailed landscape where the foreground consists of several hundred feet of beautiful trees with multi-color leaves turning to Fall shades and the background is rugged mountains with myriad rocks, maybe a bird or two in the sky, etc. What would happen if we were to capture this scene with a two megapixel sensor and enlarge the print. There would not be sufficient pixels alloted to the tiny geography in which leaves of distant trees were painted. The birds in the sky might consist of only a few (half dozen) "marker" pixels, etc. From a distance or in a small print, the human brain would do its own interpolation and we would be quite happy to "know" that those few marker pixels were "leaves" or "birds." But if we enlarge this to poster size, our brains will no longer be "fooled" as they are in oil or watercolor paintings. The interpolation algorithm will instantly reveal that these little "dots" in the sky are just that, dots. Not birds, which we want to believe, but a nice faithfull reproduction of "marker pixels" so that we are ultimately dissatisfied with the print.
Could a six megapixel capture suffice in this case? Maybe - and maybe it would take a large format film to do it, or we would have to view the poster sized print from a greater distance to again allow our brains to work as they have been "trained" to do.
Lower resolution captures are often "better" than higher resolution captures because "all things are not equal". We must choose the appropriate tool for the job. I frequently get much better prints from my 3 megapixel EOS-D30 than I do from my 5 megapixel DSC-F707. Why? Because the D30 makes much "cleaner" captures with near zero noise. Are they always "better" than the 5 megapixel Sony captures? Absolutely not! If I were shooting equipment or books or something with super fine detail and enlarging it greatly, the resolution deficit would immediately be apparent with the D30 capture and the F707 capture would be superior.
The bottom line is that when all other factors are equal, more resolution is generally better. On the other hand, this is rarely the case so no definitive answer can be given except on a case by case basis.
Lin
http://204.42.233.244
Peter B.
Leading Member
WOW. Now that's an answer. That was very informative. Thanks
--
C2100 UZI
http://www.pbase.com/optionguru
pbase supporter
'Wherever you go, there you are.' Buckaroo Banzai
--
C2100 UZI
http://www.pbase.com/optionguru
pbase supporter
'Wherever you go, there you are.' Buckaroo Banzai
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum