How important is resolution?

[tom]

I need a camera for ebay auction postings. Has to be able to do extreme close-ups of sculpture and the like. Considering the Mavica fd91 and the Nikon 950. Both seem to have macro capabilities. I like the Mavica's use of floppies, but it has a much lower resolution (and pixel...). For the type of use I intend, how important is the resolution? Any other comments about Nikon vs. Mavica would be appreciated. Thanks. Tom

 

[luc chevaillier]

there is no match here: 2cm close-ups, 2mega pixels, nikkor lens, cf card,...
make your choice

I need a camera for ebay auction postings. Has to be able to do extreme
close-ups of sculpture and the like. Considering the Mavica fd91 and the
Nikon 950. Both seem to have macro capabilities. I like the Mavica's
use of floppies, but it has a much lower resolution (and pixel...). For
the type of use I intend, how important is the resolution? Any other
comments about Nikon vs. Mavica would be appreciated. Thanks. Tom

 

[tom]

I need a camera for ebay auction postings. Has to be able to do extreme
close-ups of sculpture and the like. Considering the Mavica fd91 and the
Nikon 950. Both seem to have macro capabilities. I like the Mavica's
use of floppies, but it has a much lower resolution (and pixel...). For
the type of use I intend, how important is the resolution? Any other
comments about Nikon vs. Mavica would be appreciated. Thanks. Tom

 

[tom]

there is no match here: 2cm close-ups, 2mega pixels, nikkor lens, cf
card,...
make your choice

That's the point... I don't know enough to make a choice. Is resolution an issue on the web or only in printing? How do you hook up a Nikon to the computer (or Brother MFC 7000? Tom

I need a camera for ebay auction postings. Has to be able to do extreme
close-ups of sculpture and the like. Considering the Mavica fd91 and the
Nikon 950. Both seem to have macro capabilities. I like the Mavica's
use of floppies, but it has a much lower resolution (and pixel...). For
the type of use I intend, how important is the resolution? Any other
comments about Nikon vs. Mavica would be appreciated. Thanks. Tom

 

[susan]

Don't worry about it. Hooking it up to your computer easy. I bought the nikon 950, [I am a novice also] thats the one you want because it uses the technology that will last.

there is no match here: 2cm close-ups, 2mega pixels, nikkor lens, cf
card,...
make your choice

That's the point... I don't know enough to make a choice. Is resolution
an issue on the web or only in printing? How do you hook up a Nikon to
the computer (or Brother MFC 7000? Tom

I need a camera for ebay auction postings. Has to be able to do extreme
close-ups of sculpture and the like. Considering the Mavica fd91 and the
Nikon 950. Both seem to have macro capabilities. I like the Mavica's
use of floppies, but it has a much lower resolution (and pixel...). For
the type of use I intend, how important is the resolution? Any other
comments about Nikon vs. Mavica would be appreciated. Thanks. Tom

 

[luc chevaillier]

there is no match here: 2cm close-ups, 2mega pixels, nikkor lens, cf
card,...
make your choice

That's the point... I don't know enough to make a choice. Is resolution
an issue on the web or only in printing? How do you hook up a Nikon to
the computer (or Brother MFC 7000? Tom

the resolution is an issue only on prints not on the web. You hook up the nikon thru serial port. You can also purchase a small CF reader for reading cards at a faster rate.

I need a camera for ebay auction postings. Has to be able to do extreme
close-ups of sculpture and the like. Considering the Mavica fd91 and the
Nikon 950. Both seem to have macro capabilities. I like the Mavica's
use of floppies, but it has a much lower resolution (and pixel...). For
the type of use I intend, how important is the resolution? Any other
comments about Nikon vs. Mavica would be appreciated. Thanks. Tom

 

[tom]

there is no match here: 2cm close-ups, 2mega pixels, nikkor lens, cf
card,...
make your choice

That's the point... I don't know enough to make a choice. Is resolution
an issue on the web or only in printing? How do you hook up a Nikon to
the computer (or Brother MFC 7000? Tom

the resolution is an issue only on prints not on the web. You hook up
the nikon thru serial port. You can also purchase a small CF reader for
reading cards at a faster rate.

does this mean I would notice absolutely no quality difference between the 900s and the 950 if I am using it to post to the web?

I need a camera for ebay auction postings. Has to be able to do extreme
close-ups of sculpture and the like. Considering the Mavica fd91 and the
Nikon 950. Both seem to have macro capabilities. I like the Mavica's
use of floppies, but it has a much lower resolution (and pixel...). For
the type of use I intend, how important is the resolution? Any other
comments about Nikon vs. Mavica would be appreciated. Thanks. Tom

 

[Phil Askey]

the resolution is an issue only on prints not on the web. You hook up
the nikon thru serial port. You can also purchase a small CF reader for
reading cards at a faster rate.

You know, I read this day after day from so many people and I have to strongly disagree.. Most people out there are using (at least) 800x600, a good majority are using (1024x768) and higher.. If I want to publish a photograph I've taken I want to publish it at AT LEAST 768x512, at which resolution a "reduced" megapixel image will look a hundred times better than a plain image at the same resolution.

768 x 512 (straight out of the camera)

or

1536 x 1024 2 = 768 x 512 (twice as much detail)

 

[tom]

the resolution is an issue only on prints not on the web. You hook up
the nikon thru serial port. You can also purchase a small CF reader for
reading cards at a faster rate.

You know, I read this day after day from so many people and I have to
strongly disagree.. Most people out there are using (at least) 800x600, a
good majority are using (1024x768) and higher.. If I want to publish a
photograph I've taken I want to publish it at AT LEAST 768x512, at which
resolution a "reduced" megapixel image will look a hundred times better
than a plain image at the same resolution.

768 x 512 (straight out of the camera)

or

1536 x 1024 2 = 768 x 512 (twice as much detail)

So this would mean that the 700 or 950 will show more details, even on a web image, than the 900s. And there would be a recognizable difference to a sensitive eye. Am I correct? Thanks

 

[Phil Askey]

1536 x 1024 2 = 768 x 512 (twice as much detail)

So this would mean that the 700 or 950 will show more details, even on a
web image, than the 900s. And there would be a recognizable difference
to a sensitive eye. Am I correct? Thanks

Ah, now the difference between (say) the 900s (1280x960) and the 950 (1600x1200) is much less than the difference between a VGA (which is how this thread started) and a megapixel camera.

1280 x 960 = 1.2 million pix
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 million pix

For each horizontal pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.
For each vertical pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.

Therefore the 950 has 25% more resolution than the the 900s...

However it has 56% more resolution than a VGA camera...

And only 4% horizontally more and 17% vertically more than a Pro70.

 

[tom]

1536 x 1024 2 = 768 x 512 (twice as much detail)

So this would mean that the 700 or 950 will show more details, even on a
web image, than the 900s. And there would be a recognizable difference
to a sensitive eye. Am I correct? Thanks

Ah, now the difference between (say) the 900s (1280x960) and the 950
(1600x1200) is much less than the difference between a VGA (which is how
this thread started) and a megapixel camera.

1280 x 960 = 1.2 million pix
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 million pix

For each horizontal pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.
For each vertical pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.

Therefore the 950 has 25% more resolution than the the 900s...

However it has 56% more resolution than a VGA camera...

And only 4% horizontally more and 17% vertically more than a Pro70.

If we took the macro photos in the gallery, taken with the 900s and placed them on the same screen as an identical picture taken with the 950, would we see a difference?

 

[Phil Askey]

If we took the macro photos in the gallery, taken with the 900s and
placed them on the same screen as an identical picture taken with the
950, would we see a difference?

That's precisely the test I want to do, the "quality" of the image is about alot more than just pixels.. I'll include that in my review.

 

[tom]

If we took the macro photos in the gallery, taken with the 900s and
placed them on the same screen as an identical picture taken with the
950, would we see a difference?

That's precisely the test I want to do, the "quality" of the image is
about alot more than just pixels.. I'll include that in my review.

I just did a bit of a test and am beginning to see that it is not so easy to compare cameras. I like your "mixed" galleries, because it affords a person in the market to look at pictures without knowing which camera was used. I seemed to like the Nikon more for the cats and the Cannon for the portraits. I think a mixed gallery with different cameras would be of great use to those of us looking for a market.

This whole forum has helped me. I now am leaning towards waiting for the 950 though I may bid on a used 900s on ebay. I may have more questions later, but, in any case, thanks for all the comments. tom

 

[John Burns]

Ahh Phil. I know you don't like Sony cameras. I have no problem with that at all but PLEASE make sure you are giving accurate info. Some people see you as an expert. The Sony FD-91 is not a VGA camera. The resolution is 1024x768 NOT 640x480. Therefore there is not nearly a 56% difference in resolution between it and the cameras you mentioned.

1536 x 1024 2 = 768 x 512 (twice as much detail)

So this would mean that the 700 or 950 will show more details, even on a
web image, than the 900s. And there would be a recognizable difference
to a sensitive eye. Am I correct? Thanks

Ah, now the difference between (say) the 900s (1280x960) and the 950
(1600x1200) is much less than the difference between a VGA (which is how
this thread started) and a megapixel camera.

1280 x 960 = 1.2 million pix
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 million pix

For each horizontal pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.
For each vertical pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.

Therefore the 950 has 25% more resolution than the the 900s...

However it has 56% more resolution than a VGA camera...

And only 4% horizontally more and 17% vertically more than a Pro70.

 

[luc chevaillier]

sorry, but revise your maths:
1280*960 =1.56 (1024*768)
Phil is right...and floppy storage are lousy

1536 x 1024 2 = 768 x 512 (twice as much detail)

So this would mean that the 700 or 950 will show more details, even on a
web image, than the 900s. And there would be a recognizable difference
to a sensitive eye. Am I correct? Thanks

Ah, now the difference between (say) the 900s (1280x960) and the 950
(1600x1200) is much less than the difference between a VGA (which is how
this thread started) and a megapixel camera.

1280 x 960 = 1.2 million pix
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 million pix

For each horizontal pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.
For each vertical pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.

Therefore the 950 has 25% more resolution than the the 900s...

However it has 56% more resolution than a VGA camera...

And only 4% horizontally more and 17% vertically more than a Pro70.

 

[Phil Askey]

John, Ummm I'm sorry too but I didn't MENTION Sony, FD-91 or any other cameras in that posting other than the Pro70, 900s and 950... There are plenty of VGA cameras around... you shouldn't be so paranoid that I'm hacking away at Sony

1280 x 960 = 1.2 million pix
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 million pix

For each horizontal pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.
For each vertical pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.

Therefore the 950 has 25% more resolution than the the 900s...

However it has 56% more resolution than a VGA camera...

And only 4% horizontally more and 17% vertically more than a Pro70.

 

[John Burns]

Phil...Ummmm I'm sorry again but in your messager you said:

"Ah, now the difference between (say) the 900s (1280x960) and the 950 (1600x1200) is much less than the difference between a VGA (which is how this thread started) and a megapixel camera".

Now since the first message in this thread asked for a comparison between the Nikon and the FD-91 it seems reasonable to assume you were answering the question asked. I don't see the term VGA in the first post in this thread.
Am I missing something?

John

1280 x 960 = 1.2 million pix
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 million pix

For each horizontal pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.
For each vertical pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.

Therefore the 950 has 25% more resolution than the the 900s...

However it has 56% more resolution than a VGA camera...

And only 4% horizontally more and 17% vertically more than a Pro70.

 

[John Burns]

Actually the math is correct. I stand corrected. It is Phil's definition of 1024x768 as VGA that I question. Everyone else in the world used 640x480.

By the way. I use a 260 with a 48 meg CF card but I know floppys meet the need of a lot of people. Different yes. Lousy? Not if they work for you.

1536 x 1024 2 = 768 x 512 (twice as much detail)

So this would mean that the 700 or 950 will show more details, even on a
web image, than the 900s. And there would be a recognizable difference
to a sensitive eye. Am I correct? Thanks

Ah, now the difference between (say) the 900s (1280x960) and the 950
(1600x1200) is much less than the difference between a VGA (which is how
this thread started) and a megapixel camera.

1280 x 960 = 1.2 million pix
1600 x 1200 = 1.9 million pix

For each horizontal pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.
For each vertical pixel of the 900s there are now 1.25 pixels in the 950.

Therefore the 950 has 25% more resolution than the the 900s...

However it has 56% more resolution than a VGA camera...

And only 4% horizontally more and 17% vertically more than a Pro70.