What's your megapixel w/ pic

[brendan]

I've noticed that a lot of people have been talking about the quality of digital pictures coming from the new era of digital cameras. As someone who is considering the acquision of a digital camera I thought that it might be helpfull to myself and everyone else in the same boat if we could start a thread showing the quality of pictures from cameras differing in Mexapixel level. This way those considering purchasing a camera will be able to get a better idea of what detail level they want and the associated cost.

 

[reefrunner69]

3.2 megapixel camera

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9902/99021805.asp

Mega pixel will more effect print size than anything anymore. It does not control the quality of the image, unless the larger resolution ccd gives better quality than the smaller. Mega-pixels also allow for easier cropping for web applications.

 

[WarOrks15]

omg the pic you get reerunner they are all so great. the color it is almost like i am looking at the fish/coral in person.

 

[jackdp]

This was taken on a 3.1 mp fuji cam.

Its not that great cuz its some of the first pics I took but I was impressed with level of detail...a big improvement over my old less than 1mp cam that cost like $400.

 

[brendan]

Thanks for the response. I'm surprised at the quality of 3.2. Does anyone have > 6 megapixel pictures?

 

[stresco]

I do, but they are huge. Here is a link of a pic that i took with an 8 mega cam.

http://www.myaquaria.com/gallery/ackman/OpenBrain016

 

[Hypostomus]

To contrast all these beautiful pictures, here's about the best you're going to get with the average digital camera (2.0 MP). Detail is okay only on larger subjects, and even then it gets grainy, as you can see here. :/

 

[jackdp]

I think that's a fine looking gourami pic...very nice pic, it also helps that he seems to be posing

 

[alrmc4]

if i did it right 5 mp

 

[shawmutt]

1.3 I think I need to upgrade or I'll never win the photo contest :|

 

[brendan]

My Dad was able to bring home his work's camera, it's a Olympus D-560. It's a vast improvement over my old 1mp but it's not the best. When I went to take a picture without the flash on things go really blurry. The Rainbow's without flash and the Ram's with.

 

[Verse914]

I have an 8MP Sony 828.

Sony 828 Pic...

And this was taken with my Sony 717 5MP...

Sorry for the large pics, but its the only way to show the true quality of a 5MP+ camera. I can change them to links if need be.

 

[reefrunner69]

I don't think it's necessary to change them to links

Awesome pics by the way. I still say, the number of [ixels determines the size of the photo more than anything, the quality of the ccd will determine how good the picture is. If you have the largest amount of photosites on the ccd, but the ccd quality is not the best, the larger picture will simply amplify the imperfections.

Brenden, the reason for the blur without the flash, is that the shutterspeed was slowed by the camera to allow enough light for a decent exposure. With fast fish, it is almost impossible to get away from using the flash

 

[brendan]

That makes sense. Although I've looked at some cameras and they bost characteristics as 1/2500 shutter speed, wouldn't this help with taking a picture of a fast fish without a flash?

 

[reefrunner69]

At 1/2500 shutterspeed the image will be very crisp and black if you don't use a flash. The shutter speed controls how long the shutter is open 1/2500 does not allow much time for light to reach the sensor.

 

[Verse914]

Its definitely not necessary for taking pics of fish I can take super crisp pics of my Tropheus (which are constantly moving at lightning speed ) with a shutter speed under 1/200s. I used to take pics of them with a 1/2000s shutter speed (with a flash), but found it was giving me a longer shutter lag, and wasnt necessary. I went down lower and lower and found that I can stop a fast fish in his tracks with 1/160s without any problems.

 

[reefrunner69]

Aaron, what aperture and what ISO are you using to stop fish at 1/160 sec without flash? Are you using any exposure compensation?

 

[Brad]

Resolution question...

This is silly. You aren't going to be able to see any difference between a 1MP and a 6MP by looking at nice pictures on this website. You'll see good photography and bad photography, but you're unlikely to be able to see the value of more pixels.

Check the resolution of the monitor that you are all viewing pictures with. I bet you'll find it has less than 2 million pixels in the entire screen area. That means if you are looking at any image that has more than 2 million pixels, you're not seeing all the detail that the image may have...especially if the image isn't using the full screen.

The proof is in the print.

By the time you're looking at the image on this site, it doesn't have the original number of pixels anyway. It's been compressed and lost information in order to be posted.

 

[Verse914]

Silly? Hardly.

Post up a 1MP pic at 1024x768 and one of a 8MP at the same size and youll notice a HUGE difference. We are limited to our screen resolution, but there is still a HUGE difference between a 1MP and 8MP shown here our monitors.

 

[reefrunner69]

Post up a 1MP pic at 1024x768 and one of a 8MP at the same size and youll notice a HUGE difference. We are limited to our screen resolution, but there is still a HUGE difference between a 1MP and 8MP shown here our monitors.

Hmm, don't have a 1 MP camera, but I got one that will take pics at 2 MP on up to 12 MP. If I'm not mistaken the resolution of a 1 MP camera will be 1024 X 768. Since there aren't too many 1MP cams floating around, I thought it might be more fair to do it from 2 MP up.

Each pic will get there own reply, starting on the next page.