Beyond Megapixels - Part III 231
TheTechLounge writes "Beyond Megapixels - Part I & Part II have both been posted here at Slashdot, and now it is my pleasure to bring to you Beyond Megapixels - Part III. This is the final part of this series of editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware. In this segment I will be focusing on function, filetypes, and features."
My camera (Score:1, Insightful)
I have a 2.0 megapixel camera. It was about 250 bucks when I purchased it.
It's an Olympus D-380 Digital Camera, it uses a (60?) meg flash memory card. Connects to the computer via USB to upload pics.
I've -never- seemed to need a new camera after this year of having owned it. Pictures are pretty clear, they're great for vacation, taking pictures of my latest case mod, pasting links of me almost naked on slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/18/1515
Or just about anything else.
What's this growing need of a huge megepixel camera?
What? Do you enjoy being able to clearly see an ant from taking a picture with your camera 12 feet above an ant mound?
I've advised several friends on digital camera... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not bad. Why not concentrate on F/OSS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:My camera (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:My camera (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, 2.0 is enough if all you're doing is posting the images online or archiving them for the heck of it, but when it comes to really putting them to work, whether it be printing just for at home framing or for professional work, you'll quickly see the need for those "hyped" high megapixels.
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't talk pixels, talk optics.
Re:Linux and RAW. (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean sloshing chemicals around in a closed tank? I didn't find that very interesting :-) Making prints was a different ballgame though.
If you want the ultimate B&W print, I don't think you can beat all-chemical process.
But making color prints was a real pain in the butt. I did prints from color negatives and Ilfochromes from slides, but most of the time I ran out of patience before getting everything just right. Sending the images over the net to a printing service, where they are printed straight onto photographic paper, and sent to me via the post, is so much easier and produces so good results that I don't want to go back to the color chemicals ever again.
--
Re:My camera (Score:3, Insightful)
And well, as some people say, higher resolutions can be useful when you want large prints of the pictures.
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:4, Insightful)
There are no good LCD viewfinders. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in the camera market, I was going for either the Digital Rebel or the gigantic Sony 8MP thing...and eventually settled on the rebel. (Okay, its was the EF Lens capability that won me over). I find that being able to make image adjustments is a lot easier when I'm looking at exactly what will be photographed, instead of some downsized representation. That, and I take good pictures from anywhere in the ballpark with an additional zoom lens.
Granted, this works because I bought my camera to be a camera...not some kind of camcorder...which is one feature most LCD viewfinder cameras offer.
You're well out-of-date (Score:3, Insightful)
Three MP, or something like 3.2, is now below $300, more like $250.
The mid-range models are now at four -- that's the current standard, more-or-less, for solid point-and-shooters.
Personally I know from experience that if you're going to want to make enlargements, you want something like four at least. Three will be okay, but there's some degradation of the image, especially if you're going up to 8x10. That's not a microscope, it's just a picture for your desk at work. A 2 MP camera is going to be painful at that size.
The C-3000 doesn't have interchangeable lenses... (Score:1, Insightful)
Who modded this +5 Informative for Christ's sake?
The guy doesn't know shit!
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot more to a lens than the F-stop . . . 2.8 is pretty darn good in a lot of the pro-lense market for SLR's. Getting larger aperatures than this often causes significant distortion in the lens . . . hence the super-expensive cost of the really fast lens, or in the case of a lot of consumer level digital cameras, crummy optics that result in a loss of sharpness . . . this is going the way of the megapixel wars . . . uninformed consumers think that larger aperature and bigger zoom = better camera . . . typically the truth is larger aperature and bigger zoom = crappier overall sharpness and more lens distortion . . . which amounts to crappy looking pictures.
Personally, I'll take my Nikon Coolpix 5000 with its slower lens (3.3) over just about any faster lens consumer digital camera any day . . . I know that the optics aren't perfect, I bought it 4 years ago, but even by today's standards, the optics are a lot better than most consumer digi-cams I've seen. And I'll take my Digital SLR over that . . . any day.
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:3, Insightful)
10x what? 28mm (equiv)? 35mm? 38?
That's quite a difference. And the wide angle is more important than the zoomfactor anyway, in 9 out of 10 cases.
Flash Capabilities (Score:3, Insightful)
So here's my question and one of my big selection criteria: What non-interchangeable lens digital cameras are available with highly integrated and powerful external flash systems? All the usual requirement of a good lens, etc., also apply. Anybody have any experience/knowledge to share?
Re:Megapixel (Score:2, Insightful)
2.0 megapixels may be fine for you, but if you want enlarged colour prints, good luck.
And that's not really the point of this (extremely brief) article anyhow - it's not the number of pixels you have so much as how you use them (or what physical size within the camear they happen to be).
Re:My camera (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically true, but misleading. Displays have 100dpi at 24 bits per "dot" (pixel) for a possibility of any of 16.7 million colors per pixel; printers have (approximately, since black is basically equivalent to adding the other colors other colors) 3 bits per dot (On or Off for Cyan, Magenta and Yellow) for a total of 8 possible colors per dot. This means that you have to use a matrix of at least eight dots to even attempt to replicate the same color space that a monitor can display with one dot. This is why antialiasing is so effective on monitors, because a monitor's resolution is three-dimensional instead of two-dimensional