New Camera for Detailing Shots...

[ScubaStevo]

My canon is just awsome too. S1 IS.





I always loose image quality uploading them.

[SilverLexus]

That's some serious snow Stevo.

[ScubaStevo]

Originally Posted by SilverLexus

That's some serious snow Stevo.

We got that much inthe first snow fall of the year. Got like 5 inchs more yesterday...

[TortoiseAWD]

Originally Posted by GSRstilez

However, unless you are printing out posters, I don't see a need for 7.1 MP.

It depends on what you're shooting, IMO . . . my gf has a 7MP point-and-shoot that she uses at work (she's a daycare/preschool teacher). She can snap a picture of a whole table of children doing various things, then crop out pics of individual kids with Photoshop. There's enough resolution to work with so that the resulting pictures are still of decent size and quality. Her old 3MP didn't give her that luxury; it was much harder for her to get candid shots and "action" shots because she'd have to get in so close to frame the pic.

Tort

[Setec Astronomy]

How many MB is a 7 MP pic vs. a 5?

[G35stilez]

My 5'er takes pics just shy of 3mb, Setec.


Tort: Were they of same brand, style, quality? I found my girlfriend's Kodak (4.0mp) to take inferior pictures to my old Sony Mavica MVC-CD300 (3.2mp). The Sony was a top of the line P+S with a ton of manual settings, her Kodak is more just a simple P+S with pre-programmed settings. I think its more in how a MP is used, rather than the simple rating.

[JohnnyDaJackal]

About the whole 7mp vs 5mp. One common thing is people get way to hung up on how many MP a camera has. It's also very important to have a good image processor. MP and image processor go hand in hand. You can have a ton of MP but with a crappy image processor, your pictures will be lacking image quality.

OT but the Fuji S9000, 9MP, 28-300mm, at $500 is looking really good. Maybe if the price goes down come spring, i'll be picking one up.

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by GSRstilez

I found my girlfriend's Kodak (4.0mp) to take inferior pictures to my old Sony Mavica MVC-CD300 (3.2mp). I think its more in how a MP is used, rather than the simple rating.

As was mentioned before, that's probably a lens thing. The Sony's tend to have high quality Zeiss glass lenses, the Kodak may have had a cheaper or plastic lens. We have a 5MP Sony DSC something at work that takes nice pics, but I find the menus to be really a pain, as compared to the old sub-MP Mavica we had, which was easy, and took great pics in 1998, but now they look terrible

[TortoiseAWD]

Originally Posted by GSRstilez

Tort: Were they of same brand, style, quality? I found my girlfriend's Kodak (4.0mp) to take inferior pictures to my old Sony Mavica MVC-CD300 (3.2mp). The Sony was a top of the line P+S with a ton of manual settings, her Kodak is more just a simple P+S with pre-programmed settings. I think its more in how a MP is used, rather than the simple rating.

Her old camera was a Minolta Dimage Xi, the new one is a Sony (model number escapes me at the moment). The Sony is a much newer model, but they're both of decent quality, P+S cameras that provide good manual tweaks.

I agree that there's more to the picture quality than just the MP rating, but when you're cropping and resizing, you can't work with information that you don't have, if you take my meaning. For the way Cindi uses her camera in the classroom (quick candid shots, usually no setup, point, shoot, try to capture the little primates doing something interesting), the more information that's in the original image, the better.

Tort

[G35stilez]

Tort: Yep, I see what you are saying.

[SilverLexus]

I'm still learning my camera but I hope to have some car shots up soon. It needs a bath first.

I will shoot at full resolution and superfine compression.

[Super]

tif file formats is better the jpg format, tif formats files are larger in size. tif will show in I.E or other brosers