# 2.1 Megapixels Is It Enough ?



## Roy (Feb 23, 2003)

My camera only has 2.1 mega pixels. Is it enough for what I do ?

I am begining to feel a bit behind the times as I beleive that some are now 8 mp's.


----------



## pauluspaolo (Feb 24, 2003)

The one you sold me only has 1.4 megapixels


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

I suppose it depends on what you want to do with it Roy.

If you want to print at photographic resolutions, then a typical 2.1 can take maximum 1600 x 1200 res photos, so:

Printed at 300 DPI resolution, this equates to a print size of about 5.3 x 4

Printed at 240 DPI resolution, this equates to a print size of about 6.6 x 5

For many people, printing at 240 DPI will have no discernable effect on output quality - they simply can't see the difference. Even printing at 200 DPI may be good enough for non critical use. So unless you need to regularly print photographs at larger than 6 x 4s (typical photolab size) then 2.1 is just fine.

If all you want to use it for is to publish photos on the web of for viewing on a computer, then the maximum size you will probably wish to use is 800 x 600 anyway - arguably for dial-up users 640 x 480 is as high as you might want to go. Sometimes even this is too large, particularly if you use low compression (i.e. high quality JPEGs).

In short, massive mega pixel cameras are great for the press hacks, or for where large enlargements are required. A webcam is probably all you really need for web pics.

What really makes a difference (in my humble opinion) is the quality of the lens and the close-up capabilities, particularly for watch shots that are to be put on the web.


----------



## Roy (Feb 23, 2003)

I guess in that case I already have what I need.


----------



## ESL (Jan 27, 2004)

You can tell I don't work in Dixons flogging cameras can't you


----------



## Roy (Feb 23, 2003)

ESL said:


> You can tell I don't work in Dixons flogging cameras can't you


 Yep,


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

pauluspaolo said:


> The one you sold me only has 1.4 megapixels










I thought it was my camera, a 2.2mp Fuji, I assumed you Stan, Jot, PG etc were using 500+mp cameras







I feel worse now


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

more than enough for web pics Roy. You only need the high res if you want good prints, mines 4 meg but I hardly ever have it on that high a resolution for watch pictures. The most important bit (IMO) is the lens.


----------



## USMike (Mar 16, 2003)

Roy said:


> I guess in that case I already have what I need.


 Absolutely.

Roy, the pics on the website show very good detail and the macro seems to permit full frame closeups of a watch dial and load very quickly due to the small size.

From what I've read recently, the new crop of 8mp cameras loose details when shooting above ISO 100. I almost spent the extra $$ but decided on a 5mp Nikon because of the wide 8X optical zoom range and the fact the macro focuses over a fairly wide part of the zoom range. The higher mp's help to crop a small section of a high-res picture but shooting at high resolution fills up a 256mb card VERY quickly.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Roy,

Stop beating yourself to death. If you want a new camera get the Nikon Coolpix 4500 before they are all gone.









Four million pixels and properly sorted. It auto focuses well in macro too at 2cm.

Or, you could keep the one you have that does the job.


----------



## joolz (Jan 9, 2004)

As everyone seems to be saying 2.1 is enough. I've managed some A4 prints which are really good for digital. I bought my 2.1 when the first 4Mp cameras were coming out.









Now that the 8Mp's are here I just bought a Konica Revio 4 Mp (for a bargain Â£117) and am busy taking new watch pix. (Some Great Seiko shots.)









I'll be happy with 4 Mp for the time being until they get one that will fit my Bronica.


----------

