What about cameras and mega pixels???

Question

okay so im looking to get a camera for my birthday.(its in november). but i want to look early so that way i know for a fact which camera i want. my question is what type of stuff should i look for in a camera when im looking for a camera? and isnt it true that the more mega pixels the camera has, the more crisp and clear the shot will be? what type of camera would you reccommend for a teen? and also im not looking for one of those big bulky cameras. im looking for something sleek. any suggestions???

Answer 1

More megapixels is NOT better. I had a Canon Powershot with 5 megapixels and really liked it. Then I got a Canon S5 with 8 megapixels and the image quality is noticeably worse. Try to get around 5 megapixels if you can still buy them. No more than 8 for sure.  

Answer 2

No, it is false, that more megapixels = more crisp images. There are even times, when it's reverse. More megapixels in the same type of camera gives worse results. The consumer level digital cameras (that's pretty much all cameras except those big bulky black ones you don't want) have very tiny matrices that catch the light. So the more sensors you put on it the smaller each sensor will be (and each megapixel is a million little sensors, so 5 megapixels = 5 million individual sensors, 10mp = 10 million of them). Inherently - the less light it will be able to capture, bringing down it's ability to accurately "see" the image projected by the lens. About 5 or 6 megapixels is a plenty for a small camera and for great prints up to 8x10. Don't look for more, unless you are going to blow the images up to poster sizes or trying to crop it really tight later on your computer (like getting a single face out of a crowd).

Now - what you really should look for is good lens. Because the lens is what projects the image on the sensors and if the projected image is poor quality - no good sensor will be able to capture a good and crisp image. It will be only as good as the lens can project. That by the way is another argument towards low megapixels. The lenses on those tiny cameras are usually not even capable to project an image crisp enough for 10-12 million individual dots to be recognized from it anyway. The lens is a problem in your case. Because a good crisp lens by default should be large. This is how optics works - a larger lens will project a better image. But you are looking for a "sleek" camera, so the lens will be small. But at least try not to get ones with fully internal zoom (cameras where lens does not protrude out). These are the worst, because they are made so tiny to fit inside those small cameras...

Then lenses come with different zoom levels. Because you won't be able to change the lens later, try to get one with at least 5x optical zoom (ignore digital zoom, it's a gimmick). Finally - for each lens there is maximum aperture, or how much light it can let in. It's denoted by f/xx - yy numbers, where xx is the aperture for short end of a zoom and yy for the long end. The smaller those numbers - the better performance the camera will have in low light. So f/2.0-3.2 is a lot better than f/4.0-5.6. Though again, fast lenses (ones with wider apertures are called fast) are very expensive, and are larger in size. So expect to have the second example as a more likely characteristic of a lens you will get on your camera.

Second in importance is sensor size - the tiny little cameras have tiny little sensors. That's just another requirement in order for it to have a tiny little lens. Larger sensors require larger lenses to project the image on them. So you may have to compromise and get a slightly bigger camera if you really care about quality of images, not just camera looks. When you look at camera characteristics - you may spot something like 1/2.7" sensor. That means sensor diagonal size is 1/2.7 of an inch, or in more understandable decimal form that's 0.37 of an inch. That's how small it is. So when you compare cameras, look for larger sensors. The smaller the second number in a fraction, the better the sensor (so 1/1.8" is better than 1/2.7", and 1/3.6" is the worst of them all)

Those are the two things you really should care about. Again, remember, that 6 million pixels on that 0.37 inch sensor will provide better overall result with less noise and better sensitivity than 10 million pixels on the same size sensor. The rest is really your convenience...

Look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ to see if cameras in question have detailed reviews. If not, look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.as... to find at least camera specifications (including lens parameters and sensor size).

So now you know what to look for...

The camera shopping is always a compromise, so take your pick. Size vs. quality. There is really no easy way out of this circle.

LEM.

Answer 3

Potentially, the more pixels you have, the better the resolution but what about the actual optics?  no matter how many pixels you have unfocused images , chromatic aberrations, and slow shutter make for bad photos- just like film cameras.

Since you had to ask in this forum, I will assume you are not a shutterbug.  so stick to something around 5 mega pixels.  Do not go less than 2.1.  You want something with major convenience so fast boot up, fast recovery after shots, and a memory expansion slot.

Change memory cards like changing rolls of film.  Batteries too.

I like sony products. but you can try Cannon,Nikon, Zeiss, Pentax, and Olympus.  Nikon and Zeiss have the best optics so cameras with only 5 mp may look as good as the others with eight mp.

Also think about this.  In three years the top of the line camera will be the average camera.  My Sony cybershot has only 2.1 mega pixels but the quality is good enough to post on a full HDTV screen.  You will most probably upgrade if you become a shutter bug.  Unless you buy the best, do not buy the extended service plan.