Digital Camera question

Is there really going to be a big picture quality difference between a 4MP and a 5MP?

I'm trying to find a new camera and I'm overwhelmed by all the choices! :)

If you're going to print them, and will want to enlarge them into large prints, then yes, big difference. Or if you will be showing as projected slides it will be a difference.

If all you're going to do is resize them to 480x600 for websites, then no, not a difference at all.

family, vacation, etc. and probably not going to print anything too big, there is not much difference. Well, there is, but not one that would be noticable for internet or small prints.

but if I get a really good shot of my adorable children, I may want to make an 8 x 10.

Will a 4MP enlarge to that size?

Thanks for all the help. :hi:

enough for good quality prints that size.

...to dig through 20 years from now with everything being digital and all. Hard drives with years of photos and videos can crash and I recently found out CD's don't always hold data forever either. I've still got boxes of old photos holding up pretty well and so does my wife with some being from the late 50's up to about Christmas three years ago when we went digital.

Just a thought.

I can take 100s of pictures, then have prints made of the 20 best. With traditional film, you're limited to how many you can take.

I have albums full of "real" pictures. :)

We were visiting my wife's grandma one time and took pictures while we were there then showed her a slide show on my laptop of everything and everybody before we left. She was from the depression era, not into new technology at all but she loved that.

so that all of my family will have a copy of everything.
There's nothing sadder than lost photos and a family squabbling over 'em.
I've scanned 6 albums and have about 20 to go. :silly:

I saw a poster at Walgreens that would scan a shoe box full of pictures for around $20.00 Just thought I would mention that because of the time involved in that monumental task. The downside of coarse is the possibility of a lost picture. Just a thought.

Not sure Walgreens would/could do that. I scan while I DU. :)

And by old, I mean from the 1800s to 1920s, you might want to consider having a professional potographer create new negatives for you and print new copies. It's safer for old photos, and the images are of better quality. We had that done with our family photos.

the real secret of taking good photographs is to take a lot of shitty photographs, it used to cost too much with film unless you were a professional, but now i can take a trip and take literally hundreds of photographs and pick the dozen best for sharing

amazing the quality you can achieve when you don't have to be inhibited by film/developing cost

your photos may be fine in a box, but all i have to do is look out my window at the widespread destruction to know how emphemeral paper is

with digital the major advantage is that you can store at least some of your photos off site at photobucket or even several different sites

i could never go back to prints/film after going through 3 natural disasters in 11 years

i met a man in california who lost everything, every picture, his entire house, EVERYTHING, in a matter of 10 minutes in the scripps fire

besides, the old photos don't hold up pretty well, they lose color, start digitizing some of those old photo/slides to put off site and you'll be horrified when you really look at them at the spotting and damage, oh they can be saved by photoshop but the sooner you get 'em digitized the better!

Chances are you'll be more than happy with 4mb, unless you're seriously into photography. If you are, then you should go with a halfway decent 35mm or get something like the Canon S-70 (or better).

Here's a good site for camera info -- check out their Buying Guide section

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

Also, a lot of photographers will tell you that if you're buying on line, buy from bhphoto.com. Very good prices, very legit.

most people don't get close enough to their subject when they take pictures. A 5 MP camera allows you to crop that extra space you should have avoided in the first place.

The more megapixels you have the more leeway you have to crop down to just what you've interested in and still have a sharp photo. If you never plan to crop or do any other kind of 'post-processing' (photo editing) but rather just print the picture the camera took, then the difference is not significant.

in a camera buying guide (in the NY Times, I think) that said that the quality of the lens is actually more important than the sheer number of megapixels. Just throwing that out there.