PDA

View Full Version : How good is 8.2 megapixels?


john_satc
Jul 14, 2006, 07:29 AM
I am looking to get a camera before going on holiday to NYC and the one I am looking at is the HP Photosmart R927. It is 8.2 megapixels, which I know is good, but how good is it? Does anyone have an example of a photo taken of this quality?Even better, if anyone has the camera and can tell me if it is any good.
Cheers,
JON

spriter
Jul 14, 2006, 07:34 AM
Well 8.2mp sounds good but it depends on the lens quality. I'm no expert but having a massive picture to print is no good if it's grainy and fuzzy. I wanted a Point and Shoot and was very happy with the quality of pics I get from my Canon 7.1mp Ixy 700.

You should read www.dpreview.com and www.steves-digicams.com before you buy. www.cameras.co.uk is also worth a browse.

uaaerospace
Jul 14, 2006, 07:35 AM
Check out Steve's Digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/hp_r927_samples.html). The link provided takes you to a page of sample pictures for the camera in question. He has reviewed the camera as well. Hope this helps.

Edit: Ha, I'm 30 seconds too slow.

Abstract
Jul 14, 2006, 09:59 AM
Any camera that takes photos between 5 and 8 MP are all good, and the MP don't matter much. In fact, I'd be more inclined to go with a 5 MP point and shoot camera than an 8MP or 10 MP camera of the same small size because of noise.

john_satc
Jul 14, 2006, 10:09 AM
Any camera that takes photos between 5 and 8 MP are all good, and the MP don't matter much. In fact, I'd be more inclined to go with a 5 MP point and shoot camera than an 8MP or 10 MP camera of the same small size because of noise.

Hi. Thanks, but I have no idea what the differnences are between cameras, I know nothing about them. until now I used disposable ones.

CoMpX
Jul 14, 2006, 10:17 AM
I have a Sony Cybershot DSC-N1 (well, actually it's my parents') which has 8.1MP and the pictures it takes are amazing. I have never tried to blow one up huge but it makes at least absolutely perfect 4x6 prints.

benthewraith
Jul 14, 2006, 11:33 AM
I am looking to get a camera before going on holiday to NYC and the one I am looking at is the HP Photosmart R927. It is 8.2 megapixels, which I know is good, but how good is it? Does anyone have an example of a photo taken of this quality?Even better, if anyone has the camera and can tell me if it is any good.
Cheers,
JON

Another thing to take into consideration when taking photograpsh other than the megapixels is the processor in the digital cameras. :)

Any of the Canon Digital Elph cameras use the same processor that's in their Powershot and high end digitals. It's the reason that lower MP cameras sometimes look better than others. Processors are a key element, not just the MP.

amateurmacfreak
Jul 14, 2006, 04:42 PM
I have a 7.2MP camera which I set to take 5MP pics so it doesn't fill up my small 512MB memory card so quickly, and those pictures are huge and high quality!
Look at reviews, and don't only base your decision on MP. :)

Obsidian6
Jul 14, 2006, 04:46 PM
to be perfectly honest. an average consumer doesnt even NEED more than 6MP to be perfectly happy with any and all prints, which generally never exceed 8x10 sizes.

8.2MP won't yeild THAT much more, but it is enough to give you a very solid 20x24 if you know how to print ;)

I have two professional cameras, a canon 1DmkII which is 8.2MP and i am absolutely thrilled with the quality it is capable of.

my other camera is the canon 5D, which is 12.7MP so that's another story ;)

scem0
Jul 14, 2006, 04:54 PM
yeah, I agree with other users, it's all about the quality of the pictures it takes, not the resolution. You rarely need an image of that size, unless you want really fine quality, large prints often.

e

john_satc
Jul 14, 2006, 05:02 PM
So what are the best things to look for in a camera? I'm gonna take myself along to a camera store, I just don't want to get ript off.

Mike Teezie
Jul 14, 2006, 05:35 PM
It all depends.

To get 8.2 mp out of a sensor that size, they have to pack the pixels in, and that creates a ton of noise. But if you are going to be printing less than 8x10s, you should be fine. If you aren't concerned with printing at all, 8.2mp might even be a bit too much.

Even on my SLR, i don't think 8.2 mp is enought to reliably go past something like a 12x18" print.

That's why I'm getting a 5D - or if business goes as well as I hope it does - a 1DsMkII.

Obsidian6
Jul 14, 2006, 05:55 PM
Mike,

I would choose a 5D over a 1DsmkII right now. unless you score a killer deal on a 1dsmkII. If you can wait a bit, people are gonna be selling them like crazy soon. ( remember the frenzy when the 30D came out? ) The 1D(s)mkIII is just around the corner.

oh and for the record, ive seen 24x36s printed from a D2h. yes the 4.2MP D2H

when you have prints that large anyways, they shouldn't be viewed from a super close distance haha! I dunno.. food for thought :)

iBlue
Jul 14, 2006, 08:56 PM
Well I can tell you that at that resolution you can take a picture from several feet away and still focus in on a single pore when you view it later from your computer. It's a real blow to the ego. :p

this (http://blue.yo-momma.net/upload/files/1/IMG_1199.JPG) is an unedited picture taken from a 350D (file is 3.2mb)

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 14, 2006, 11:18 PM
to be perfectly honest. an average consumer doesnt even NEED more than 6MP to be perfectly happy with any and all prints, which generally never exceed 8x10 sizes.

8.2MP won't yeild THAT much more, but it is enough to give you a very solid 20x24 if you know how to print ;)

I have two professional cameras, a canon 1DmkII which is 8.2MP and i am absolutely thrilled with the quality it is capable of.

my other camera is the canon 5D, which is 12.7MP so that's another story ;)

Eesh, the average customer doesn't really need more than 3-4 megapixels (unless he plans on doing some major cropping). Honestly, 3 megapixels gets you a pretty good looking 5x7 (and in some cases an 8x10) - how often will you go larger than 8x10?

Megapixels, in my opinion, are not nearly as important as, say, optical zoom or the lens type.

Chundles
Jul 14, 2006, 11:29 PM
I just got this little beauty - Panasonic Lumix TZ1 (http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/tz1/index.html)

It's 5MP, has a 10x optical zoom and image stabilisation, really nice Leica lens on it too. The pictures are incredible, I took a photo of a poster on my wall from across the room - looks like I'm actually there.

Pictures are 2560x1920 and between 2 and 4 MB per photo.

spriter
Jul 15, 2006, 01:30 AM
So what are the best things to look for in a camera? I'm gonna take myself along to a camera store, I just don't want to get ript off.

If you're going to try a bunch out at a store, first I would read those sites mentioned and then try some of the well known brands you associate with cameras (Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, etc). I'm not saying all brands are bad or good but these are a good starting point. And remember optical zoom = good, digital zoom = BAD. I turn off digital zoom as a matter of course.

If you're after point and shoot, test out how quick start up time is and how quickly the picture is taken after you hit the 'shoot' button. You don't want a camera that takes long to start up and be ready to shoot as you might miss that important moment. And you also don't want shutter lag for the same reason. Also try multiple shots one after the other and see how that fares.

Battery types - do you want standard batteries you can buy anywhere from a shop (more expensive) or can you make do with a rechargeable (save money but nobody likes a flat battery when you want to take a pic)? Personally I just carry around a spare rechargeable so I'm always set to go.

Might be difficult in stores but see how the flash works in low light. And if you can manually bump up the ISO rating for darker situations. Try ultra close-ups with the macro on to see how close you can get to a subject.

Do you need a viewfinder or can you make do with the LCD to take shots? Some ultra compacts don't have a viewfinder so it's something to think about.

Don't forget to budget for a memory card - you'll want one much larger than that which is supplied with the camera. The higher the MP of the camera, the larger each shot will be if you're shooting at max size and quality. For an idea, my 7.1mp Ixy uses around 3-4mb per pic (250-350 shots on a 1gb SD card).

Video recording - is this important? It wasn't top priority but I was able to shoot 640x480 @ 30fps for as long as the memory card had space. It's a really nice addition to cameras and I used it more than I thought I would.

Lastly, don't buy from a high street store. By all means try lots of them out but once you have the one you want, order it online (use froogle.co.uk) and save yourself some money (which you could use for a second rechargeable battery). And get a case!

Err... I think that's it. Again, I'm no expert but I'm just thinking back to what I did before I plumped up and bought mine. :)

Abstract
Jul 15, 2006, 03:40 AM
So what are the best things to look for in a camera? I'm gonna take myself along to a camera store, I just don't want to get ript off.

It's probably better if you just gave us a list of camera models that you found on sale at a store, and we tell you whether they're good. Actually, I"m not even sure if we'll need to do that. Consumer level cameras are very very similar in terms of image quality and such. I believe the main difference between small compact digital cameras is in the menu system and how easy it is to navigate, but if you only plan on shooting in AUTO mode, who gives a fart? A lot of these small cameras take photos at about the same quality anyway, so picking up a camera from any of the major brands like Olympus, Fuji, Casio, Sony, Canon, or Nikon will be fine. :)

The only other difference is the zoom (3x is normal on small thin cameras), or Image Stabalization, which is really useful if you have a camera that can zoom 5x or more. It's not really so useful on 3x zoom cameras.

It all depends.

To get 8.2 mp out of a sensor that size, they have to pack the pixels in, and that creates a ton of noise. But if you are going to be printing less than 8x10s, you should be fine. If you aren't concerned with printing at all, 8.2mp might even be a bit too much.

Yeah, I really think that the large majority of people print at the regular 4" x 6" photo size, and am actually surprised if I find that a friend has printed at 5"x7". I don't think the John_Satc is going to print at 6"x8", or 8"x10", so I really don't think he'll need anything that goes beyond 6 MP.


Even on my SLR, i don't think 8.2 mp is enough to reliably go past something like a 12x18" print.

That's why I'm getting a 5D - or if business goes as well as I hope it does - a 1DsMkII.

I think of people being in 2 groups when it comes to Megapixel needs. The first group is the group that needs 4-8 MP, and another group that needs 12-16 MP. Someone in the first group may --- very rarely --- print an 8x10" photo one day, but never bigger, and usually much smaller (4"x6"). These people can have the same quality prints as long as their camera has between 4-8 MP. It really shouldn't matter to them. It's also why I didn't bother upgrading my 4 MP Canon SD300 to something better, because even an upgrade to an SD500 would leave me between 4 to 8 MP, so there's no point in upgrading.

It's also why I didn't care whether my Nikon D50 had 6 MP, and the Canon 350D/Digital Rebel XT had 8 MP. They were similar enough in price, and still within the megapixel range where I'd find the print quality to be the same.

The 2nd group are the people who print posters and really large prints of their photos, so more MP is better.

This is why I don't give a rats ass if a company like Fuji releases a thin consumer camera that has 10 MP. It really doesn't fill a need, nor does having that many pixels on such a small sensor going to make their photos better.

HD303
Jul 15, 2006, 09:46 AM
Another consideration regarding megapixels - if you are going to shoot TIFF or RAW files, THEN you utiize the cameras max megapixels. If you are shooting jpeg files with an 8mp camera, your actually using only 4-5 megapixels if that.

Think of jpeg files as mp3 files, and TIFF or RAW as losslesss files.

kildraik
Jul 15, 2006, 11:06 PM
8.2 MP = 3,504 x 2,336 resolution, bigger than a 30" ACD

Platform
Jul 15, 2006, 11:49 PM
8.2 MP = 3,504 x 2,336 resolution, bigger than a 30" ACD

30" ACD = 4 MP

17luv
Jul 17, 2006, 08:28 AM
Sounds like you are getting good advice here, but why not go into a camera store and talk with someone that way you get a chance to see and touch the cameras. That way too you can find out if a camera feels too light/heavy, takes too long to reshoot, etc. Plus you might even get quoted a price you like. Good luck with the camera search!

Applespider
Jul 17, 2006, 08:44 AM
Have a think about what kind of pictures you want to take and how you want to use the camera.

If you want to carry it everywhere, are you looking for something ultracompact that you can slip in a pocket? Or are you prepared to get a case for it and go for something a little bigger that might have a better zoom etc?

Are you planning on taking pictures at night or in dark places? Take a look on dpreview at the relative noise levels at different ISOs of the various cameras. Nothing worse than having a photo that's either v blurry or v noisy.

If you do want to take night photos, have a look at the Fuji F10/11/30 range. They've got a very good sensor in them and I've had some nice shots.

baleensavage
Jul 17, 2006, 09:17 AM
I would never buy a camera made by HP. I have used Canon's cameras from day one and the only other brand I would buy is Nikon. Both companies have been making cameras for ages and know how to make a good camera, digital or not. The quality of a camera is all in the lens. If the lens is no good, then even a 20 MP camera could take bad pics. Canon makes some really great affordable 5-6 MP point and shoot cameras. Anything more than that for casual shooting is not worth it. You are going to have to buy really large memory cards and extra hard drive to store your pics.

If you are a serious about photography and have money to burn, I would recommend buying a digital SLR from either Canon or Nikon. They start around $800 (Nikon D50 or Canon Rebel XT) and you can change lenses, add a flash,etc.

Grimace
Jul 23, 2006, 04:39 PM
Thought I'd revive this thread with a couple of questions on BIG prints.

I have a 30D (8.2MP: 3504x2332) and want to get a few prints made to frame on the wall. The math as follows, keeps the original aspect ratio for a picture @ [Xdpi]:

3504/[Xdpi], 2332/[Xdpi] = Width, Height (ex.5x7)

Charting out the print quality table for a resolution of 3504x2332:

@ 300dpi = 11.68 x 7.77
@ 250dpi = 14.02 x 9.33
@ 200dpi = 17.52 x 11.66

#1. If I want to get even bigger print sizes, how far can I go before seeing a big difference? I've heard of people going up to 16x24.
#2. I am planning to upload my 50MB TIFFs to MPIX.com. Has anyone ordered thru them before?

REDSRT4
Jul 25, 2006, 11:05 AM
the hp camera is actually a very good camera, i sell cameras and that and the sd630 are very popular

john_satc
Jul 31, 2006, 12:37 PM
OK. I know it has been a while since I posted, but TBH finding a camera has been pushed to the back of my mind. I never knew how long I would spend trying to find the right travel insurance - I'm very picky! Anyway, I popped along to Jessops today, and after a 15 minute wait got the worst sales assistant ever who seemed like he just couldn't be bothered to help.

He said the HP R927 was a great camera, but I might no end up using the features. He suggested I could go for the Olympus MJU 700 Digital which they had on offer for 199.99 from 229.99. It has 7 megapxiels, 15x zoom and a big screen. And looks rather sexy too, for a camera.

My thinking was, the R927 was also 199.99, but reduced from 400. So surely the R927 is a better camera, right???

But I looked on ebay and I can get the MJU 700 for around 150 so I could go with that and save 50.

I am still very much lost. You said to try out the cameras and I did. I like the feel of both of them (for the few seconds I was aloud to hold them), but the actual quality of image (on the LCD screens) seemed identical to me. At the end of the day I am back in the same conondrum as I was last month, except now trying to decide between two cameras.

Any advise would be very much welcome, ta!

JON

DBAlex
Jul 31, 2006, 01:25 PM
I thought id just contribute some info here, I think 8.2 Megapixels is fine even for very large prints... (Im sure you could go up to A4 size with that sort of quality)

I use a camera thats just 4 megapixels... But it captures enough for me to make decent size prints, I say the lens is more important, at the moment im looking at the Panasonic Lumix range seeing as they use a Leica lens... Still don't know whether to get a high end point and shoot or low end digital slr though!

:D

john_satc
Aug 1, 2006, 08:15 AM
Oh. And does anyone know if the MJU 700 is compatable with the ipod camera connector?

JON

beavo451
Aug 1, 2006, 08:33 AM
oh and for the record, ive seen 24x36s printed from a D2h. yes the 4.2MP D2H


:) I have both (well it's a 20"x30").

Well I can tell you that at that resolution you can take a picture from several feet away and still focus in on a single pore when you view it later from your computer. It's a real blow to the ego. :p

this (http://blue.yo-momma.net/upload/files/1/IMG_1199.JPG) is an unedited picture taken from a 350D (file is 3.2mb)

FYI, a 350D image can get even better. with good glass, you can get razor sharp results.