Digital Cameras

[Western SMT]

Do more Megapixels translate into better photo quality?

[Ian]

I'll have a look though my gallery I should have 3.5 and 10 Mega pixels photos, I don't think you can easily spot the difference, But 10 megs will enlarge bigger than 3.5 megs and retain clarity

Found them, the Calgary Fire Service ones are 3.5 and any from the Rugby Truck Show are 10
Hope this helps

Ian

[les turnbull]

Do more Megapixels translate into better photo quality?

Im no expert with digital cameras but what im finding is that its the light that makes most differance to a decent picture .In low light digital cameras seem to take forever to focus and produce lots of noise.

[Energumen]

I have one, and though it is probably down to me, the colours are insipid and the definition of figures against background not good.

But I am the worlds worst photograper.

[G-CPTN]

Lens quality is more important.
Lens aperture is also important.
A good quality lens that allows more light to reach the sensor will give a better image.

[G-CPTN]

I have an 8.1 Megapixel one, bought as a present, and though it is probably down to me, the colours are insipid and the definition of figures against background not good.
What make and model? It might be possible to adjust the colour balance and contrast.

[Energumen]

Hi It is a Pentax Optio E50 and I am still coming to terms with it.

[Western SMT]

Hi It is a Pentax Optio E50 and I am still coming to terms with it.

See - http://www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/pentax-optio-e50.cfm

[G-CPTN]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012306pentaxoptioe50.asp
White balance • Automatic
• Daylight
• Cloudy
• Tungsten
• Neon
• Manual selectable
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3395&review=Pentax+Optio+E50
Even in well-lit outdoor scenes, image quality was hit or miss. While colors came through nicely, ISO noise, even at low sensitivities, kills the crispness of images. With lots of bright, controlled lighting and ISOs locked at the lowest setting, sharper images were slightly easier to obtain – as in our studio test shot.
Lens Faults
The biggest flaw that I found with this the lens on this camera is the amount of purple fringe that shows up in everyday images. Taking a shot of an afternoon skyline with lots of trees in the background can change the color of the sky from blue to purple as a result of heavy fringing.
Otherwise, the lens is unremarkable, with some edge softness and unimpressive center sharpness but decent distortion control at both ends of the range.
ISO noise gain in solid color fields was pretty intense, even between 100 and 200 ISO. This resulted in images that looked very muddy even though focus was spot on for the most part.
At high ISOs, fine detail in images was hardly legible with the amount of noise that was present. While performance at ISO 1600 is about in line with expectations for a camera in this price range, heavier than usual noise at ISO 200 and 400, especially, limit the camera's blur reduction abilities, flash range, and general low light capabilities.
CONCLUSIONS
As a digital camera sold at bargain basement prices the Pentax Optio E50 has a lot to offer – in both good and bad ways. It has a very fast zoom speed, good build quality, fast rapid fire modes, but also has lots of ISO noise, intense purple fringe on high-contrast shots, and a disappointing white balance system. For a beginner or notice who just wants something to carry "just in case" this camera could be an acceptable choice, though there may be better options in the budget arena. As expected, for someone who is expecting higher image quality, the E50 isn't the place to look.
Pros:
* Good telelphoto and wide angle range
* Fast zoom speed
* Face detection
Cons:
* Face detection has hidden intentions towards cheese crackers
* Lots of ISO noise, even at lowest setting

[G-CPTN]

Consult your manual:-
Whiteness balance
Brightness filter

[Energumen]

Thanks Gents I will persevere, It would be cruel to do otherwise.

[Western SMT]

There are a lot of factors to consider, but manufacturers seem to fairly successfully hoodwink the public into thinking that megapixels is what it's all about and nothing else.

[Energumen]

I am sure that you are right, sadly the other influencing factor, as explained to me at the time, was the name, I have for many years had a really good Pentax video camera, which whilst it is heavy by todays standards. Still produces great results.

[Western SMT]

A link explaining megapixels -

http://www.aspexdesign.co.uk/megapixels.htm

[Western SMT]

Nanotech -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7807980.stm

[les turnbull]

I have a 11 megapixel camera the problem im having is that the image is 2.5 -3 megabytes which is to big to upload to this site,Anyone found a way to shrink the image with windows to a size this site will accept .

reguards Les.

[Western SMT]

The different software that came with my printer, scanner and the camera can usually deal with my photos but have read that pixresizer is fine and it's free to download.

http://www.photo-freeware.net/pixresizer.php

[les turnbull]

Just downloaded and ran this PIXresizer and yes it shrinks the image file to whatever size you want.
Tried with 2.38mb 3840x2880 image and shrank it to 99.1kb 960x720 image
in one second.
Nice one western smt ,its just the job thanks.
reguards Les.

[Western SMT]

Look forward to your photos Les.

[Mr Scammell]

If you use photobucket to host your pics, there is an option to sesize them. I use photoscape to resize before posting.

[Mr-Tomcat]

No it's not the pixels that give you quality it's the censor.

Andrew.

[Western SMT]

Trying to make sense of pixels and sensor sizes, looked at the box my camera came in and 5.1 megapixels is easily found but you have to look hard to find it has a 1/2.5" sensor.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp

http://www.cyberwalker.com/faqs/digitalcameras/lens.html

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html

[robertdavey6]

I have a 11 megapixel camera the problem im having is that the image is 2.5 -3 megabytes which is to big to upload to this site,Anyone found a way to shrink the image with windows to a size this site will accept .

reguards Les.

I've got the same problem now with my new brownie. I used Adobe Photoshop (which I already had) for the 1st few and MS Paint for the later ones. Both seem to work fine.

[G-CPTN]

MS Paint (usually supplied with PCs - open 'Programs - Accessories') will resize an image.
Open 'Paint' then when you've loaded your image, select 'Image' 'Resize' and you can experiment with percentages (if you keep vertical and horizontal identical the format will be preserved).

[coastie]

The Gadget Show did an experiment where they used a 1 meg pixel camera and showed the pic on a massive digital screen in a cinema. Hardly any deformation at all.

[Bassman]

I taking some images of a couple of my 1:76 buses. Used my latest Camera a 12.1MP Samsung and was not that impressed, so charged up my old 8MP Samsung and got a much better result. For those I had the Camera on a 2MP setting. In Macro mode on the widescreen part of the zoom it was within about 6 inches of the models.

I have some photo editing programs (Photoshop is out of my price range). Main one is Serif Photoplus X4, though I have some older programs plus of course Paint.

I cropped an image with Photoplus and saved, saving a little space. What you see in the viewfinder may not quite match what you see on the image. Cropping can produce a better composition.

I suspect it is probably that I have the camera set to Super Fine quality, but saving in Paint (and other editors) can result in a reduction in size, though with a slight reduction in quality.

If the camera uploads in .bmp format (the two Samsungs I was using do not) then a change of format to .jpg will result in a good reduction in size.