| Author |
Message |
Ripper
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Nov 06 20:49
Reply
Hi I'm relatively new here (with a grand total of 19 pictures uploaded), I'm 17 years young and still at school and as a result, I don't have enough money for a really good camera. I have a Kodak CX7330 (3.1 megapixels) and I was wondering if anyone here knows any tricks or tips for getting good pictures on such a low-resolution camera, and has anyone got any experience using this camera?
Thanks
|
Marcos
Moderator
|
# Posted: 24 Nov 06 20:57
Reply
Well, I do not believe there are some tips, maybe I do not remember but I had a Sony DSC-P32 with 3.2MP and no zoom and I have some nice pictures taken with this camera, two of them are top rated in my list and I love them. If you can find the good picture, the camera does not matter but first find the good picture. haha
 top rated
 top rated
Well, these are some of the pictures I have in Woophy taken with the Sony of 3.2MP
Greetings !
|
|
Ripper
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Nov 06 21:00
Reply
Thanks for the reply. (And I think that your first picture is the best out of them :))
|
David-H
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Nov 06 21:07
Reply
Hi Ripper
Don't get paranoid about pixels (check out kenrockwell.com - he has written an article about not needing a 'good' camera to take good photographs). I have only posted 6 pics and although I have an 8mp Canon EOS 30D the pics posted were all taken on a 4m Canon compact. Have fun learning to take pics with what you have - it is you that takes the pic, not the camera - it is just a tool.
David-h
|
Steve L
Member
|
# Posted: 24 Nov 06 22:33
Reply
Hi Ripper,
Marcos and David H both make good points. It was not that long ago that 3 MP was considered to be high resolution. You can get excellent quality photos with that camera. The limiting factors with 3 MP would be more for prints than for display on the computer. Even at that you can get a very good 8X10 print from a 3MP file. Another limitation would be how much you can crop. It you want to crop for a very small portion of the picture and then enlarge it you will get pixilation.
As David said, "Don't get paranoid about pixels." Your eye is more important than more pixels. Just go out take pictures, learn from them, and have lots of fun while you are doing it.
As a side note, the first digital SLR I ever saw was a Canon/Kodak hybrid (a Canon body with digital insides by Kodak). It cost around US$12,000 and I think was less than 1 MP. It was used by photo journalists so don't be ashamed of your 3 MP camera.
Steve
|
ortho158
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Nov 06 00:31
Reply
Hi Ripper,
all the comments above are absolutely correct. As far as I am concerned, more pixels help primarily when you want to crop a picture. Here are some other examples of pics taken with a 3.2 Mpixel camera (Minolta Z1):
|
Barry Miller
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Nov 06 02:53
Reply
Hi Ripper.
I have to agree with everything that has already been said here. Kodaks own spec gives a print size of 11"X14" (28cmX36cm) for this camera so unless you are regularly wanting to print at A3 or bigger then 3mp is really quite adequate. In fact with a little skill and good software editing I am willing to bet it will print acceptable pictures at A3 without too much trouble. I often shoot at 3mp if the images are for computer use or for printing up to A4. None of my images posted here on this website are greater than 3.3mp jpg files because that is the standard file size for my Fuji finepix 6900Z. The camera's own internal software is capable of increasing this to 6mp but this isn't a true 6mp camera because its only internal wizardry that is doing this.
I have a friend who uses the same camera as you have and sometimes uses it in preference to his heavier Cannon DSLR and the results are quite stunning.
More pixels certainly don't necessarily mean better pictures. I think the trick is to make your camera work for you, many of us push the boundaries of the capabilities of our cameras and it is this that makes our art more fun.
Good luck and lets hope you get many happy hours from your present camera.
Barry Miller.
|
ConradM
Moderator
|
# Posted: 25 Nov 06 08:47
Reply
Ripper,
As mentioned before; pixels doesn't matter. (ofcourse they are verry usefull for large prints and extremely cropping)
So some tips:
-taka advantige of your zoom (but don't forget you can also step forward and backward yourselve)
-Try to use the manual settings (get comforteble with ISO, Shutterspeed and Diafragma)
-experement with your flash (use it by day, don't use it by night)
-search the internet, ask questions in this or other forums, talk to a lot of people, show your photo's.
- back at home, chek your photo's on your computer, have a look at the settings.
KEEP LEARNING AND HAVE FUN !!!
Welcome on woophy!!
regards,
Conrad
|
|
ortho158
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Nov 06 10:59
Reply
And this one was taken with a 1 (one) Mpixels camera (Sony U10):
|
PaoloA
Member
|
# Posted: 25 Nov 06 13:30
Reply
I agree with ConradM...
I have a Canon Powershot S30 from year 2000 and using it in manual mode you can have beautiful results also with 3Mp... higher resolutions are useful for very large printings but for general use a compact camera with large possibilities of manula controls help you making good shots.
So... go around and make experiments...
|
M0M0
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Nov 06 07:01
Reply
To my opinion... it's like cars. You can buy an Aston Martin with a top speed of 300k/h but in general, you drive an average of less then 100.
Same with camera's. You can have 12.1MP camera and a HP deskjet 690 with no quality.
Most pictures are viewed on computers only. We (at home) develop digital pictures on paper and this works great. I have taken a pictures in the French Alps with my Nikon on 0.9MP while my brother took one from the same location one with a 4.1MP Kodak. And what do you think... the Nikon picture was much more clear.
What I want to say is that the lens is much more important that Mega Pixels (unless you're a profi).
And remember... a good shot that is out of focus is always better then bad shot which is sharp.
M0M0
|
|
Barry Miller
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Nov 06 12:11
Reply
It would be useful to know what mps most people shoot with and not what the maximum capabilities of our cameras are capable of producing. I would guess that most of us use jpg files of around 3 or 4 mp unless we intend to produce a specialist print or one we intend to send to a processing lab for such as canvas prints. However, I do occasionally use tiff and shoot at 6mp when I am shooting something that I intend to print at above A4 (21cmx30cm) this is rare and I suspect most of us generally use the PC for our photographs far more than the printer.
I have to agree with MOMO regarding a preference for lens quality over pixels. I would go much further and say that the overall gear quality and specification comes above the number of pixels. I too can remember when 1.3 mp was the norm and some photographers produced some amazing shots with this low figure. It was only with the advent of a combination of more mps and other things such as Digital SLR equipment that the pro photo world accepted Digital imaging. However some still don't and never will.
My mind boggles when I hear of 12 mp and above and I can only look in envious wonder at what magic the camera has to do to produce this. The files for this size of images are indeed quite ..er um... BIG.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what is the largest MPs in use on a production camera?
Barry
|
|
M0M0
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Nov 06 12:36
Reply
I think it's 12.1 by Sony and 12.4 for the Nikon D2Xs
|
|
Steve L
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Nov 06 15:24
Reply
Canon's pro level ( but production) SLR, the EOS-1Ds Mark II has a "full frame 16.7 megapixel CMOS image sensor." So not only is it 16.7 MP the sensor is the size of a 35mm negative. With most of the other SLRs there is a correction factor to apply to the lens focal length because of the smaller sensors. But that is a whole different issue.
|
|
Barry Miller
Member
|
# Posted: 26 Nov 06 16:07 - Edited by: Barry Miller
Reply
Wow 12.1 and 16.7 megapixel, and I suspect tomorrows DSLRs will produce even bigger files, hence the need for the massive hard drives and extra PC memory constantly required. I already use a extra 150 GB external hard drive mainly for image storage, total storage is in excess of 250 GB and I suspect this is about the norm today. a far cry from the one MB memory and 40 MB (Not GB) of my first PC.
I note from the spec sheet of the Nikon D2Xs that it has a exceptionally high speed recording rate too despite the high quality resolution.
Where will it end?
Barry
|
GeoDum
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 06 13:48
Reply
I have 1,6 Mpx camera and shut this photo
and this:
I think they have sufficiently good quality. Eh?
|
|
M0M0
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 06 14:35
Reply
GeoDum, you're correct. With printing, the pixels are essential.
For viewing... just bound to your screen resolution/quality.
M
|
|
M0M0
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 06 14:43
Reply
This pic is done with a Nikon CoolPix 995e set on 1.2MPix, standard quality and compression of 1:8.
Still looks good
|
|
Barry Miller
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 06 19:10 - Edited by: Barry Miller
Reply
Posted: 1 Dec 2006 14:43:19
Quote
This pic is done with a Nikon CoolPix 995e set on 1.2MPix, standard quality and compression of 1:8.
Just out of curiosity and as a experiment I printed out the 1.2MP picture mentioned above here, I printed it at 6 inches x 8 inches (15.2cm x 20.3cm) on a low end Epson Stylus 2 cartridge printer and it came out fine under the circumstances and whilst there was some image deterioration at this print size the print looked pretty good to me. Heavy loss of image quality was of course naturally obvious at A4 size (21.0cm x 29.7cm). However, I'm not entirely sure what this experiment proved, if anything, other than the fact that many of us are brainwashed by the number of pixels that some cameras boast. I recently had a B+W photo printed out at A3 size from a professional print laboratory that had been shot at effective pixels of 3.015million, I mounted the finished portrait on a solid black block-board and although I say it myself it was quite effective once displayed on the wall.
Would it be rash or foolish of me to suggest that we only really need a max of between 3 and 6 MP for an excess of 90 percent of our printing needs and possibly 1 to 3 MP for most of our screen / monitor work?
I realise that the guys who shoot with mega long lenses with gear that needs a lottery win to buy need all the help they can get when shooting a celebrity from half a mile away but most of us here are not in this league are we? After saying all this I think the macro shooters do rely on lots of pixels to obtain some of the fabulous stunning shots they produce.
I would still kill for a 12 or 14MP camera, but I said that about 6MP when I had a 1.3MP camera.
Barry
|
|
M0M0
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 06 19:32
Reply
Barry, you're the man. The good thing about multi mega pixels is that the optical chip is usually larger than with a small one. Specially with a SLR camera.
I just bought a Nikon D80 with two lenses (18 - 55 and a 70 - 200). And although it is a 10MP, I could do also with the D40 which is "only" 6.1MP. The other features on the D80 made me pay the double price of the D40. Not the pixels.
I'm still convinced that the lens is much more important then the Mega Pixels. I will post the two photo's with my Nikon and my brothers Kodak. That will says it all.
M.
|
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 1