LCD pixels & LCD size

[daphz]

Does anyone know what the following means?

Camera 1
LCD: 2.5"
LCD Pixels: 207,000

Camera 2
LCD: 2.5"
LCD Pixels: 115,000

Camera 3
LCD: 2.5"
LCD Pixels: 173,000

Camera 4
LCD: 2.0"
LCD Pixels: 118,000

Which screen is the best? I owned a camera with Camera 4 specifications before, will the LCD quality be equivalent to Camera 2?

Thank you. Appreciate any tips!

[Witness]

no....

eg...for 2 and 3...bascially the lcd is the same in size...but 3 has got more pixels.... tt means tt there are more pixels in its display... but 2 on the other hand...may have larger individual pixels to fit into the 2.5" size....

so since the specifications of all are different i suppose the lcd quality wun be the same either...but at 2.5" i doubt u will see a huge difference...

[Clockunder]

Originally Posted by daphz Does anyone know what the following means? Camera 1 LCD: 2.5" LCD Pixels: 207,000 Camera 2 LCD: 2.5" LCD Pixels: 115,000 Camera 3 LCD: 2.5" LCD Pixels: 173,000 Camera 4 LCD: 2.0" LCD Pixels: 118,000 Which screen is the best? I owned a camera with Camera 4 specifications before, will the LCD quality be equivalent to Camera 2? Thank you. Appreciate any tips!

I thought the inches is the diagonal length of the LCD screen while the LCD pixels is the no. of dots (i.e. pixels) on that LCD screen.

From the diagonal lengths, we can roughly calculate what's the area of each LCD. Divding the no. of pixels by the area, we know the no. of pixels per area of each LCD.

Alternatively, we can estimate the relative size of the LCD screens by using the square of the diagonal length.

So Camera 1 has the highest no. of pixels per area and is the best, assuming that the LCD quality is the same for all. (Different LCDs have different brightness and possible viewing angles).

I thought it's pretty obvious or I've missed out something?

[daphz]

Thanks for the replies, does more pixels per inch of LCD mean better quality? Is more better?

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by daphz Thanks for the replies, does more pixels per inch of LCD mean better quality? Is more better?

Of cos it does. Better quality as in more details and sharper, even when u zoom in to see the finer details of the pics.

[wrx_sti_22b]

Originally Posted by daphz Does anyone know what the following means? Camera 1 LCD: 2.5" LCD Pixels: 207,000 Camera 2 LCD: 2.5" LCD Pixels: 115,000 Camera 3 LCD: 2.5" LCD Pixels: 173,000 Camera 4 LCD: 2.0" LCD Pixels: 118,000 Which screen is the best? I owned a camera with Camera 4 specifications before, will the LCD quality be equivalent to Camera 2? Thank you. Appreciate any tips!

Camera one is Panasonic Lumix FX is it? While Camera 3 is Canon Ixus is it? Nikon Coolpix S5 & S6 has got 230K pixel. The Kodak twin lens camera also has 230K pixel.

[GriGri]

of course the better screen will be able to squeeze in more pixels in a unit area. u can actually calculate the 'dpi', not dots per inch here but pixels per inch.

with the same pixels a larger LCD area means easier to read, but the screen will not be as fine as a smaller one.

[Ah Pao]

Personally, I'll go for higher PPI rather that the raw screen size, since:
- A bigger screen will draw more power since it uses a bigger backlight.
- A high resolution screen will always look sharper than one with a lower resolution. Screen too small to see the smaller details in a picture review? Use the playback zoom function, dummy.

[daphz]

Originally Posted by wrx_sti_22b Camera one is Panasonic Lumix FX is it? While Camera 3 is Canon Ixus is it? Nikon Coolpix S5 & S6 has got 230K pixel. The Kodak twin lens camera also has 230K pixel.

I can't remember, but yeah, probably

Thank you for all the replies. I have seen the resolution on Canon Ixus 55 (Camera 2), and it sucks! So I'll be waiting for Camera 3, which IIRC, is Canon Ixus 800