What is the min pixel resolution should I get?

[ortega]

:bsmilie:, true true... i walk on the streets always see people point their PnS with big 2.5" or 3" screen up high. :sweat:

anway back to topic, since you already used to canon and wanted to upgrade. can try replacing S1 with 2hand S2 or a new S3. as for PnS maybe something with IS... Isus 800 IS?

i am upgrading my P&S 5.1MP camera mainly because of the LCD size
so malu to show my tiny LCD screen

 

[wildstallion]

my 2mp D1h has been burning fuji supreme super 8R & 10R with no HUMAN-EYE noticeable "loss of details"

A 2MP file at 10R with no interpolation will definatly show some loss in quality. A 6MP camera can print at about S12R which is nearly 100% and of course much higher with interpolation, my suggestion is stick around the 4-8MP mark, u dont really need much more, unless of course u want the super cool newer and better big cameras such as D2X, D200 etc

 

[lastboltnut]

Bro, upgrading liao?? S3 IS loh, no needa think lah!! :bsmilie:

I have just sold my Canon SI IS and am in the process of selling my Ixus V3. Both are 3.2MP cameras and took great pictures. One of the reasons why I sold them was because of the public perception that 3.2MP just does not cut it. Hence, before I go out to get a new camera, I want to establish what exactly is the min resolution that is acceptable to most people. I will most likely get a higher end camera (the 6MP Canon S3 IS perhaps) and a low end camera that at least meets public perception in terms of pixel resolution (the 4MP Canon A430 perhaps).

I believed and still believe that 3.2MP is more than sufficient for most amateur photographers. My understanding is that the standard for most photo labs is about 300 ppi, and that this is generally regarded as the point of diminishing returns. A 3.2MP camera with 2048 x 1536 pixels will be quite sufficient for a 5R photo of 2100 x 1500 pixels (7" by 5" x 300) and more than sufficient for 4R and below. I believe that a 3.2MP camera can also produce up to A4 size photos of acceptable quality, though if you really want to count pixels, you may need a almost 9MP camera. Is my understanding correct?

Anyway, this market is largely driven by public perception. So, I just want to find out from you guys what is the minimum resolution that you will look for in a camera. Is it 4 or 5MP or more?

 

[tks]

Paiseh, this thread is still active. For the record, I have already bought my Canon PowerShot S3 IS and 430 about two and a half months ago.

 

[scramblur11]

I have just sold my Canon SI IS and am in the process of selling my Ixus V3. Both are 3.2MP cameras and took great pictures. One of the reasons why I sold them was because of the public perception that 3.2MP just does not cut it. Hence, before I go out to get a new camera, I want to establish what exactly is the min resolution that is acceptable to most people. I will most likely get a higher end camera (the 6MP Canon S3 IS perhaps) and a low end camera that at least meets public perception in terms of pixel resolution (the 4MP Canon A430 perhaps).

I believed and still believe that 3.2MP is more than sufficient for most amateur photographers. My understanding is that the standard for most photo labs is about 300 ppi, and that this is generally regarded as the point of diminishing returns. A 3.2MP camera with 2048 x 1536 pixels will be quite sufficient for a 5R photo of 2100 x 1500 pixels (7" by 5" x 300) and more than sufficient for 4R and below. I believe that a 3.2MP camera can also produce up to A4 size photos of acceptable quality, though if you really want to count pixels, you may need a almost 9MP camera. Is my understanding correct?

Anyway, this market is largely driven by public perception. So, I just want to find out from you guys what is the minimum resolution that you will look for in a camera. Is it 4 or 5MP or more?

I used to think 3.2 is enough, but in the end find tat 5 is min ba, at least for me..... I sometimes print A4 and it look slightly better with a 5 (even though some said 3.2 gd enough for up to A4 prints)....

For me, I guess a 5 or 6 mega pixel will be enough....unless the price of a 10 megapixel drop till rock bottom~! :bsmilie:

I dun think u r wrong / dumb to ask these qns so dun worry abt wat others said...there r alot of ppl in this world who think that they r always right.....

 

[G-man]

Guys, please look at the following in order:

1. PHYSICAL SIZE - XXX mm/cm/inches X YYY mm/cm/inches
2. Resolution - XXX dots per inch (aka dpi)

DO NOT LOOK AT THE PIXELS SIZES ON YOUR MONITOR.

If you have the exact dimensions of 8" X 10" when you open your file in PS and the resolution reads something like 150 dpi, you can easily print 8R with no problems. Heck, you can even double that size and still have rather acceptable prints but then again, 72 dpi 16" X 20" isn't exactly gonna cut it as far as sharpness goes.

Note I said ACCEPTABLE, not pin sharp. If you're doing it professionally, then I'd say it won't be enough but if for your own personal viewing pleasure, it should do just fine.