Board index Equipment Digital Cameras Printing Digital Photos

Digital Cameras

Printing Digital Photos

levelfour
 
Posts: 3

Printing Digital Photos

Post Fri Aug 15, 2003 9:24 am


I'm thinking of investing in a digital camera very soon.

I just need to know how many mega-pixels should it have if I want
to print out (maybe 5x7 or even 8x10 prints) some of the shots in our neighborhood photo developing store.

And also, what's a reliable and practical brand? Is Kodak ok?

Thanks!

saputra77
 
Posts: 32


Post Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:13 am


From experience, 5x7 needs at least around 0.7Mp (ideally 1.3Mp), 8x10 needs at least 1.3Mp (ideally 2.0MP) to get good result. (used on EPSON 820 + EPSON premium photo paper+EPSON ink).

For the camera, ... please mention what you are going to use the camera for. Kodak point and shoot camera general don't have much control over the setting (apeture,time, etc). I would go for Nikon, SONY, or Canon.
Good luck '

-adi-

levelfour
 
Posts: 3


Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:21 am


thanks, saputra77, for your suggestions.

i'll keep them in mind when i go camera-shopping.

bobtrips
 
Posts: 292

Pixels for printing...

Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:17 pm


The number of pixels that you will need/want will vary with your personal standard of 'acceptable'.

People who insist on very sharp fine detail try to get 300 dpi (dots per inch) for their prints. Many people are happy with somewhere around 240 dpi. Some subjects that have little important fine detail (e.g., portraits) do ok at 150 dpi.

That said, you would want a 3 meg camera for printing a 300 dpi 5"x7" (multiply print inches by dpi), a 2 meg camera for printing the same image at 240 dpi, and 1 meg for printing at 150 dpi.

A quality five meg camera will hold its own against 35 mm film when printing an 8"x10".

You can print an 8x10 of the grandkid that granny will love at 150 dpi, you won't win any contests.

jseah
 
Posts: 28


Post Wed Aug 27, 2003 5:08 pm


When I take pictures with my Canon 10D in jpeg format (6.3 megapixels), I can print the pictures out on my photo printer without any post-processing onto 8-1/2x11 glossy photo paper and you really cannot tell the difference between digital and film.......if only I had the $7,000 to afford a 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds.

karen1109
 
Posts: 11


Post Sun Aug 31, 2003 5:43 am


I suggest that you go to dpreview.com and steves-digicams.com to do your comparison shopping. A 2-MP camera is usually sufficient for printing up to 8X10s (depending on the type of image, you can even print larger successfully). Everyone gets hung up on MP rather than turning their attention to what is right for their specific camera needs.

Kodak cameras are okay, but generally don't provide sufficient flexibility in terms of manual controls. This might not be an issue if you're a point-and-shoot person who doesn't want to think too hard. If you want a camera you can grow into, you should select one that has both excellent auto and manual capabilities. OTOH, the more manual settings, the greater the learning curve -- so if you're a point-and-shooter who just wants to be able to take good quality snapshots of pets and children, you don't need all the bells and whistles.

In your question, you didn't indicate how sophisticated a photographer you are, what types of things you'll be shooting, and what your budget is. For example, if you shoot a lot of macros, you may need a different camera than if you shoot a lot of action/sports shots. If you anticipate shooting with filters, you should get a camera with lens threads. If you use it primarily for vacation photos, and you want a small camera that will fit in a shirt pocket, you'll need a smalll camera, not a behemoth. These are all important things to know in order to make an informed decision. DP Review and Steve's Digicams are EXCELLENT sources for learning about digital cameras and determining what features you really need to have.

MP should be the tie-breaker when you've narrowed down your list of possible cameras, not the first thing you look for. Much better to buy a 2 or 3MP camera that is perfectly suited to your usage requirements than to buy a 5-6 MP camera that does not suit your needs and ends up on the shelf or eBay.

sheila
 
Posts: 1303


Post Mon Sep 01, 2003 12:49 am


You are getting some excellent advice here so I will add my Aussie two cents. My suggestion is the Canon G2 or G3 which, IMHO, is the closest point and shoot you can get to an SLR. I started with the G2 some 18 months ago and think its an excellent camera (watch out if you buy used as the early G2s had a hairline crack in the top of the casing). Its 4MP and I have had some great A4 prints out of this camera. But beware, should you buy the G2 or G3, you may be looking at upgrading to an SLR if you get hooked on photography :) :) but as SLRs are getting less expensive, that won't be too hard on your wallet. Suggest you also take a look at the new Canon 300D.

Here is an interesting post on Fred Miranda's forum
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/45114

Cheers
Sheila
Sheila Smart
Canon 5D Mark III; 17-40L; 24-70 f/2.8L; 70-300 f.4-5.6 L USM; 135 f/2L; 100 f/2.8 macro; 8-15 f/4 L fisheye

Blog: http://sheilasmartphotography.blogspot.com/

parklifer
 
Posts: 16


Post Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:04 am


You've already had some excellent advice but I would emphasise the need to think about exactly what sort of photography you are planning. Digital lagtime can be a real problem on low-end (and not so low-end) cameras which will cause you amazing grief if you want sports or action pics. How seriously do you take your photography? Because you could soon find a "point and shoot" camera frustratingly limited. And think about getting a decent picture editing package and a photo-quality printer.

Follow the link to dpreview, though. There's not a lot that you can't learn from it!

Good luck!
Roz


Board index Equipment Digital Cameras Printing Digital Photos

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron