Thread: Megapixels needed?

As Joe explained earlier, MP's mostly affect the size of the photo. The biggest improvements you can make when trying to take a still photo with a fairly up to date digital camer is your lighting. I worked with Video and still photography in the army for roughly 5 years, and the thing I hated most about it was spending 3 hours to fix the lighting to do 5 min's worth of shooting. You will probably also notice that on the dials of most of your camera's there are different settings. These are preset's for diffent conditions. They can help make a big difference at times.


If your the type that likes to play with settings and your indoors you can try increasing your exposure time. Only if you can mount your camera to take the photo or the tiny movements from you holding it will blur the image. It works well because it is able to take in more light (Great for indoors where light is usually limited) and it gets more exposure time on the object typically giving you a more indepth photo.

Originally Posted by ToxIk

Yeah, they have a picture on the site of angel's window, grand canyon. If you look closely at the full frame picture you can see a few blips on the picture. The really only look like little black dots, barely discernable at all. This camera has such incredibly pixel density, that when zoomed/cropped to 0.05% of the original photo, there is still enough detail to make out each one of the people that these little black blips are, and see the chain link fence.

That really is amazing. It's the equivalent of a 2000x zoom.

Originally Posted by Billy

As Joe explained earlier, MP's mostly affect the size of the photo.

I think a more accurate way of stating it is that they affect the maximum size acceptable photo you can get. Even the simplest programs let you change the size of the displayed photo, so the limitation is whether it will have sufficient detail to be acceptable at that size.

I agree about the lighting. Even a moderately priced camera will give you high enough lens resolution to achieve the pixel limit, if you have strong lighting. It lets you close down the aperture and use the sharpest part of the lens (middle).

Originally Posted by Billy

If your the type that likes to play with settings and your indoors you can try increasing your exposure time. Only if you can mount your camera to take the photo or the tiny movements from you holding it will blur the image. It works well because it is able to take in more light (Great for indoors where light is usually limited) and it gets more exposure time on the object typically giving you a more indepth photo.

Smaller apertures (higher f. stop numbers) are slower. They take in light through a smaller aperture for a longer period of time, which affects the depth of the field of focus positively by extending it. Landscapes should be done with a very high f.stop and appropriate exposure time in order to have maximum depth of focus.

Portraits and Macros, on the other hand, are often benefitted by smaller f.stops - a faster setting. This narrows the field of of focus, so the most crisp part of the picture will be the object of your focus and those things closer or farther will blur - drawing the eye to the object of the macro image.

is this Kodak c330 a decent choice if I want to take pictures of cracks in a razorblade? I can get it for €99 which still seems reasonable. :/

Originally Posted by PapaBull

Portraits and Macros, on the other hand, are often benefitted by smaller f.stops - a faster setting.

All true. The traditional reason for using a mild telephoto for portraints is the perspective. If you shoot a portrait at wide angle, the relative distances are exaggerated, and you would get a distorted face. Commercials often take advantage of this. A telephoto reduces perspective and makes the facce look more (or better than natural).

So shooting a razor with a wide angle will makeit look like sword. On the other hand, if you shoot it like a portrait, it will look pretty normal.

Originally Posted by harold

is this Kodak c330 a decent choice if I want to take pictures of cracks in a razorblade? I can get it for €99 which still seems reasonable. :/

Like I said, shooting small photos, like those for Ebay is not really demanding, and this camera should be fine. Just make sure you use plenty of light angled away from the camera, so you don't get reflections. The best shots would e with two lamps on opposite sides (left and right and slightly in front ofhe razor) so you don't cast shadows. A little experimentation will make it just right. Shoot slightly telephoto.

Originally Posted by PapaBull

Smaller apertures (higher f. stop numbers) are slower. They take in light through a smaller aperture for a longer period of time, which affects the depth of the field of focus positively by extending it. Landscapes should be done with a very high f.stop and appropriate exposure time in order to have maximum depth of focus.

Portraits and Macros, on the other hand, are often benefitted by smaller f.stops - a faster setting. This narrows the field of of focus, so the most crisp part of the picture will be the object of your focus and those things closer or farther will blur - drawing the eye to the object of the macro image.

F. stop's aren't exactly slower or faster... they affect how wide/narrow the apeture opens. You can alternatively increase, decrease your shutter speed which increases/decreases your exposure time. Varing F. stops are typically associated with more expensive camera's as they require multiple lenses that often cost a premium price. Most house hold digital camera's will have a shutter speed control somewhere in the menu and usually represented with a value like 1/60sec, 1/125sec, 1/250sec, 1/500sec ect... Another way to adjust light exposure is your ISO setting. High settings will allow more exposure but cause more "Noise in the photo".
Also note, if you are adjusting your F.stop or apeture size, you are going to have to adjust your shutter speed or else you will over expose your photo.

Billy, because you have to adjust shutter speed to compensate for aperture, higher numbers in aperture or "F" stops are considered slower. One higher on an f-stop requires 2x the exposure time on the shutter (1/800 to 1/400, for example) the shutter speed to maintain exposure. One lower on ISO also requires doubling the shutter speed.

So lower ISO and smaller apertures require longer exposure and can make a camera difficult to use without a tripod if the light isn't strong enough. The smaller the number of the f-stop, the larger the aperture and, therefore, the faster the shutter speed will be for a given lighting situation. Cameras that require very fast stop-action capabilities have very good lenses and the largest apertures for the quickest shutter speeds.

Can't stay...bye bye, now...