Do camera megapixels matter?

19 years ago

I have a 1.3 megapixel old Olympus camera, with which I am not entirely satisfied. At some time I am going to buy another camera. It might be soon, or it might be another year or two.

Most of my photography is daylilies, other plants and nature scenes. I rarely print a picture, so that is not an issue. Mostly, I just keep the pictures on my computer and a backup CD (hopefully) and put them on a web page and online photo albums.

I understand the overall concept of pixels/megapixels (I think), but since I am not printing, or even converting to slides, any of the photos, do megapixels really matter. I seem to get reasonably sharp pictures for my purposes now (I think). So, my question is, with the way I am using a camera and photos, will more pixels really help.

Will appreciate any advice/comments.

Royce

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (8)

joe_in_maine
19 years ago
Yes you will notice the difference even on the computer screen. Digital cameras have really come down in price.
I just bought a HP 5.2 megapixel for $299. Be sure you get
one that has the Macro feature on it for close ups of your flowers.
jackarias
19 years ago
the way I am using a camera and photos, will more pixels really help.

No, the way you are using your camera more pixels will be excess. However, the newer cameras have improved so much that you will get much much better pictures with the newer camareas even though you don't need more pixels. I would recommend you do not go below 2 megapixels in selecting a camera but since a 5 Mp is so cheap you might as well get the better camera which includes a better lens and more options all for a very reasonable cost. I have used the Canon coolpix 900 and I now have the Canon coolpix 5000 with 5.1 Mp. I wanted the features and the close focusing capability more than the extra megapixels. Also the 900 was a battery hog whereas I can shoot all day with two batteries using the 5000. I have read that the human eye sees up to 1024 x 1024 pixels which equals roughly 1 MP per sq inch but as soon as you expand that image to a 17" screen then you are at a point where if the image fills the screen you will see pixelation. You need to take into consideration not just how it looks at a 1:1 ration but how it will look at a 17:1 ratio.

If you buy a camera and you are not happy with it then you will need to buy it again so a mistake is never a bargain. With digital cameras I feel you should buy the best one you can afford.
Related Professionals
Canton Landscape Contractors · Chattanooga Landscape Contractors · Clark Landscape Contractors · El Sobrante Landscape Contractors · Lebanon Landscape Contractors · Long Beach Landscape Contractors · San Carlos Park Landscape Contractors · Setauket-East Setauket Landscape Contractors · Seven Hills Landscape Contractors · Tehachapi Landscape Contractors · Big Lake General Contractors · Corsicana General Contractors · Gloucester City General Contractors · Olney General Contractors · Peoria General Contractors
pkton
19 years ago
I agree with Jackarias. I have a 3.2 MP Olympus camera and am saving up for the new Digital Canon so I can use lenses from my Canon Rebel with it. I make prints so the more MP the better. The problem I run into is when trying to share over the web or send pics is that the the files are way to big so I have to down size everything which is a pain and loses the quality I gained in the first place! If you are happy with yours I wouldn't switch unless you decide to print things. Or if you are looking for the macro lens for closeups. Isn't it great fun taking all those pics!!! Paula
favabeans
19 years ago
Megapixels matter most if you want to do printing. Here is how I have seen it broken down.
2 mega pix = good 3x5 print quality
3 mega pix = good 4x6 " "
4 mega pix = good 5x7 " "
5 mega pix + = good 8x10 " "

But if all you are going to do is work with the pictures electronically it really doesn't matter the mega pix value, as Jackarias has pointed out.
rsts
Original Author
19 years ago
Thanks for the comments. Paula has touched on one of the things that confuses me. If I use a super megapixel camera, then I downsize it. So, if I downsize it, would not I lose the advantage of the original megapixel? Even on my 1.3 megapixel, when higher resolutions are used, I downsize the pictures. Again, I understand the value for making prints, but I don't use it for that. I am having a difficult time with that and think Gary has told me I don't really need the super megapixels for my use, which seems logical. Please understand that I am just thinking out loud on this and am very much open to other opinions.

I do agree that if I buy one, get the best I can afford. Otherwise, why bother - just keep the one I have.

Again, thanks for the comments.
jackarias
19 years ago
I have used the Canon coolpix 900 and I now have the Canon coolpix 5000 with 5.1 Mp

Oops, I meant Nikon - the company that makes the coolpix series.
favabeans
19 years ago
"Paula has touched on one of the things that confuses me. If I use a super megapixel camera, then I downsize it. So, if I downsize it, would not I lose the advantage of the original megapixel?"

Not really. Again if you are going to print you want the full capability of the megapixel. But the "downsizing" is for convenience and courtsey when sending electronically as attachements to e-mails. If you ever need the full quality electronic file you will still have that option.

Here is a link that might be useful: how to buy a digital camera
avmoran
19 years ago
It is a little pricey but I bought a Canon Digital Rebel. I had a 3.2 MP before and was just not happy. I love that I can have a lens for just about every shot but for those special shots a quick change and I'm ready to go.
I love it and with other digitals I hated the waiting while it wrote to the storage media. The Canon I can take flight shots of humming birds to still shots of deer at dawn. Only had it since April so still learning all it can do.
:)
A