3-mega pixel digital camera
 

Did you find that a 3-mega pixel camera sufficent for phototaking during your trip throughout Europe? A friend of mine is giving me his Olympus 3-mega pixel camera because he is upgrading to a 5-mega pixel camera. His photos look great on his PC using his old Olympus camera. Anyone agree using a 3-mega pixel camera?

Yes, I definately think a 3 megapixel camera is definately good enough for a trip to europe...I brought along a 5 megapixel camera but used the 3 megapixel setting...my photo sizes were aroung 800kb I believe...very nice and large!

just get familiar with the features of the camera, and perhaps invest in a decent sized memory card...at least 256mb.

I think it depends on what you want to do with your photos. If you want to print them out 4" x 6" or put them in an email or on a website, you should be fine. If you want to enlarge them more than 5" x 7", or crop them a lot, you might want more.

Absolutely. However, do test it out at home...scenery, people, close-ups...at various resolutions, then print various sizes (4x6, 8x10, or whatever you think you may wish to do later).

Lower settings allow you to store many more photos in the same space, and look just fine on a PC. It's when you want to print and/or enlarge that the higher settings (and larger file per photo) are better.

Memory cards are more and more economical these days. The 1GB card I bought last year cost less than half the 64MB card I bought for my first digital camera.

Thanks to all who answered my question. I feel better about using this camera and following your advice.

The number of pixels you require depends on the size of the final image and the distance from which you are viewing it. The "standard" is a viewing distance equal roughly to the diagonal of the print or display, and in that case, you need at least six megapixels. However, if it's 4x6 snapshots viewed from a foot away, three megapixels are sufficient. And so on.

Hi

There is not really any link between the mega pixels and the quality of the pictures that are taken. Some people only go into a store in order to get the highest possible mega pixel camera as they think "the higher the number the better". But it is important to look at tests on e.g. http://www.dpreview.com to get a objectiv view of a camera. If you are going to make very large prints of pictures then you might need a camera with higher resolution. For the rest of us the camera with higher resolution just takes pictures that created huge files that steals more space on the hard drive :-) I have a 3 mega pixel camera and I'm pretty happy with that. SOme of the pictures that I have taken can be seen on my homepage.

Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures

Hi W,

>A friend of mine is giving me his Olympus 3-mega pixel camera....<

And you have a problem?...... :)


It will be perfectly fine for enlargements up to 8x10.

((I))

A work colleague of mine has just returned from Nepal where she took numerous photographs with a Nikon camera with a 3.2MP sensor. She has had several pictures printed on A4 size (8.5 x12) and they have come out superbly. She also had one shot enlarged to 12x16, and that was not at all bad.

If you are a professional who wants to sell large prints, then more megapixels is better, but for most of us 3mp is fine.

3 megapixels is probably more than you need. I have a 4 megapixel Olympus but shoot at 1600x1200 and get file sizes of 500k. That is more detail than I need but I crop and zoom most of my pictures so it works out good.

I suggest that you use Energizer lithium AA batteries. These last much longer than alkaline batteries. K-Mart and Kroger sell them.

I have a Sony Cybershot 3.2 digital that takes excellent shots even enlarged up to 8 x 10. I had thought of investing in a 5 megapixel but decided why bother. This one does the job required, especially since I'm not printing any pictures larger than the 8 x 10.

Reading all your messages really lifted up my spirits. Thanks Gard for sharing your photos. They look fantastic! You are a good photographer!

Here is my Sicily gallery all done at 3 MP. I like the 5x7 blowups but not bigger.
http://www.worldisround.com/articles/169372/index.html

My camera only goes to 3.2 and I don't plan to buy another one until I drop this one and it stops working.

We have traveled using our Olympus 3.2 to France and I have won awards with the pictures taken with this camera. You will love it, you'll get great shots with this camera. Just make sure that you read the instruction manual to learn all the great things your camera will do.

Now my rant, it really bugs me when people key in on megapixels alone. What is the most important part of any camera? The lens.

Many of the earlier and low cost digitals have plastic lenses, HP & Kodak still have plastic lenses I think.

When looking for a camera look for one that promotes the quality of their Lense as well as the number of megapixels. Look for one that says they use Zeiss lenses and you will get the best shots and be able to enlarge photos without losing any clarity.

Oh and please do look into adding memory cards to your camera gear, they are so cheap now. I used 2 each of 512, 256& 64 cards when I traveled for 3 weeks and I filled them all.

I am of the mind that 2 512's is better than one 1G because if the card malfunctions or becomes corrupt I haven't lost everything, so that's why I took several different cards.

I have also been told by photographers much more experienced than me, that the larger cards get slower in their response time as they get filled up. After I was told this I remembered that my shutter response time was much slower towards the end of my trip and I didn't know why at the time, but I thought I was doing something wrong.

We now use a camera of 5MP and I use an ultra 1G card and 2 512's. and I still don't have enough memory for my many photos :-)

Does anyone have a specific recommendation of make and model in the 3-5mpx range, under $300? I resisted the move to digital for so long and then bought the 3.2mp Canon Elph Powershot SD110 2 years ago. I love that it's slim and oh-so-portable, but I don't think the camera picks up as much detail.

Hi Traveller,

My first digital camera was a Canon S100 Digital Elph. Following that, I bought a Digital Rebel and a couple lenses. For my recent trip to Italy, I didn't want to take my Rebel (too heavy and too much stuff) but wanted something better than the S100, so I bought an essentially new Canon S410 Digital Elph on Ebay for just over $200. It uses the same batteries and CompactFlash that my S100 used, so I didn't have to buy anything else. It did a fantastic job. Check out my pictures at http://steampark.com/italy/launch.html

Cheers! ~Brent

Brent - thanks. That upgrade makes sense to avoid getting all new gear. So you definitely see an improvement in quality? Your pics look great!

Yes...there was a definite improvement in quality. Better glass. More zoom range. Better sensor and more resolution (meaning better cropping options later). A movie mode (not great quality, but better than nothing). It was definitely worth the money.

Is the Duomo in Florence under scaffolding?

Parts of the dome exterior are being worked on. But the majority of the outside is exposed (albeit dirty, according to my wife who has been there before). Still quite grand though.

The facade of the duomo in Siena IS hidden under scaffolding though, in case that is on your itinerary. The inside is incredible!

Siena is on the itinerary....we will be there in June so they have 2 months to finish clean-up before we get there! ;) The clean-up is worth it though, judging from results at Sistine Chapel in Rome and Notre Dame in Paris.