digital camera: is 2.1 megapixel good enough?
 

Hi,<BR><BR>I'd like to buy a digital camera (my "normal" camera doesn't work after I took it on a motorbike ride). I like photography a lot, and take good pictures, but don't expect to enlarge my printed pictures more that maybe double of normal size. <BR>Now, I heard that digitals should be at least 3.3 resolution for good-quality pictures. Is this true? <BR>Is a 2.1 megapixel camera good for pictures that will be posted on websites, viewed full-screen, and maybe published in a university paper? Or is it worth an extra $300 Canadian for a higher resolution? (I'm on budget)<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>lindi

Lindi,<BR>You might be better served to go to a site like Digital Photography Review and ask the questions. The url is www.dpreview.com<BR><BR>there are numerous forums like this for just your question. I have a 4 megapixel Canon G2 and there is a difference between the 3 megapixel G1. <BR><BR>The answer really is what are you going to use it for.

2.1M should be fine for the uses you describe. I have a 3.4M Sony, and reduce down quite a bit to post to web, etc. Also depends on the quality of the camera, lens, etc.

hi<BR><BR>you should be fine.<BR><BR>I have a 2 and a half year old Leica digilux zoom (got it when it first came out) and it's less than 2 megapixels I think - but, I am always amazed at how well the pictures come out - and I never (never) use the max resolution, usually the medium. <BR><BR>and I always get raves from my friends - they are surprised it was a digital.. <BR><BR>so I think you are OK. <BR><BR>now, if you plan to have it a long time, maybe go for the max pixels you can afford?<BR><BR>Beth

As a previous poster mentioned, try www.dpreview.com for some good information.<BR><BR>I have blown up 2mp photos to 8x10 and am pleased with the results. One benefit to more pixals is the ability to crop more closely. There are other factors (time it takes to photograph an image, download time, lens quality, lens speed) that are equally if not more significant than mp count.

&lt;&lt; (I'm on budget) &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>This - - almost a footnote from you - - makes me wonder: why digital? Not just yet, if saving money is a priority.<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Rex<BR>

ttt<BR>

Lindi,<BR>i just bought a 2.2 megapixel dig camera and returned from Austria with amazing pictures. Don't get hung up on buying a "better" camera. I spent less than $250 USD and couldn't be happier with my picture quality. Some people just won't admit that you can't tell the differance between pictures from my camera compared the ones taken with their $1000 camera. Go for it.

I have a Nikon 950 which is 2.1 megapixels. I love this camera, and it takes great pictures. BUT, I can't blow them up any larger than 8x10, which really sucks because I have some great photos from my trips. If you consider yourself an amateur photographer, get the higher mega pixel. if you consider yourself a point and shoot kind of gal, happy with 4x6, than the 2.1 is fine.