How often do you choose maximum resolution when taking photo

[delphinus]

Just doing a quick survey whether 3 megapixel and above cameras are "sufficient" or just an overkill. Because I know some people just buy the high resolution capability without using it often. How many megapixel do you think is enough?

Delphin

[Maestro]

It really depends on what you intend the pictures to be used for. If you're a professional photographer who is printing 11x17 portraits than even a 4 megapixel camera isn't going to satisfy your needs. If you're an enthusiastic amateur than 4 megapixels will probably completely satisfy your needs (You can print up to 8x10at 220 dpi).
I should also note that pixels are not the only factor you should look at in a camera, 11 megapixels and a crappy lens that has terrible pincushioning or chromatic abberation is still a crappy camera. How the pixels are arranged, what type of CCD they use, what filters they use over the CCD are all very important factors that can make a picture look amazing or terrible.
So... If you intend on printing 5x7 pictures 3-4 megapixels will satisfy your needs; 8x10 needs around 4 megapixels to remain true without interpolation.
** Always shoot at the highest resolution possible, you can always drop pixels but you can't add 'em as easily.

[Leighow]

DELPHIN:

I never print, but change my screen background often!

I am not an expert, and to the extent that a point and shoot camera is not wysiwyg -- I crop. That being said, I would say to anyone with a similar interest (and the bucks to spare) should not consider less that 4 megapixels.

That's because, once you start to crop, or shoot at ISO 400, or alter in PS you will be discarding too many otherwise salvageable shots -- they will just show their grain and other defects on screen. No go G2. Or, as Sheila might say, go G60 . That my friend is what I have told a pile of friends and bus buddies. (Of course I also advise a younger crowd to perhaps start at 3, because fater processers are just around the corner. )

Oh, and that reminds me, I would wait for a G5 ... if.... its processor was guaranteed to be twice as fast as the G2's That is because I am finding that for certain shots, my subjects (birds) will not retain their pose while the G2 processes our first take. Also, switcing back and forth between reveiw and shoot can be too time consuming as well.

HOWIE

[bigdave]

I use maximum resolution every time. I have a big memory card... why not?

[delphinus]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm helping my friend buying their first digital camera, and he kept insisting to get a 4mp range even though he'll be using about 1280x1024 (? not too sure, not listed in my camera) resolution range. Anyway I got the point and I'll advise them to get 4mp range (s45 or g3, probably so that I can see whether it is as good as they're supposed to be or not :p).

Btw I owned an S30 and generally satisfied with the performance with an exception of filter adapter disability (CKC's adapter is damn ugly imho). Considering of going to Fujifilm S602z or Canon G3 if when I have enough fund.

Delphin

[Conk]

Well Delphinus, get the Canon and keep posting here.

[Denny]

I always take at highest quality jpeg and highest resolution because sometimes when I get a very nice phtoograph that I took at 640x480 resolution, I can't print it out.

[paulmog]

i have a large memory card and never want to get that perfect shot and realize that i took it at a low res. i also fool around with RAW somtimes (which is the largest) but i found that i really don't gain much from that.

[clow]

I always shoot at the highest setting (1600x1200). From this you can always decide if you want to print from it or resize it down for the web.

Its alot harder if you took a nice photo in 1024x768 and wanted to print but realise the resolution isn't there.

Memory is so cheap these days. Why skimp?

I can fit 120+ photos on a 128Mb card and my batteries will run out by the time I hit that amount.


Chris
www.chrislow.com

[onehotrx7]

I doubt that you really need another person telling you to shoot at maximum all the time... but, SHOOT AT MAXIMUM ALL THE TIME!!!!

Seriously, the more pixels you capture, the more room to crop, enhance and improve your shots... people see the photo's I have of my kids and say I should be a professional photographer because my composition is always spot on... lots of them weren't, but framing and cropping is so simply, especially for printing 6X4...

For macro, being able to fill a monitor with only a small section of your shot is an absolute boon... even for shooting simple things like product shots for the web, it's so simple to size them down and get a brilliant image... and you've still got the full size original for anything else you need... I could shoot at 640 X 480 for pictures for web use, but then what do I do if I need an enlargement, or a picture for use in a newsletter or brochure??

Ah, but you don't have a 'professional' use for your camera... that's fine... so you want to keep the file size down so you can shoot 400 pictures on your card without having to download them... you're just a simple amateur photographer, and all you're going to print is 6X4... so, do it... don't ask people's opinions... and don't complain when you do take the killer sunset or the perfect portrait that pixellates when you try to enlarge it, the shot of something that could have comfortably got you thousands of dollars if you could sell it to the media, but can't because you used too low a resolution... shoot in maximum resolution... it's worth it...

Cheers,
Stuart

[UK_Terry]

onehotrx7 wrote:
I doubt that you really need another person telling you to shoot at maximum all the time... but, SHOOT AT MAXIMUM ALL THE TIME!!!!
Stuart

i agree with stuart, i have a D30 and always use the highest JPG and sometimes RAW, also have an S45 coming for christmas and will endeavour to shoot at the highest it has available as well.
costs nothing to use the highest so why shoot at an "Inferior" resolution?

[Oakford]

Why not shot at the highest resolution? If you get something really good, you will want to print it. If shot at a low resolution, you are out of luck. You can always go the other direction by resizing the photo, but a good shot will be wasted if initially shot at a lower resolution.

[Novembers Paul]

delphinus wrote:
Just doing a quick survey whether 3 megapixel and above cameras are "sufficient" or just an overkill. Because I know some people just buy the high resolution capability without using it often. How many megapixel do you think is enough?

Delphin


You paid for a 3 megapixel camera, use it! It's like buying a Nascar and only driving it in first gear.

[ThomasL]

How does resampling a picture (in Photoshop, for example) affect its quality?

I know the differences are minor, but let's assume

1) you know you will need a resolution of 1024x768
2) you will not need to crop the photo

Would the quality of the resulting picture be better if you shoot @ 1024x768, and don't have to downsample?

I tried to find differences, and couldn't find any, neither did I see any between "fine" and "super-fine" JPEG compression... has anyone done tests?

[Peter Schaufuss]

I did some tests with my A40 and fine / superfine compression.

It's hard to see, but if you zoom in on the pictures, you CAN see more jpeg distortion on the fine compressed pictures.

Again, memory is cheap so why not use the highest possible quality ?

Best Regards
Peter