Largest print size from a 3.2MP digicam?

[FlipsidE]

I'm curious. I'm thinkin of gettin a new true "pocket" digicam (SD200), but I am concerned about print size. I intend to put this cam through a lot of abuse, so I'd rather not spend too much money on one. It's 4MP big brother (SD300) is another $150. I think I could live with putting a $250 digicam through a good amount of pocket abuse and use. But, I'm not sure I'd feel so comfortable doing that with a $400 digicam. At the same time, though, I'd hate to get a lot of good photos at 3.2MP and be quite limited by print size.

What's the largest print I could comfortably get with a 3.2MP cam?

Thanks in advance

FlipsidE

[PacAce]

The SD200 has a max resolution of 2048x1536. At 150 dpi, you can make a 13x10 print.

[FlipsidE]

So, 8x10's are fairly possible with this cam? That's about as big as I'd ever want. Does 150dpi look grainy?

Thanks

FlipsidE

[Scottes]

A friend of mine had some pictures published a couple years ago. She took them with a 3 megapixel Kodak and the magazine printed a couple of them at double-page size. For a magazine, which is normally held fairly close to the viewer, they looked grainy, and the JPG anomalies were fairly obvious (but I notice stuff like this). The smaller, single-page prints - much closer to 8x10 - didn't look bad at all, but if you really looked at it you could see the grain and a few JPG anomalies. However, at arm's length they all looked great.

So for hanging on a wall I'd say your 8x10 (closer to 180 DPI) would be more than fine, but a discerning viewer might see grain and such if they got too close.

[kb244]

A friend of mine had some pictures published a couple years ago. She took them with a 3 megapixel Kodak and the magazine printed a couple of them at double-page size. For a magazine, which is normally held fairly close to the viewer, they looked grainy, and the JPG anomalies were fairly obvious (but I notice stuff like this). The smaller, single-page prints - much closer to 8x10 - didn't look bad at all, but if you really looked at it you could see the grain and a few JPG anomalies. However, at arm's length they all looked great.

So for hanging on a wall I'd say your 8x10 (closer to 180 DPI) would be more than fine, but a discerning viewer might see grain and such if they got too close.


Course thats with a kodak, you keep the Canon P&S at ISO 50 or so, an 8x10 should be just fine without anolmalies or grain.

[Scottes]

That could be quite true. She may have even had low or medium quality set. The magazine article was never planned.