The Truth About Digital Cameras: Don't Waste Your Money on More Megapixels

re: The Truth About Digital Cameras: Don't Waste Your Money on More Megapixels

natter — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:13:38 GMT

We used a 3.1, few years-old, camera through southern Utah (starting at the Grand Canyon in Arizona, then up through Zion, Bryce Canyon, and over east on to Arches park) and except for some of the distances (like, tens of miles) ours came out niiice. Hell, even the moving shots - and I mean at least 60mph, if not near 80 - look like we're standing still.

re: The Truth About Digital Cameras: Don't Waste Your Money on More Megapixels

Jeremy Garrett — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:27:48 GMT

I do understand though that the size of the lense and imaging chip does make a difference. I have a small form factor 6 megapixel fuji and can't always get the contrast and colors I would like which makes the picture with subtle things like flowers not as sharp looking, and reds especially seem to blend together.

re: The Truth About Digital Cameras: Don't Waste Your Money on More Megapixels

cartooncool — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:38:15 GMT

I agree with this article. My friends thought I was crazy to buy a camera with only 5 megapixels. I went with it because I wanted a tiny camera I could easily carry around to get shots I wouldn't normally get. I receive many compliments on my pictures, and they can't belive it is from a tiny 5 megapixel camera. I have taken more pictures with this little camera than I ever did with my larger SLR.