Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what is the difference between a 12.1 and a 14.1 digital camera? Is the quality of 14.1 better? Is this it? How much better? Better in pictures and videos? Is it something that is noticeable?
Those numbers are the number of effective pixels in the camera's imaging sensor.
If it's a point and shoot, the lens is the limiting factor, and the difference between 12.1 and 14.1 is meaningless, since it's so far beyond what the lens can resolve on the tiny little sensor. On a DSLR, with good glass, those differences are meaningful. That said, the P&S camera with the higher resolution sensor may offer other features that make it a better camera, but the difference in number of pixels is all but meaningless.
Someone else can post links that will help you learn about how to choose a digital camera.
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,921 posts, read 13,863,068 times
Reputation: 5229
If the numbers you have quoted, refer to the amount of pixels for each picture, than the difference between the two resolutions you mentioned, for the average human eye, is *probably* not noticeable.
In general, the higher the pixel amount, the higher resolution the picture will have and then, *if* you *crop* pictures, and only when you took the pics at the highest resolution, the result will be a better picture.
The quality/difference of digital cameras today are in the clarity and correctness of the pictures. Most cameras now have a rather high amount of pixels as a standard.
The best way to gauge picture quality is to take several cameras of your choice, and take them outside, all at the same time and then take pics of the same subject in the *auto* mode, and then compare the results.
So look for clarity, and especially in the corners, look for inaccuracies of the pictures. Some lenses do not make good pictures in the corners of the frame.
Then some cameras that have a high pixel quantity also take very decent videos. Again, do the same thing what was mentioned above for comparison.
So, the higher the pixel amount, the better the results will be.
LBNL, always take pics at the highest resolution your camera will take pics. If you need more space, buy a larger memory card, but do not reduce the quality of the picture to *skimp*.
Also, when the size of pics get extremely large, then e-mailing those pics can be a hassle.Thus, in order to e-mail them, when you start with a high resolution, you will still have a better picture after you reduced the size of the pics.
Several *free* programmes can do that for you, and as a *rule* 800x600 is a decent size to *share* pics via e-mail.
Those numbers are the number of effective pixels in the camera's imaging sensor.
If it's a point and shoot, the lens is the limiting factor, and the difference between 12.1 and 14.1 is meaningless, since it's so far beyond what the lens can resolve on the tiny little sensor. On a DSLR, with good glass, those differences are meaningful. That said, the P&S camera with the higher resolution sensor may offer other features that make it a better camera, but the difference in number of pixels is all but meaningless.
Someone else can post links that will help you learn about how to choose a digital camera.
I know what you say is generally true, however there ate p&s cameras with good glass as well. Such as the Panasonic Lx5/Leica D-Lux 5. Sensor size is still an issue, however that's the price you pay for the compact factor.
If the numbers you have quoted, refer to the amount of pixels for each picture, than the difference between the two resolutions you mentioned, for the average human eye, is *probably* not noticeable.
Depends on the viewing distance and how big you print it. The human eye can detect somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 DPI at a standard "viewing distance". A standard viewing distance is holding a picture in your hand approximately at arms length. So if we had an image that was 4000px*3000px which is 12MP we could make a print that has physical measurements 16"*12" that was optimized for that viewing distance. In the real world since such large images are on the wall and the viewing distance is greater you could easily make it 3 times that size. That of course is assuming your camera can fully utilize the pixel range.
Sensor size is still an issue, however that's the price you pay for the compact factor.
Most people don't realize that all pixels are not created equally. The small sensor size in a P&S requires much higher resolution out of the lens for the same number of pixels. When you ask a piece of glass to resolve that much detail, the MTF (grossly simplified, sharpness at a given resolution) drops off. The big sensors in a DSLR allow the lens to operate in a region where the MTF is high. Tiny sensors require operating the lens in a region where the MTF is low.
The table here: Size Matters - photo.net shows how the MTF is much lower on the P&S because the the small sensor size means a much higher lp/mm (line pair per millimeter) for the same number of pixels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
