# 2 or 3 Megapixel?



## jancz3rt (Mar 16, 2005)

Hey guys. I have a question whether it is really worth going for a 3 megapixel camera over a 2 megapixel. Now I have never owned one but I am asking because some of you may have come across this same issue. I do know that the pictures are likely to be of greater detail and size...but is it really worth paying extra? I intend to use the camera during the summer for casual photography.

JAN


----------



## lynx6200 (Mar 16, 2005)

I would say three is better, but it depends on how much extra it would be.  You would just have to figure out if the magapixel/cost ratio is worth it.  Like for an extra 20 bucks, maybe so, but i wouldnt spend a whole lot more.  You can check the size dimensions for the megapixels online.  Like with 2 meg. you can get decent 5x7 photo (dont know exact mesuremnt), and larger sizes with more megapixels.


----------



## Adam Warren (Mar 17, 2005)

whats your budget for the camera. the sony cybershot's are nice cams. and hp has a couple cheap 4.1 ones out that are not to far off from the 3.2 price-wize.


----------



## computerdude2004 (Mar 17, 2005)

I would say to get a three megapixel camera over a two megapixel camera.


----------



## ian (Mar 17, 2005)

3 megapixel seems to be the entry point for most digital camera's these days. 
I would probably opt for a 3 megapixel camera, but just as important, make sure to get one with an optical zoom instead of digital zoom if your budget allows it.


----------



## jancz3rt (Mar 17, 2005)

*Yeah.*

My budget's about 260 US dollars. I definitely want to get a camera with an optical zoom rather than just those without it. I have had a look at those HP cameras but I do not like their look. I like Olympus and Nikon (especially teh Coolpix series). Have any of you gone from 2 to 3 megapixel and noticed a large difference?

JAN


----------



## ian (Mar 17, 2005)

I have a nikon coolpix 3100, had it for a while now, it is 3  megapixel with optical zoom. I like some of the fuji cameras which double as a webcam, may want to look into them as well, they are fairly cheap.


----------



## ian (Mar 17, 2005)

If you havent already done so, the two sites worth checking out are
http://www.steves-digicams.com/ and http://www.dpreview.com/
Especially the picture samples and camera reviews at dpreview.com are excellent.


----------



## kof2000 (Mar 17, 2005)

3 mp i go with d snap even tho no optical it is ultra thin and small fits in pocket. i own one is awesome too bad only 3.3 mp max when will they make a 5mp LOL.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 25, 2005)

if the price isnt that big of a difference, i would get the 3mp.  If you have a 2.0mp camera now, then i would buy a camera thats at least a 4.


----------



## jancz3rt (Mar 28, 2005)

*Got A 2mp*

Hey I wanted to save some dosh and got myself a Nikon Coolpix 2200, which is a 2.1 mp camera. The pictures are awsome...at least in my opinion. I was never expecting that. Check them out here.

http://www.marrouche.net/cz3rt/gallery/index.php?album=CZ3RT'S+PHOTOZ&sortby=name&order=asc

JAN


----------



## ian (Mar 28, 2005)

The pictures are excellent, I like my nikon coolpix as well, its really easy to use.
Is that your pet? Im assuming it is a bunny rabbit
http://www.marrouche.net/cz3rt/gallery/index.php?action=view&album=CZ3RT%27S+PHOTOZ&image=6&sortby=name&order=asc


----------



## Lorand (Mar 28, 2005)

Nice photos! The camera make good pictures indeed.
It has a slight chromatic aberration tho, as you can see in the pics with the trees. Look at the second tree from the left: the right side of it has a magenta contour, while the left side is yellowish.


----------



## jancz3rt (Mar 28, 2005)

*Yeah my pet indeed.*



			
				ian said:
			
		

> The pictures are excellent, I like my nikon coolpix as well, its really easy to use.
> Is that your pet? Im assuming it is a bunny rabbit



Yeah it's my animal. Looks cute ey? Anyway, I have realised that some of the pictures have that purplish tint in some places in certain light conditions. Hmm...anyway, I still love it.

JAN


----------



## Praetor (Mar 28, 2005)

> Hey guys. I have a question whether it is really worth going for a 3 megapixel camera over a 2 megapixel. Now I have never owned one but I am asking because some of you may have come across this same issue. I do know that the pictures are likely to be of greater detail and size...but is it really worth paying extra? I intend to use the camera during the summer for casual photography.


Well it kinda depends what you're using it for whether it be on-computer-viewing or print-out-viewing .... 2MP is something like 1600x1200 already so more than sufficient for any on-computer-viewing  If you want to print-out than 3MP is naturally thr better choice


----------



## Lorand (Mar 29, 2005)

Praetor said:
			
		

> Well it kinda depends what you're using it for whether it be on-computer-viewing or print-out-viewing .... 2MP is something like 1600x1200 already so more than sufficient for any on-computer-viewing  If you want to print-out than 3MP is naturally thr better choice


It's strange, but even a 2 MP camera can provide good printouts. Some time ago I had to make a A3 sized poster with a full-page photo as background with a 2.1 MP camera. I was very skeptical, I thought it will be very pixelated, but surprise: printed on a color laser printer the poster was amazing, one could barely see the pixels on the photo.


----------



## Praetor (Mar 29, 2005)

> It's strange, but even a 2 MP camera can provide good printouts


Yes they most certainly can it depends on what size your final print out will be; when I did digital photoprints anything short of 6MP wasnt a viable option  however for reference sake 11MP will allow for a nice big poster 



> I was very skeptical, I thought it will be very pixelated, but surprise: printed on a color laser printer the poster was amazing, one could barely see the pixels on the photo


Using the right paper, some of the inkjets are quite exceptional as well


----------

