[fisherKing]

hi,
am a macnn person, so asking this here.
getting my first digital camera, looking at the canon sd110 and the s410.
about $100 difference.

am i going to see much difference in quality (between 4megapixels and 3.2...)

i'd rather spend less $, but need some advice.

pictures are mostly for website images, email, fun. not so much for printing.


opinions??


thanx

[CatOne]

Originally posted by fisherKing:
hi,
am a macnn person, so asking this here.
getting my first digital camera, looking at the canon sd110 and the s410.
about $100 difference.

am i going to see much difference in quality (between 4megapixels and 3.2...)

i'd rather spend less $, but need some advice.

pictures are mostly for website images, email, fun. not so much for printing.


opinions??


thanx

More pixels generally means you can blow up a picture to a larger size without noticing the "grain" of the picture. But, if you cram more megapixels into the same size sensor, it's generally less sensitive (which is bad). This is why the Canon G5 (which is a 5 MP camera) in general is regarded as taking worse pictures than the Canon G3 (which is a 4 MP camera, I think) -- because the sensors are the same size. In general I've heard very bad things about the latest crop of 8 MP cameras that use the Sony sensor, because it's a tiny sensor and the pixels are too small to reliably collect sufficient volumes of photons.

If you're not going to be printing your photos at 11x17, I say 3 MP and 4 MP will be the same quality -- the real difference is lens quality.

[tooki]

The difference between 3.2 and 4 megapixels isn't huge. Instead, concentrate on the quality of the optics. A 3.2 with a sharp lens will capture a better image than a 4 with a blurry lens (it'll just capture more pixels of blur!).

tooki

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by tooki:
The difference between 3.2 and 4 megapixels isn't huge. Instead, concentrate on the quality of the optics. A 3.2 with a sharp lens will capture a better image than a 4 with a blurry lens (it'll just capture more pixels of blur!).

tooki

this distinction between megapixel count and picture quality (vs. lens quality, with which picture quality truly correlates) becomes especially apparent in the d-slr world. under 8x10 i would take my 3.2 megapixel d30 with good glass up against any 6.3 megapixel dslr with inferior consumer glass...

[Gavin]

For comparason, the quality of a 2 MP camera is noticeably fuzzy. Anything above that will be great for the web. With a 3.2, the optics become the deciding factor.

A 3.2MP image is too large to display on a 15in monitor so you'll be shrinking it down quite a bit for web use. I have a 3.2 and with an image taken in broad daylight on a tripod I can print out an 8X10 that easily looks as good as a photo print. You have to look really hard to see the difference. (that's with an epson photo printer). When you go to 5 MP you can't tell the difference at all except for the weight of the paper, unless you have a bad picture.

I think your real choice is between the 3.2 and a 5MP camera which you can now get for less than $200. 5MP is noticeably clearer than 3.2 where 4 is not. And the newer camera will have better features, easier controls, color correction, movies, more storage, etc.

Get a tripod. Digital images are very prone to fuzziness when hand held and in low light. Even indoors in the daytime counts as low light. The better cameras will help compensate for this.

I'd check out cnet.com and read the reviews.
Canon_Powershot_SD110
Reader comments

My advice is to get the cheaper one (unless the reviews say it's a total POS), use it to learn what you really want and need. In 2 years buy a new one. Six months from now the prices will drop almost in half and you'll be pissed off no matter what you get.

[fisherKing]

lots of good information!
this is why i hang out at macnn, instead of working (or having a life..which i will have to start having, so i can take photos of it!)


thanx all

[ryju]

Originally posted by Gavin:


I think your real choice is between the 3.2 and a 5MP camera which you can now get for less than $200.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong but where are you gonna find 5MP cameras less than $200??

[OreoCookie]

I strongly advise against 2 MP, everything above is just fine for consumer-size prints. I have printed more than 200 pictures already and only one was low in quality: that taken by a friend's old 2 MP camera. His new 3.2 MP camera (with 10 x optical zoom) takes excellent pix (for a consumer cam at that price).

As long as you don't want to blow up your pix, 3.2 vs. 4 MP is more of an academic discussion.

[G4ME]

Kodak has a 5MP out that can be had for around 250 I think.

[dampeoples]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I strongly advise against 2 MP, everything above is just fine for consumer-size prints. I have printed more than 200 pictures already and only one was low in quality: that taken by a friend's old 2 MP camera. His new 3.2 MP camera (with 10 x optical zoom) takes excellent pix (for a consumer cam at that price).

As long as you don't want to blow up your pix, 3.2 vs. 4 MP is more of an academic discussion.

Except he just wants web pics, every camera has a low-res mode, which he would probaly be shooting in, unless he wants to crop/resize I suppose.

[fisherKing]

Originally posted by dampeoples:
Except he just wants web pics, every camera has a low-res mode, which he would probaly be shooting in, unless he wants to crop/resize I suppose.

i ordered the 3.2 canon sd110 today; but i will endeavor to take the best pictures i can (or the camera can).

figure if i like it enough, i can probably get a 6 megapixel camera next year, for $100 or so...

[C.J. Moof]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I strongly advise against 2 MP, everything above is just fine for consumer-size prints. I have printed more than 200 pictures already and only one was low in quality: that taken by a friend's old 2 MP camera. His new 3.2 MP camera (with 10 x optical zoom) takes excellent pix (for a consumer cam at that price).

As long as you don't want to blow up your pix, 3.2 vs. 4 MP is more of an academic discussion.

I'd rate my Canon S100, 2.1mp camera as making quite fine 4x6 prints. Never tried anything bigger with it. The only limitation is that you'd have to be very selective about cropping the pics at that size- you don't have too much extra resolution to throw away.

I'm sure you'll love the SD110- the whole Elph line are great products. Size is their killer feature- the only camera you take pictures with is the one with you, and the Elphs aren't any bigger than my cell phone, so there's little reason NOT to have it with you. My wife even picks it up and takes shots now and then, which is really saying something.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
I'd rate my Canon S100, 2.1mp camera as making quite fine 4x6 prints. Never tried anything bigger with it. The only limitation is that you'd have to be very selective about cropping the pics at that size- you don't have too much extra resolution to throw away.

I'm sure you'll love the SD110- the whole Elph line are great products. Size is their killer feature- the only camera you take pictures with is the one with you, and the Elphs aren't any bigger than my cell phone, so there's little reason NOT to have it with you. My wife even picks it up and takes shots now and then, which is really saying something.

But IMHO you'll see a noticeable improvement with a 3.3-4 MP camera. Just my experience (because most digi printers can stuff about 3 MP onto a 9x13 cm printout).

[Graymalkin]

I've got one of the Canon SD100s which is the SD110's close relative. For everything I've used it for it has worked wonderfully. I suggest getting a 128MB or larger SD card for the camera and shooting in Large (2048x1536) format with Fine compression. On my 128MB card the difference between Fine and SuperFine in the Large format is 135 pictures vs. 75 pictures. Don't bother shooting in the smaller formats to get more pictures on your card; use iPhoto/PS Elements/Graphic Converter/Preview to shrink the pictures down from their full resolution to the resolution you intend to use for your website or whatever. It will be beneficial having more pixels in an image than you figure you'll need because there's some shots you might want to put on the web but also take down to Target or Wal•Mart to print out. A 640x480 images printed at 4x6 is going to look absolutely awful.

Here's some pictures I've taken with my SD100 in the past several months. Honk if you recognize anything in the pictures!

[C.J. Moof]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
But IMHO you'll see a noticeable improvement with a 3.3-4 MP camera. Just my experience (because most digi printers can stuff about 3 MP onto a 9x13 cm printout).

I'll form my own opinion on that soon- I just ordered a Canon A80 this morning.

[Gavin]

Originally posted by ryju:
Maybe I'm reading you wrong but where are you gonna find 5MP cameras less than $200??

A lot of them are about $350.
On sale with a rebate or two can get you below $200.

Keep your eyes open and you can find a deal.

That's how I got my scanner for $14.

[fisherKing]

for anyone who cares...
got my sd110 today, love it!
have a 256meg sd card (from my palm tt), so...lots of pictures.

and they look great!

(plus the 3minute movie option is cool)


thanx all

[heresiarh]

congrats, canon is great. i own a line of their cameras.