"Starter" digital camera?

[glynndah]

I have decided that it's time to join the digital age and buy a digital camera. However, the choices are so numerous and the vocabulary of the options and requirements are so foreign to me, that I cannot even figure out what a good basic model is, let alone any bells and whistles I might need. I want a basic, easy to use model that I can learn how to operate with a reasonable degree of proficiency. I had great success with a Canon SureShot 35 mm (until I dropped it one too many times and the duct tape would no longer hold the back closed) so I guess I would like a digital camera comparable to that in consumer friendliness.

I have no idea how to even begin to shop for one. I don't know how many pixels are adequate, a good size for a memory card, or even if I need one. I'd like to keep it on the cheap side because I really don't take that many pictures. But maybe if I didn't chop the heads off most of the people... Oh, well! I think that's operator error and not equipment failure.

Any suggestions? Buzz words to look for? I have this one and love it? Don't buy this under any circumstances, etc? I know when I read your responses I'm going to be even more confused, but thank you for trying to help me.

 

[footlongish]

www.dpreview.com

Read the reviews, go into the forums. Don't buy any camera that isn't "Highly Recommended". Some cameras are much, much better than others.

How much $$$ do you want to spend ? What will you do with the images ? Print them, publish on the Internet (Lit..) ?

How compact does it need to be ? Generally the smaller the camera the poorer the image quality and the more fragile they are and the fewer features they have.

How much do you know about photography ?

 

[SweetErika]

What's your budget?

Where/when do you usually use your camera? On trips, for people, scenery, etc.?

You want as many megapixels (MP) as you can get for the price. I've seen excellent, 5+ MP cameras in the ads lately for around $80. I wouldn't suggest getting anything under 4 MP at this point. If you go with something a little better than you need, you'll be happy with it for many years to come.

Buying guides and reviews

 

[LukkyKnight]

Canon Powershot SD30 5MP Digital Elph (with 2.4x Optical Zoom) about $260. Add a larger SD card (at least 128MB, maybe a full 1GB) and you're good to go. Great detail, lightweight and compact, but with 1.8-inch LCD display, been out about a year with a good track record.

 

[SweetErika]

Our grandma just visited, and brought her first digital camera. She had a 1GB memory card, and that's what I'd recommend buying because they're not terribly expensive and it'll last you a long trip (it holds about 300 good quality pics, and 100 super-duper quality -- the good's all you'll need though). I think hers is a Canon camera, and it wasn't difficult to use at all (if an 80 year old woman can figure it out, so can you!).

You're right about taking more pics with a digital. We didn't use our camera a ton until we got a digital. Now, it's so much more fun to take pics, we always get what we want, are a lot more likely to experiment with different shots/features (why not, when it costs nothing? ), and we use it far more because the images are so good and we can store everything on the PC and share them easily.

Do any of your friends/family have digital cameras? Maybe they'd be willing to loan one to you the next time you want to take pics (heck, even go to the local conservatory/gardens or around your city) so you can see what they can do? I think if you try one out, you'll see it's worth investing a little in--again, I'm thinking like the good $80 models here--as opposed to getting the cheapest you can find.

We have an HP 5 MP camera, and even the medium-quality shots are amazing. It was state of the art when we got it, has the features we need, and is a great camera. We'll likely get one of the 5MP $80 cameras this year because ours is just too big to take on long trips and backpacking, and we won't need so many features for travel.

 

[Texguy84]

Well, the thing is, for most practical purposes, 3-5 Megapixels is usually fine. 5MP looks pretty good printed out as a 4x6, and doesn't look that bad printed as an 8x10. For purposes of putting pictures on the web, a 5MP camera will give you a picture that you will likely find resizing to be *smaller* so it can easily be seen on screen. Generally speaking, there's not a huge difference between 4MPs and 5MPs, quality or resolution wise, it really depends on the camera.

Also, "Digital Zoom" isn't as neat as it sounds. Basically, the camera automatically crops the picture to make it smaller (thus making the subject appear "closer" in the picture), the image quality for digitally-zoomed images tends to be less than normal. "Optical Zoom" is basically a zoom lens in your camera. 3X should be fine for most everyday purposes.

As has been said before, www.dpreview.com is your friend. Also, pretty much any camera from a known camera company (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc.) will tend to be a pretty good camera, so they tend to be safe bets. Also, try to find a store in town that has cameras on display that you can play with in the store (ie: Best Buy, Ritz Camera, etc.) and see how you like *holding* the camera. All the features in the world won't matter if the darned thing is just a hassle to hold and change settings on.

Finally, set a budget for how much you want to spend, and try to stay within it unless you can spend just a little bit more to get a much better deal. There is ALWAYS a better camera that you can spend more money on. Canon sells digital cameras that cost around $5,000, as well as the ones that cost around $150 that you see at Wal Mart. Very VERY nice cameras, also heavy enough to beat a mugger to death with, but far more camera than most people need.

And of course, once you find one you like, let us know so we can see if we like it too.

 

[footlongish]

I'm thinking like the good $80 models here--as opposed to getting the cheapest you can find.

IMHO, its worth spending some money on a good camera. Pictures last a lifetime, especially in this day and age of being digital. Memories are priceless.

Generally speaking, there's not a huge difference between 4MPs and 5MPs, quality or resolution wise, it really depends on the camera.

You can't even really buy a camera that is less than 6MP. I don't know why you would want to. Large prints are cheap and good these days. 8x12 for $1.50. For that you need 6MP. Lots of the new cameras are 8 and 10MP and yes, it makes a difference once you start cropping or printing larger size. Sure, you'll never want to do that - until you take a great picture and want a blow up of it on your wall.

I'd ask these questions on dpreview.

 

[glynndah]

Thank you all for your prompt replies. I'm still quite confused, but now I'm "knowledgeably" confused. I'll probably start shopping around soon and at least I'll have some numbers (5 MP; 1GB memory card; 33 MPG; $4.95 AYCE;etc.) to shoot for.

 

[SweetErika]

IMHO, its worth spending some money on a good camera. Pictures last a lifetime, especially in this day and age of being digital. Memories are priceless.

I agree; my point is that prices are plummenting. Our 5.3 MP was over $500 and state of the art a couple of years ago. Now, similar is available for around $100, which is great for those who can't afford or don't want to spend a ton. One of those would be great for the average user, IMO.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

I love and have had great success with my Canon Powershot A610. (over 1000 pictures on a two month vacation.... some 200 in one particularly photogenic day)

I would highly recomend any camera from the Canon Powershot series. They vary by megapixel and features and the price goes from low 200s to high 300s.

However, they're easy to use and take great point and shoot pictures. They also have some excellent features in case photography ever becomes a big thing for you. (They have limited manual capabilities and some cool shooting modes).

But, if you think that you'll just use the camera for simple pictures and it'll never be a big thing, you *may* want to look somewhere else.

A few things to keep in mind:
-Picture quality is more than megapixels, photosensors and a few other things are very important.

-Make sure you buy a current camera and if you buy from Best Buy or a similar store, get the extended warranty, it's worth it for the cleaning alone. Slightly older cameras may be a bit cheaper, but they also may be harder/more expensive to repair.

-When it comes to the size/quality of the pictures you take, you can always shrink the picture or lower the quality in any number of photo programs, but you can't really improve it once it's been taken... Something to consider when buying a memory card.

-Buy a card reader for your computer, especially if your camera uses regular batteries. They read your memory card much faster and don't waste your batteries.

Any other questions?

 

[footlongish]

Actually, I wouldn't get the extended warranty. I've found the manufacturers warranty on cameras (Canon and Nikon) to be outstanding. I had a Nikon Coolpix that I dropped and broke the battery door. They fixed it for a very nominal fee. $20. A circuit board got blown on another camera because it got plugged into a TV wrong. That was fixed for free.

Before I got the warranty from a Best Buy, I'd ask them where it would go/who would fix it when it broke with their warranty.

Another thing to note is that the smaller cameras are hard to hold, or at least they seem to get dropped a lot. And they are a bit fragile. I know a lady that has dropped and broken 2 compact cameras. Larger cameras seem to be a bit sturdier and much easier to hold. The really small compact cameras are usually held by the finger tips and they don't have a camera strap and the buttons are small and close together. They are easily dropped.

One thing I really detest with some cameras is how long it takes for them to "snap" the picture once you press the shutter. Really frustrating when shooting moving targets or even people posing.

Also, you might find you use your camera way more than you have in the past. I shot 35mm film in an SLR for years and years. Now that I have a digital SLR, I shoot more pictures in one year with it than I did in about 18 years with film SLRs. And my pics are 5x better too.

but you can't really improve it once it's been taken...

Well, that isn't entirely true. Some cameras will store images in raw format rather than jpegs. A raw file is like a digital negative. You download it on your computer and "expose" it there with special software. The great thing about doing that is that you can adjust the exposure, white balance and color curve when you do so. You can adjust those things on a Jpeg with software like Photoshop, but its not the same as doing it on the raw file.

I shoot in raw format all the time with my DSLR, unless its an action shot where I need 3ish frames per second.

There are a ton of things to discuss about digital cameras. PM me or ask if you want more of my input.

 

[Weird Harold]

I have no idea how to even begin to shop for one. I don't know how many pixels are adequate, a good size for a memory card, or even if I need one. I'd like to keep it on the cheap side because I really don't take that many pictures. But maybe if I didn't chop the heads off most of the people... Oh, well! I think that's operator error and not equipment failure.

The first step in buying a camera is to determine what you're going to be doing with the pictures -- you will take more pictures with a digital because you get the picture right away and can tell someone you're chatting with, "wait moment and I'll send you a picture."

If you're not going to be printing the pictures, you can't really use mexapixel modes, so a 2 or 3 MP camera is better than you'll need.

The second step is determining where you're going to be taking pictures -- digital cameras require batteries and and you can't stop into a souvineer shop and buy more "film" for one. 300 pictures sounds like a lot of pictures but with a digital camera that's less than half a day at a theme park with the kids.

If most of your picture taking is going to be away from immediate access to your computer to download the pictures, you're going to need a bigger card or more than one card for your camera to store pictures on. Likewise, for that kind of photography, you need a camera that uses replaceable alkaline batteries rather than a rechargable battery.

Third, what kind of pictures are you going to be taking? Action pictures -- sports, kids, etc -- require different thigs form a camera than portraiture and still-life photography does. Footlongish mentioned the delay in storing a picture, but I've found that the cheaper digital cameras also have longer "shutter speeds" than more expensive cameras -- i.e. they take longer to capture the image as well as taking longer to store it; resulting in blurred images if you don't hold the camera absolutely steady.

Finally, consider the size of the camera and how it fits your hands -- my current camera is about the size of pack of cigarettes so I'm more likely to take it with me somewhere where my old 35MM SLR camera required a camera bag and a bunch of accessories, so I only took it somewhere if I went with the intention of taking pictures.

As far as cost is concerned, digital cameras come in all price ranges and expensive doesn't always mean better if you're buyingfeatures you'll never use.

I bought my grandaughters a pair of $20 Vivitar point-and-shoot cameras that are in what their mother characterized as "cheap enough it doesn't matter if they lose them." The best resolution of those cameras is 800x600 and they only hold about sixty pictures before they have to be dowloaded. But for the scrapbooking my grandaughters need cameras for, they're more than adequate.

My camera was $70 (less than the 256MB additional memory card for it) and my only complaint is that it eats batteries. It's a 3 mexapixel camera, but I keep the resolution stepped down to 800x600 to match the screen resolution on my computer because I do NOT print pictures, I use them in screen-savers, e-mail them to people, and occasionally attach one here at Lit. It does what I need a camera for and it's nice to have the option of switchig to a higher, printable, resolution if I ever decide to get artistically sentimental and print personalized invitations or greeting cards.

Prices have come down so far on digitl cameras that it's actually feasible to buy a cheap, basically throwaway, camera to learn about the diferences between digital and film photography -- buy a midrange camera like mine with features you think you might like and see which you wind up using and which are just technophilic window dressing. Then go out and shop for a better camera with abetter idea of what digital cameras can do and what you need.

 

[footlongish]

If you're not going to be printing the pictures, you can't really use mexapixel modes, so a 2 or 3 MP camera is better than you'll need.

What is the obsession with buying a cheap, poor quality digital camera ?

We get one life to live. Once the day/month/year is over, the only thing we have left is our memories and our pictures. I've been taking pictures with a decent quality camera since 1987 and some of the pictures I have are absolutely priceless. Weddings, family, births, trips, adventures, parties, etc. I've got pictures of them all. Simply precious. Irreplaceable.

Buy a decent quality camera and learn to use it. It will be one of the best investments you'll ever make.

My wife and I have been going through a rough time. We are reading a book (Gottman) that talks about needing to having positive memories of your past with your partner. I had a hard time with that. My wife dragged out the photo albums and sat beside me and showed me pictures of good times we had 10 years ago. How do you put a price on that ? You can't.

Buy a good camera and capture the moments in your life. 10 years from now you will be happy you did.

and expensive doesn't always mean better if you're buyingfeatures you'll never use.

What feature wouldn't you use ? A faster lens is great in low light. Faster camera operation takes better pictures of moving subjects. Lower image noise means better prints. A better LCD makes the camera easier to operate. A better flash gives better lighting in low light situations. A longer zoom gives better close ups.

And features you don't use today might be needed next month or next year. Your photography skills will improve as you take more pictures.

Footlongish mentioned the delay in storing a picture, but I've found that the cheaper digital cameras also have longer "shutter speeds" than more expensive cameras -- i.e. they take longer to capture the image as well as taking longer to store it; resulting in blurred images if you don't hold the camera absolutely steady.

You are mixing up two things here. Shutter speed is how long it takes the camera to capture the image. Just like with the film cameras, any shutter speed longer than about 1/30th will be blurry UNLESS THE CAMERA HAS IMAGE STABILIZATION, which is a very nifty feature on the new digital cameras. (Caps for emphasis, not shouting.)

The second part mentioned was the write times. This is how long it takes the camera to store the images. Long write times DO NOT make blurry images. They have nothing to do with image quality, only how many images you can take per second.

I have a Nikon Coolpix compact camera. On a bright summer day, I can shoot pictures of kids playing in a sprinkler at 1/400 and f/8. 1/400th of a second shutter speed stops motion, so the pictures are crisp. Not blurry.

But the Coolpix is slow. I get less than 1 picture per second and it takes a second or so from the time I press the shutter until its captured. Its hard to get a good picture of a kid running through a sprinkler. By the time I get the kid framed and I press the shutter and the camera takes it, the kid is gone.

I also have a D50 DSLR. It shoots at 1/400 and f/8 too. Same crisp pictures, but 6MP instead of 3MP. But it shoots over 2.5 pictures per second for as long as I hold down the shutter. And it fires as soon as I touch the shutter. snap-snap-snap-snap-snap-snap, in 2 seconds. The D50 also has a great viewfinder, not a fuzzy LCD that you can't see in the sun, so framing the shot is easy. I can easily get half a dozen perfect pictures of a kid running through a sprinkler with my D50.

That is the difference between shutter speed and camera operation speed.

All cameras should have the same shutter speed if they use the same lens speed (f/2.8, say). However, some low cost cameras and most compact cameras have very low ISO sensitivity and thus they need longer shutter times. Some compact cameras run at ISO 50 to get a clean image, whereas a DSLR will will at ISO 200 or more. That is the difference between 1/15 sec (blurry) and 1/60sec (sharp).

 

[Texguy84]

Before I got the warranty from a Best Buy, I'd ask them where it would go/who would fix it when it broke with their warranty.

Also, not all Best Buys are created equal. The one in College Station, TX has wonderfully informed and helpful staff, but horribly inept managers. Another one up in Dallas has very smart, helpful managers, but the staff couldn't find their way out of a ripped paper bag. I had a friend who needed to get something fixed/replaced under the Best Buy Warranty, and the managers at the CS Best Buy were being very difficult, claiming it couldn't be fixed, warranty didn't cover it (despite the fact that the repair/replacement had *already* been authorized by the Best Buy warranty office, wherever it is), so he went to Dallas and those guys took care of him, no problem.

Another thing to note is that the smaller cameras are hard to hold, or at least they seem to get dropped a lot. And they are a bit fragile. I know a lady that has dropped and broken 2 compact cameras. Larger cameras seem to be a bit sturdier and much easier to hold. The really small compact cameras are usually held by the finger tips and they don't have a camera strap and the buttons are small and close together. They are easily dropped.

Something that I've had drummed into my head ever since I started serious photography: ALWAYS keep the camera strap attatched to you. This means have the neckstrap around your neck, wrist-strap on your wrist, etc., even when using a tripod, whenever possible. Having the camera swing down and hit your belly does a lot less damage than having it drop and hit the pavement.

One thing I really detest with some cameras is how long it takes for them to "snap" the picture once you press the shutter. Really frustrating when shooting moving targets or even people posing.

This is where playing with the camera in a store comes in handy. Some stores are careful to keep the cameras charged up all the time, some try to and fail sometimes, and then apparantly Sears (or the one in my town at least) only puts in batteries if someone wants to try a camera, because it's easier for them that way. If you play with the camera in the store, taking pictures, playing with different options, etc., you can get a feel for how well you like it or hate it before you buy it (even if you ultimately don't buy the camera from that store).

 

[footlongish]

This is where playing with the camera in a store comes in handy.

Make sure you test the camera speed without the flash. All cameras are slow when using the flash because it has to recharge in between shots. If you want fast shots indoors, you'll need to turn the flash off, open up the lens and turn up the ISO.

All the dpreviews rate the camera speeds. Here is the speed rating for a Canon 3IS, for example. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page4.asp

I'll shut up now.

 

[Weird Harold]

What is the obsession with buying a cheap, poor quality digital camera ?

We get one life to live. Once the day/month/year is over, the only thing we have left is our memories and our pictures. I've been taking pictures with a decent quality camera since 1987 and some of the pictures I have are absolutely priceless.

It's not an obsession with cheap, poor quality cameras, it's an evaluation of what I USE a camera FOR. If I have to resize every picture down to 800x600 pixels or smaller, what do I gain from having a camera that defaults to 1280x1024 pixels?

I've been taking pictures with cameras ranging from my very first Kodak Brownie camera (handed down from my sister in 1955) to a top of the line Maaiya Sekor 1000 XTL 35mm SLR purchased in 1972 and used for shooting everything from airshows and motorcycle races to candid snapshots of the kids. Some of the best pictures I ever took were taken with a German made pre-WWI 35mm "range-finder" camera I inherited from my father in-law. that was totally manual.

An 800x600 pixel color digital image is a better picture than the 2.25x2.50 inch B/W prints I still have from that old Kodak Brownie.

But primarily, my advice about considering "cheaper" cameras is as a counter to the rampant technophila that this kind of thread attracts -- not everybody needs a Ferrari -- especially if they don't drive anywhere but to the corner grocery once a week.

PS: two features that my camera has that I don't use and don't forsee any time I'll ever use them is the ten-second silent video mode and the triple-image mode (takes three images with one click) -- those are features that I don't care whether my next camera has or not.

 

[footlongish]

If I have to resize every picture down to 800x600 pixels or smaller, what do I gain from having a camera that defaults to 1280x1024 pixels?

Because someday you might take the perfect picture of an airplane or your kids and want something larger than 4x6. Like an 8x12. Or maybe not you, but maybe in 10 years your kid's wife will want that 8x12. Then what ?

And with the price of cameras and hard drives these days, what is the problem with a 1280x1024 image ? For what application do you need to scale them down to 800x600 ? Just curious.

 

[sba]

Lets say your budget is zero,zilch,nothing....
Borrow or even steal money to buy a good camera,not just any! you will regret buying a low quality small unprofessional camera later! been there done that bought the t shirt!
So take my advise just buy the upper range cameras even if you don't go for the very best,atleast buy one where ,when you take it out people would admire you for what you have!LOL
I got a camera for £50 and everythime i took it out at a party everyone just ..well they didn't like it ,so i got another one for £150 and after a few months when i learned to take great pictures,i noticed that the camera was handicaped in taking pictures of certain close up objects.
My last purchase was one for £450 and that was all i could afford for a camera,but if i hadn't bought the first two,i could have had the best digital 9mpx camera,but have a 8mpx now.
Canon or pentax are the best and after you take pictures of just sky at sunset,you would love it!
I can honestly say that this canon is so user friendly that i take pictures with my eyes shut!
I took one last month of a road near me where at night alot of cars with head lights go by,so after playing about with it and using a tri pod,i took the most beautiful picture with long lines of rear red lights and white head lines,it is enlarged and hung up in my room now and everyone thinks it was done by a pro,but it was me!
To make a picture enlarge, a good quality camera is needed since low quality ones just pixelate and are rubbish!
Don't buy cheap!
Having said all that to you, i bet you are not convinced and will go and buy a cheap one! DON'T!

 

[SweetErika]

It's not an obsession with cheap, poor quality cameras, it's an evaluation of what I USE a camera FOR. If I have to resize every picture down to 800x600 pixels or smaller, what do I gain from having a camera that defaults to 1280x1024 pixels?

<snip>

But primarily, my advice about considering "cheaper" cameras is as a counter to the rampant technophila that this kind of thread attracts -- not everybody needs a Ferrari -- especially if they don't drive anywhere but to the corner grocery once a week..

Exactly. The 3/5 star quality setting on our 5 MP camera produces such good images that I can't imagine we'll ever switch to the 5-star setting. It also gives us gigantic images, which is fine because it's simple to size down, but it's really more than we've ever needed.

With excellent, 4.5-5+MP cameras that produce quality images and have all of the features the average person needs for $75-120, I have trouble seeing the point of spending hundreds more, just to get the latest or most feature-packed machine. If someone wants or needs more, great, but not everyone does, Foot. It's like telling me to buy a Lamborghini when I'm looking for a reliable, fuel-efficient, compact car that will get me around for another decade with relatively few problems - something more like a Honda or Toyota. Quality and the features I need (and will be very happy with for years to come) don't have to cost a lot.

Glynndah, glancing at my AV, I recall one of the features we really love is the ability to take pics in black and white and sepia mode. We've experimented with those a lot, and have some amazing images of all sorts of things to show for it. Even good software like Photoshop just can't produce something even close to the camera settings, which make everything so crisp and professional-looking. I'm sure most cameras have the features now, but thought you might want to make sure while you're researching and shopping.

 

[footlongish]

It also gives us gigantic images, which is fine because it's simple to size down, but it's really more than we've ever needed.

i don't get this. What is the talk about "gigantic" images all about ? Are the file sizes too big or do they display too large on the computer ?

The 3/5 setting on the camera is the jpeg quality or the image size in pixels ?

I'd shut up but what I am hearing is going against everything I hold dear about digital photography. Maybe if I understood it, I'd agree.

With excellent, 4.5-5+MP cameras that produce quality images and have all of the features the average person needs for $75-120

Yeah my inlaws were showing me their "excellent" pictures from a family reunion this summer. Taken in a darker room, the people looked like ghosts with vampire eyes standing in the dark.

I've been biting my lip on this topic. If I were to open my mouth I'd be screaming to break the piggy bank and buy a 10MP DSLR with external flash and a good zoom and a couple primes. Probably the best money you'll ever spend. It will capture 10 years of memories in vivid detail.

 

[sethp]

get the...

Get a nikon good quality, low price easy to use software for redeye, resizing etc. and small also I dropped mine on the cement this weekend and it still works great! I highly recommend one. the higher up in price you go the better the quality.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Speaking of Nikons ...

I wanted to get something that I knew I was going to get a ton of use out of. I did some research and found out about the Nikon CoolPix cameras.

To start off, Nikon discontinued these cameras quickly. Very quickly. The advent of the new digital SLRs quickly overtook the CoolPix for one simple reason: Action shots.

Fortunately I'm not worried about action shots at this time. I still have a standard film-fed 35mm that can stop a water drop in mid air with crystal clarity. So if I really want to do action shots I could go to that camera.

Back to the CoolPix ...

Its very easy to find them on e-Bay and the better versions still have warranty depending on how long ago they were purchased. I got a CoolPix 8800 for a little under $600 and have fallen in love with the damn thing. If action shots are all I'm missing then for the time being I can do without. 8 megapixels, 10x zoom, a decent sized view screen and a shit load of other options, too many to list here.

This is a starter camera for me. I'm sure that one day I will go to a digital SLR, but for now ... here's a taste of stuff I've getting ... If a couple of the first pics are too dark for you then its your monitor. I can see them perfectly so please don't tell me about it ...

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=458328

&

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=459164

 

[Weird Harold]

And with the price of cameras and hard drives these days, what is the problem with a 1280x1024 image ? For what application do you need to scale them down to 800x600 ? Just curious.

My screen resolution is set to 800x600 and so even if I leave a picture at 1280x1024, I view it it at that resolution or smaller.

The problems with "huge images" is both dimensions and filesize.

First, as I say, a 1280x1024 image won't fit on my normal screen resolution and changing to a higer screen resolution is not an option beause my eyesight isn't good enough to deal with the tiny print in anythng other than a high resolution image.

Second, a 7 MB image takes up a lot more disk space than a 100KB even with the poorest quality setting for JPeG comression -- saving them in a "loss-less" format like .RAW or .BMP taks up four or five times as much space. A new and bigger hard-drive would be nice, but even a three-pack of CDRW is something I have to budget ahead for because I live on a fixed income. Huge image files eat up my measly five GB partions in a hurry and they take several minutes to send via e-mail over my dial-up connection.

Third, even if my heirs decide they want to print an 8x10 from an image on my computer after I'm gone, they'll just have to live with the limitations of what's available -- just as I had to deal with the limitations of a 2.25x2.50 inch BW print when I wanted an 8x10 of my grandfather, sister and me taken just before he died in the early sixties.

Fourth, even if I do decide to print an 8x10 to hang on my wall, the human eye can't really distingush minute differences in quality without close inspection.

I have an 8x10 picture somewhere that was taken in Vietnam with a 16mm Minox, and a couple of 8x10's "near-photo quality prints" of my granddaughters taken when 800x600 was considered very high-resolution -- all of them are "grainy" because the original format was never intended to be enlarged that much, but it doesn't diminish the memories or change the fact that when viewed from the distances normally associated with wall hangings they're virtually indistinguishable from various profession portraits in the same size and format.

I don't have and can't afford a printer that can take advantage of very-high resolution images (The printer I have has to interpolate to print anything better than 600 DPI) and I never actually see an image at larger than 800x600, so what exactly is it that higher mega-pixel images offer me besides wasted disk space and fewer pictures on the SD card?

 

[footlongish]

I'm not going to argue with you, just point out a few things.

a) Most jpeg viewing software allows the viewer to zoom in and out as they please. So the computer screen size is irrelevant, unless you ever get a monitor with more pixels. Then larger image sizes are preferable.

One day you might want to show your images on a plasma TV. The current standard image size on them is about 1366 x 768. Who knows what that will be 10 years from now. Note that the TV, Plasma and camera aspect ratios are all different. Its nice to have a few extra pixels if you need to crop.

b) A 6MP camera does not yield a 6MP information set. Most cameras capture 12 bits of info for each color, so there are actually 36 bits per pixel which is over 4 bytes per pixel. However, most raw formats are compressed. The Nikon raw file for my D50 is about 5.1 MB, even though its a 6MP camera. A full sized 6MP jpeg file (2000x3000 pixels) at an image quality factor of 80 is a little over 2.2MB, depending on the image.

c) hard drives are incredibly cheap these days. A 250 GB drive can be gotten for about $100. That will store about 100,000 2.5 MB images.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

@ glynndah: My camera has two different base picture parameters. One is the size of the picture in pixels, much like your monitor settings. The other is picture quality. So let's say you're taking some pics for lit, you could set your camera to high quality but a smaller size so that you don't have to resize each picture. Then, the next day, you're on vacation in Paris and what some really nice pictures of the Eiffel Tower, so you maintain the quality of the picture and increase the size. This way you can print the picture out at 8x10 without losing quality by "stretching" the image.

@ footlongish: What you've said about the .raw format is very true, however I was refering to the fact that you can't change the "quality" setting of the picture after changing it. You know a lot about cameras, we'll have to talk shop sometime... even if I'm just an amateur.