camera advice, mega pixels?

  • Advertise with us
Blog entry by woodtickgreg posted 11-14-2009 09:31 PM 1366 reads 0 times favorited 14 comments Add to Favorites Watch

thanks for the advice guys, sounds like the direction i want to go in, never thought about macro before but it sounds like something i need to look into, any advice on mega pixels?

-- wood tick tools for turners by woodtickgreg @

14 comments so far

View Dennisgrosen's profile


10880 posts in 3085 days

#1 posted 11-15-2009 12:28 AM

hello woodtick my advice to you is to get a cammera where you can change objectives and go for the highes possible megapixels or at list 8 millions pixel becourse in the good old days when most people took pictures on film every litle 24×36 mm negativ hold from 75 – 100 mega pixels and now back to why i said go for a system cammera just by chancing the objectiv you can zoom in or aut from where you stand, sit or lay down i don´t now what your ? was abaut the macro but if you wish to take pictures of small things its mabye ok but if you just want to get close to the object consitter this the macro has a very very narrow focus point and everything autside that litle space is bluret but try a 400 – 500 mm tele to let thing you want fill the hole picture aut a teleobjectiv is contruct to give you ahell lot of debt i your pictures

just a few words from a neandertaler who still goes in the darkroom and make black and white


View mtkate's profile


2049 posts in 3295 days

#2 posted 11-15-2009 01:24 AM

If you are buying a camera, try to get one that can handle the highest amount of megapixels that you can afford. Technology keeps taking leaps and bounds in that department.

View ajosephg's profile


1880 posts in 3531 days

#3 posted 11-15-2009 01:56 AM

Camera makers play games with how they spec megapixels but in general you should be able to get at least 10mp and be ok.

-- Joe

View Todd A. Clippinger's profile

Todd A. Clippinger

8901 posts in 4069 days

#4 posted 11-15-2009 02:15 AM

I have an old Samsung point and shoot with various shooting modes including manual and movie mode.

It is only rated at 7 megapixels and you only get the full effect if it is set at the finest resolution. So for the average picture I am not sure what it shoots at, but I get great pictures out of it.

My wife has a newer Panasonic Lumix with a higher megapixel rating. It obviously produces higher resolution pictures but there is a drawback, a larger file size. The file size is about 30% larger even on a standard setting compared to mine.

The larger file size is an issue at times when uploading to the internet for various forums. I still have to downsize my photo files to get them to fit into some forums even though I am using my old camera.

It depends on how you want to use your photos, but I think anywhere from 8 to 10 megapixels is more than enough. I have never been unhappy with the resolution of my photos.

-- Todd A. Clippinger, Montana,

View Todd A. Clippinger's profile

Todd A. Clippinger

8901 posts in 4069 days

#5 posted 11-15-2009 02:18 AM

The guys are right about getting one with macro. I have a “macro” setting on mine and use it all the time, I could not live without it.

I think most cameras come with it anymore.

-- Todd A. Clippinger, Montana,

View WayneC's profile


13753 posts in 4067 days

#6 posted 11-15-2009 02:25 AM

I am using a 12 megapixel Nikon CoolPix s630. The camera is easy to use and it works great. I used it to take the photos in the Sacramento Woodworking Show Post.

-- We must guard our enthusiasm as we would our life - James Krenov

View Todd A. Clippinger's profile

Todd A. Clippinger

8901 posts in 4069 days

#7 posted 11-15-2009 02:30 AM

I haven’t looked at cameras for a long time. What is the standard pixel rate anymore? Is it about 10?

-- Todd A. Clippinger, Montana,

View Karson's profile


35111 posts in 4370 days

#8 posted 11-15-2009 02:39 AM

I’d like to get a camera that is like a single lense reflex. Through the lens focusing so that you can get those macros and some great pictures.

-- I've been blessed with a father who liked to tinker in wood, and a wife who lets me tinker in wood. Southern Delaware soon moving to Virginia †

View ajosephg's profile


1880 posts in 3531 days

#9 posted 11-15-2009 02:42 AM

Todd is right on about file size and uploading to web sites, etc. If you are going to print images you need to support a resolution of at least 300 dots per inch (dpi) which requires a lot of megapixels. A computer screen can only use about 72 dpi, hence fewer megapixels.

Even if most of your shots may be for computer/internet stuff, you will still most likely want to print a photo from time to time so its best to go for more not less. It’s easy to reduce the file size when uploading photos to web sites such as Lumberjocks.

-- Joe

View _bp's profile


18 posts in 3237 days

#10 posted 11-15-2009 03:33 AM

Honestly, at this point in camera technology, megapixels don’t really matter. Pretty much all current models offer more than you will ever need. In fact, there is a strong case to be made for avoiding super high megapixels.

Megapixels rating can be a bit deceptive, because that number alone is only part of the picture.A very important factor is the size of the image sensor. The image sensor on the average prosumer digital SLR is just smaller than a 35mm negative. The sensor on the typical point and shoot is about the size of a fingernail. You can say they both have 10 megapixels, but there is a huge difference in quality.

The smaller sensor means they have to jam all those pixels into a very small area. This is where I think too many megapixels and become a liability. Image sensor generate heat and the more pixels there are packed into a small area, the more is generated. This leads to what is called noise. It is the digital equivalent of what was callled grain in film. It is little colored specs that show up on in the image. This plays a huge factor in image quality and is most notable in low-light situations.

All this being said, camera manufacturers have created ways to deal with this problem, but not really eliminate it, so be on the look to see if they address this. A reputable manufacturer like Canon on Nikon will have, while some off brands are probably just preying on the fact that people tend to just look for megapixels.

My short advice it to not pay much attention to megapixels. Stick with an reputable brand. And look for other features that will actually make a difference, such as the quality of the flash, and the low-light performance, or macro. Focus on features that fit your needs. is an excellent resource.

My wife has a small canon, that I think is fantastic.

I actually have a degree in photography, so I kind of love talking about this stuff.

View RexMcKinnon's profile


2593 posts in 3165 days

#11 posted 11-15-2009 04:07 AM

Megapixels is not everything. I would suggest going to a site like cnet or steve’s digicams and you will get good expert reviews. Marco is a function included on almost all camera’s these days. Things like ISO and shutter speed are just as important. I have had a few digi cams. To date I like my nikon the best but I currently have a lumix mega zoom and it also works great. Depending on your buget and what you want to use it for will decide what you get. A tiny camera with a high mega pixel rating will take worse pictures than a larger camera like a DSLR with a lower megapixel rating. Why becasue the image sensor on the tiny camera is so small that the 12 megapixel rating is not really real. There is software at play enhancing the resolution. While the DSLR’s have larger sensors with more true rating. The small models often do not have many manual settings which might be important in some situations. The DSLR are big and bulky, a pain to carry around. In the end educate yourself as much as you can then go find an honest salesman, I think they exist, and explain what you want to do with it and he should point out what is best for you. DO NOT BUY YET. Take the model number and go to review sites like I mentioned above and they will give you a list of camera’s in direct competition with your model and suggest which one is best. From there make your decision.

I am not a pro but I read a lot of reviews and this is my wife’s hobby so I reseach this more than I do a new tool usually. If you have any questions I will try my best to answer. I just bought my last camera a few months ago so a lot of it is fresh in my head.

I just went back and read your other question. I was looking in the same range as you. In the end I went up about $100 and got a mega zoom because I wanted a large zoom and did not want to buy a DSLR. You could probably get the same camera as mine in the US in your range. We get !@#$% up here in Canada on this stuff. My first choice was a nikon because of my last one but I don’t like the new line up. I think canon is the best right now but for a few specific reasons I chose the panasonic. Got high reviews.

Sorry it is so long. I hope it helps.

-- If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

View RexMcKinnon's profile


2593 posts in 3165 days

#12 posted 11-15-2009 04:17 AM

Go to and look for episode 156. It is about DSLR but all the same theory’s apply to point and shoot. They also speak about the megapixel myth I think. Plus it is an mp3 so you don’t have to read.

-- If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

View hObOmOnk's profile


1381 posts in 4097 days

#13 posted 11-15-2009 02:00 PM

Read The Megapixel Myth

-- 温故知新

View Todd A. Clippinger's profile

Todd A. Clippinger

8901 posts in 4069 days

#14 posted 11-15-2009 07:43 PM

The Megapixal Myth was really good – Thanks drgoodwood.

-- Todd A. Clippinger, Montana,

Have your say...

You must be signed in to post the comments.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics