WhaleOil

Jeepers Crow! I hesitated to take my Olympus 4.something mp that I paid around $700 for a few years ago and then I came across this: https://www.overstock.com/Electronics...html?#moreinfo

WOW! 7.gazillion mp for less than a hundred and a 1/2!

I understand the mp / size relationship. Matter of fact I'm fairly versed in Photoshop. But how can you beat that deal?

Historian, what do you use? You submit beautiful pics.

Little Darwin

For online pics, 1 megapixel is enough.... An 800X600 image is less than 1/2 megapixel.

The quality of the camera is obviously an issue... and I think that the higher quality cameras may well have a higher megapixel rating, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Higher megapixels are definitely useful for printing, or for other high resolution use, but a really nice looking web image could be taken with a 1 megapixel camera.

rickyaustin

Megapixels don't equal quality.

A cheap 7 megapixel camera will allow you to take very high resolution garbage.

You'll get better photos out of a quality camera. We're at the stage in time where all cameras have enough megapixels that no amateur should have to worry about it. Check consumer reports (CNET) for quality reviews.

Ignore megapixels.

Wogster

Higher quality cameras tend to have more features, not always more MP, some will have interchangeable lenses, or longer focal length zooms, many will allow for higher EV factors, and less image noise then the cheaper cameras. Some will have camera shake reduction circuits, better auto focus and auto exposure options. Some will have more accessories available. MP is like bike gearing, a 30 speed bike is somehow better then a 24 speed bicycle, even though the highest and lowest gears may be equal.

bdinger

The coolpix line rocks, but.. for me.. I'm kind of jaded. In 2002 I bought one of the high-end Sony's with a Carl Zeiss lens, and I've never upgraded. It takes some of the best digicam pics I've seen from non-SLR's, so I've yet to stray.

The Canon PowerShot lineup is also pretty good, I've been thinking of ordering a older one to take on rides. Currently I use whatever smartphone I am using that week for riding photos, the "flavor of the month" is the Sprint Mogul, which takes awesome pictures. The Sprint Touch it replaced took.. BAD pictures to put it mildly! Treo 755p which was before that also did very well.

Anyway, that's what I do. YMMV!

CACycling

I've had 3 CoolPix and they have all been great cameras. Nice lenses with 3x or more optical zoom. My last purchase was the L3. I was looking at the L4 but the reviews on it were terrible. Not so much picture quality but camera quality - seems they didn't hold up well. Another plus is they us AA batteries so when you are out somewhere and your rechargeables die, you can pick up AAs anywhere.

Rohan

I use a Sony dsc-w7. I"m very happy with it, on the 1 gig card I bought I can take about 250 7mp pics, it uses AA battries, and the ones that come with it seem to last quite a long time.

link

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscw7/

WhaleOil

Oh Yeah, Zeiss rocks! But for a $150 camera that 'might' crash lol

how can you beat a Nikon?

B Piddy

Canon SD1000 - small, great quality pics, versatile.

I should use mine more. Probably one of the highest rated cameras on all review sites for the money (typically $130-180)

kenyan_boy

Well said. I have a Kodak DC220 digital camera (purchased in 1999). I don't know if the term 'megapixels' was in use then or yet to be coined at the time. I still get awesome photos of test setups (I work in an Electromagnetics lab). Recently, a customer asked what camera I use as he liked the quality of the pictures. When I showed him the 'ancient' he couldn't belive his eyes. He said he thought I used a 6 MP camera.

neilfein

I'm surprised nobody has yet pointed this out as it's a standard BF catchphrase, but this thread is useless without pictures.

AirBeagle1

+1 -- From an engineer in the digital camera business

piper_chuck

From all the reading and testing I've done, it's very true that there's way more to getting good pictures than megapixels. For example, many cameras have an annoying lag between when you push the button and when the picture is actually taken. Choose your camera well and this problem is significantly less. Another issue is the amount of time between pictures. My wife's last camera takes 4 or 5 seconds to store a picture, very annoying. In continuous shooting mode my D40 can take 2.5 pictures per second. And then there is the issue of high megapixel, but low quality, CCDs that do a terrible job of capturing the image. Combine that low quality built-in lenses and you get terrible pictures.

Also, a comment on shooting only low resolution, such as 800x600 when you know you're going to post online. It certainly is true that this resolution is enough for online viewing. However, shooting at a low resolution reduces your options for cropping. I've been able to get some really good actions shots during one of my other hobbies, radio control boat racing, by cropping out much of the background. When taking these pictures I can't zoom in too close on the boat because they're often going by at 70 mph about 75 feet from me. If I stay zoomed out a bit I have a better chance of getting the whole boat, and then I can crop out what I don't want.

To validate this thread, from a BF perspective, here's a picture of me riding the "family bike" at the beach with my daughter. It was taken by my wife with my Nikon D40. The file I uploaded was actually a much higher resolution, but photobucket was nice enough to shrink it for me.

KirkeIsWaiting

I don't care what anyone says about the number of pixels ....
it's still all about the lens.

Have we all forgotten why we stepped up to higher end 35mm cameras before digital?

One of the scores out there, lens wise, was the Panasonic FZ1 with the Leica lens.
As the mega-pixel game increased, the FZ1 became obsolete in the eyes of their FZ30.
Originally retailing for about $550, I bought one new for $180 on ebay.
(I also own the FZ30.)

The photo is from the 2 MP FZ-1.

This is the camera that I mount on my bars that has traveled on bike trips. Digital and optical zoom are particularly good as well.

bcc

+1 on the Panasonic optics. I had an FZ30 too (which I sold about 6 months ago) and we've just bought my wife an FZ8 on clearance. They're a bit high on the megapixel count for my liking, so you get a bit of noise in low light, but the lenses (made by Leica) on those lines of cameras are superb. The smaller compact ones review very well too.

Why did I sell my FZ30? I was very happy with it, but wanted a real viewfinder. I bought a secondhand EOS300 ("only" 6 megapixels) for about what I got for my FZ30 then spent about the same again after negotiating with my wife on one decent quality lens - the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM for anyone who cares about such things. I carry it around in my backpack with other supplies.

I have to admit to being tempted by one of those little Oregon Scientific handlebar cams though...

heckler

My GF 5 year old Canon Powershot 3.2MP takes better pics than the 6.x Point and Shoot Casio

+1 to the more MP =more cropping ability this is a nice feature, but somewhere north of 4 or 5 MP just move closer to take it. a 3.2 MP at full res will produce prints larger than anything i would actually print the 10.1 MP cameras blow my mind. The full print would be like the size of my wall.

piper_chuck

With 6.1 MP I'm supposed to be able to easily print 20x30 posters. The largest I've done so far is 16x20. I cropped the picture some and it came out great.