ext_9238 ([identity profile] joandarck.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] thefourthvine 2007-10-21 05:00 pm (UTC)

Although it makes me wonder - given that I am not a photographer at all (my photo-taking experience is pretty much limited to pressing buttons when tourists insist and then getting far away before they look at the picture), does that mean I need zero pixels?

Hmmm. Probably I still need a non-zero number of pixels, or there's no point in having a camera.


Heh! Rough guide, on the off chance you haven't already got this completely taped --when I was looking into this last year, it was like this:

cell phone camera -- maybe 2-3 pixels (image okay, grainy, funny colours)
average cameras -- 5-7 pixels (mine is 7-pixel Sony, pictures look like this (http://pics.livejournal.com/joandarck/pic/000p2y4t), but I have a friend who takes gorgeous landscape photos with a 5-pixel Olympus)
more expensive cameras -- 9-10 pixels

It's my impression that if you don't plan to blow your photos up to poster size, it really doesn't matter if you have 10+ pixels, but I'm no photographer. Anyway, average pixels per camera seems to be going up all the time, so 5 may be ridiculously low at this point.

Oh, and Canon always ranks the highest no matter who you ask (I know -- Canon -- snerk -- I nearly bought one just for that) -- but I find their cameras kind of blobby and not pleasing in shape, so I didn't get one.

Okay, I am really done now. Good luck!

Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org