How many megapixels u use with camera?

This question doesnt really mean much unless you state what your camera is.
I have a canon 400d and use all my 10mp and only shoot in RAW.
I have 2x 2gig cards that hold about 200 shots each.

You must get as best quality as your camera will allow, because you cant add it in later, but can always take it away easily enough at the processing stage.

 

Yeah, when I said a 4GB will hold 850-900, I meant for a typical point and shoot camera like what the OP has. For the DSLRs and the like, your limit is completely different depending on what format you save them as. But still, even with a 4GB card and the RAW format, you'll still have about 400 pictures or so, give or take.

 

is that the walmart in the Bon Accord centre???..lol

 

my 10 mp raw shots are around 30mb, so no, on a 4gb card i won't fit 400 shots, il have around 130... But thats still plenty if u have like a few 8gb cards, ur sorted...

 

my rebel xsi is 12.something.
I usually shoot at full MP in JPEG, unless I am shooting architechture or landscape, in which case I use RAW.

Plan on going full frame in the future, but I'm in no rush. 12mp is more than enough for most usage.

 

Are you sure?

What camera do you have eclap? My Raw files are around 10 mp each, a 'third' of the size of yours :gape:

 

I voted for the first option, "greater than one", because i use more than one megapixel.

 

My 40D RAW shots aren't even that large eclap.

Unless you're on a 5D Mark II or something now, and even then they'd still be a little smaller.

Or you could be switching to DNG and embedding the old RAW and JPEG's in there as well.

 

Even using the RAW+JPEG they are not quite that that large. My 500D using just RAW comes out between 22-25 MB and the JPEG are about 6.5MB. This is with a 15.1MP sensor. Sure do take some sweeeet pics.

 

Right, for some reason I was confused... just checked my RAWs, they're around 12mb... I'm using a 40D. Still doesn't matter, memory cards are cheap and can't see why not use max res. Think that's the general conclusion...

 

Well I have the 3.2MP camera on my HTC Touch Pro, and the quality on that is fantastic. http://www.isyougeekedup.com/htc-touch-pro-camera-and-camcorder-samples/

Then I have/had a 12MP Kodak Z1285, the quality on that was pretty nice, and the HD video (1280x720) was reaaaaalllly nice to have and really good quality. But my dog (a few month old Puppy) got ahold of it, and chewed it. So it's junk now. http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuer...=page-13557-_-product-_-Z1285&pq-locale=en_US

And finally I have a 6.3MP Canon EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) and I picked that up in October of 2003 for a little under $1000. It came with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 Lens. And to that, I added a 2nd lens which is a Tamron 70-300mm 1:4-5.6. This camera has lasted me nicely over the past 6 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_Digital_Rebel

It's time for an upgrade, and when I get the money. I'll be picking up a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III DSLR camera. 21.1MP in RAW format. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120233

 

Just bought a little Point & Shoot, which I generally carry around with me all the time now.

Only because I can't take me 40D around wherever I go.

So I picked up the Panasonic Tough Camera, 12 Megapixel, waterproof to 3m, drop proof etc.
And I'm pretty happy with it, for a P&S camera it's not too shabby at all.
Obviously not as good as my 40D, but wouldn't expect it to be with the price difference.

 

Now i tested my camera at full mp and doesnt make difference. Maybe cause its has cheap lins with ****ty cell =)

 

I dont get all this Megapixel stuff really, seems more like a marketing gimick really.

I can see the point if your into photography and like to make large scale print outs of your pics, then yeah the more megapixels the better. But isn't even 6.4MP like more than enough for like 10*8 Inch, still gets you 300DPI. Obviously some will go A4 or A3 even larger. This is for DSLR's.

Its things like camera's on phones i dont get, why do you need to take a shot at like 8MP on a phone camera? surely the sensors not gonna be up to much, considering how small they are? And most people that use there phone cams put pics up on like facebook etc whats the res on 8MP!! Im sure most dont have monitors that could display the pic at full size without scrolling around all over the place lol

Im no expert on this subject at all, its just thats how it seems to me all this megapixel stuff.

 

I use 5mp on a 10mp camera. Don't really need the full 10 but it's nice to have just in case I do.

 

if you do image editing work on your photos after taking them then you want the highest image resolution possible (thats not interpolated)

when you resize a high res image to a lower res, the image becomes much sharper and tiny imperfections from any edits done in photoshop will not be visible when the image is resized.

just stock up on a lot of storage.

 

But now ur talking for 300€+ cameras with high quality CRT that are on use. ??
I have non

This was 8Mp picture with bad camera



atleast light is sharp..Yes..coffee is bad there

 

For me, I like doing extensive post production on images

and when I go out to take some pics, I will generally run low on space quickly so I have to bring lots of sd cards with me.

I am using a crappy 7.1 megapixel camera (hacked to enable camera raw)
I then make all needed changes in photoshop to make the image look good then I shrink it down, while some don't need it because i don't go into the more destructive tools, when I do pictures of people, especially for special events, I will do extensive edits to the people in the photo to make them look their best and some edits no matter how hard I work on then will have a spot or 2 that doesn't look accurate enough but I cant really do much more to fix it but when the photo is resized to a smaller size as needed (as generally the final thing doesn't need a really high res) the imperfections in the edit's are no longer noticeable, but if I do it at a low res and I cant shrink it, if closely looked at, the edits may be noticeable

example, this image was shot at 3108x2331 RAW via raw hack

I then edited it in photoshop, adjusted levels, colors, and many other minor edits

then shrunk it to 1280x960 (1024x768 for these forums)



theres around 20 different edits but it is hard to identify each one
(i did not remove the fringing because it would take too long (tend to only to it to photos taken for other people)

 

Which computer would we buy:
3Ghz Dual core, 500Gb hard drive
or
1Ghz Celeron, 2Tb hard drive

Most of us would go for the faster speed. Yet with cameras, most consumers opt for the larger sensor. I have 5 camera bodies that shoot 4-8Mpix and I shoot them all in 4Mpix. But they all are fast enough to drive lenses accurately (with very low DOF) to get shots in focus.

And as I tell people who think their 10-20Mpix camera is better than mine - I politely tell them that 20Mpix out of focus... is still out of focus!

It wasn't too long ago that 6Mpix was considered the holy grail of a sensor - a size that matched film. And before that, billboards were being printed with 2Mpix DSLRs.

I've printed 36x48 prints from my 4Mpix images - as long as they're tack sharp and full frame, I'll do it all day long - because our investment is in glass. That is what makes a photo moreso than the sensor. I have top of the line glass that captures the image the way we intend to print it.

It's like printing a photo on an inkjet - 300dpi or 2880 (or whatever they go to now-a-days) I found out that the higher the resolution, the only things different about the photo: more time and more ink to print it.

My company takes up to 100,000 photos PER DAY. To shoot at 21Mpix would take more time and space - with no benefit to my customers.

But yes, technology is ever evolving and 50Mpix will be all the rage in a couple years - which will drive the hard drive market, and CPU market to handle all the people who NEED that resolution - even though they'll continue to shoot with a $200 lens. :bonk:

 

^ you're very correct. Its like if you were to spend 10k on a hifi stereo system and then playing a 128k mp3 on it lol

You get what you pay for and I agree its less about the sensor or even the body and way more about you technique and your glass. There is a reason lenses are so expensive. Hell some of them are multiple times more expensive than a good body.