OzTennis

I've got a 6.36 megapixel digital camera (a Traveler, which is really a Minox, which is sold by Aldi).

At the highest setting, compression etc which is 2,816 x 2,112 Fine, I can get 87 images per 256 Mb SD card; 180 per 512 Mb card. However, if I was to go down to the next setting which is 2,272 x 1,704 Fine, the number of images almost doubles to 144 and 300 respectively.

Most of my images I am 'burning' to CD or DVD and showing on PC monitor or TV via DVD player - I'm not printing many images just a selected few.

I am wondering whether there will be much of a reduction in quality if I moved down to 2,272 x 1,704 so as to increase storage capacity? Given that when I print out it will not be larger than 7" x 5" I'm thinking it won't make much/any difference in quality and my monitor and TV can't handle as high as 2,272 x 1,704 anyway. It can't take a 1 Gb card BTW - 512 Mb max.

Incidentally it is a brilliant camera and I can't recommend it highly enough. It is very compact (Minox are known for that), has a 2" monitor, audio and video clips, A/V as well as USB connectivity, came with 2 batteries, mains and car battery charger, 128 Mb card and soft case, all for £179 or $430'ish.
It says Aldi UK and Aldi Australia on the box so I guess they are on sale in Oz too?

Oh and what is the maximum resolution for a CRT TV? Is 640 x 480 OK for showing on TV or could I set the resizing a bit higher?

Any comments would be much appreciated.

OzTennis

bondipom

http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/interlace.htm

Might help confuse you. 1024x768 will give you a decent picture on a monitor. That is the resolution I have on my 17" monitor.

bleugh

those cameras use notoriously crap lenses, it's doubtful the optics can resolve 6.36 million pixels of resoloution

you're far better off reducing the file size by using the lower setting.


...........try for yourself to see the difference. set the camera up, and take a photo at each resoloution (try not to move the camera) - point at something in the far distance

now, zoom in on each of the pictures you took, can you actually make out more on the highest setting than on the next one down?

buying cameras aint about the megapixels, it's all about lens quality, a very good lens on a 3MP camera can show the same detail as average lens on a 4MP camera, and even more than a crap lens on a 5MP camera!

ABCDiamond

I'll agree with that. I have an Epson 2.1MP camera, and it gives better pictures than a newer 3.2MP camera.

One thing that had me puzzled with the newer one, was that the higher pixel photo wasn't noticeably better than the the lower pixel photo, taken in the same test example you mentioned above.

Carruss

Would you say that cameras are generally cheaper in Oz than the UK. I am currently after the new Canon 350D and the cheapest I have seen it is £620 in the UK. Could import it for a little bit more and you get a few extras thrown in like a 2GB card and a case etc but some sting you for the duty unless they mark it as a used item!

I might get my brother to pick me one up via Singapore or wherever he stops on the way to validate his visa as its bound to be cheaper but would like it asap really!

R.

cadman

My in-laws bought a digi camera recently after months if not years of soul searching, research on the net and which magazine.
They got a 5 mega pixel Sony and promptly took it to Cuba on hols.
They did a test by taking 5 pics of the same scene, at 1 meg, 2 meg, 3, 4, and 5 megapixels.

On their return I put the pics on my PC and printed the 5 pics on 6x4 paper.
They were identical or rather, undistinguishable to the naked eye.

I usually use 3 MP Fine setting on my camera (Finepix 6900) which gives me around 100 pics per 128 MB card.

I believe the resolution of CRT TV's isn't even 640x480, I think it's like 320x240.

Cadman

OzTennis

Thanks for that.

I do know that the current camera produces far superior images to the 5MP Konica Minolta camera I've been using at work and that Digital Photo mag gave an excellent review for the Minox 6300 (which is the same thing as the Traveler - but £160 cheaper). I also appreciate that a 3 MP can produce better results than a 4 MP or 5 MP dependant on the lens.

I'll try the 2 shots at different resolutions using a tripod and see if there is any difference. I'll do it wide angle, zoomed x 2, zoomed x 3, digital zoom etc. My wife will probably tell me to stop wasting film!

OzTennis

OzTennis

Thanks ABCD, Carruss and cadman. I'll experiment myself but it's looking like I'll go for getting more images on the card as it doesn't seem to matter at those levels. All the camera mags say to always set your camera at the highest resolution and buy more storage cards!!

For prices in Oz, check out:

http://www.teds.com.au and
http://www.michaels.com.au which are 2 of the better known retailers.

Singapore duty free is disappointing and not much of a saving - certainly much more expensive than in Singapore itself. Dubai duty free is hard to beat but of course it depends where the plane goes!

OzTennis

Carruss

Thanks for that. If anyone one else would like to add anyhting about the cheapest place please feel free and I will try and persuade him to go that way ! ! !

R.

bleugh

www.mymemory.co.uk had fantastically cheap SD cards last week, 512 meg for £18

www.ebuyer.com is quite good also

Carruss

The canon uses a Compact Flash card and I have found a 2GB High Speed one for £96.

I need to get the camera first though!

R.

AvronW

Perhaps it would be useful to post some comparison pics that you may take here? It would allow those planning to buy a new camera to compare quality, resolution and even price.

-Avron

extrameant

I am wondering whether there will be much of a reduction in quality if I moved down to 2,272 x 1,704 so as to increase storage capacity? Given that when I print out it will not be larger than 7" x 5" I'm thinking it won't make much/any difference in quality and my monitor and TV can't handle as high as 2,272 x 1,704 anyway. It can't take a 1 Gb card BTW - 512 Mb max.



Oh and what is the maximum resolution for a CRT TV? Is 640 x 480 OK for showing on TV or could I set the resizing a bit higher?


OzTennis [/QUOTE]

It is generally accepted that 300 pixels per inch is a reasonable compromise for printing photographs, which means at 2272x1704 you could print 7" x 5"
You can definitely print things bigger, it is all down to what quality you percieve as acceptable.

Regarding television, the standad that is in place for digital TV (which is the best compromise between size verses quality as determined by various professional bodies) is 720 x 576 for standard definition TV in australia. HD TV is of course higher.

I wouldn't recommend setting your camera to 720 x 576 because the quality is actually pretty low when printed or viewed on a typical 1024x786 setting for a computer monitor.

Hope that helps, it gives you some guidelines around which to play, but best to remember you may want to view your pictures in better quality in the future. A good quality digital image can look really spectacular.

Amazulu

The 350D is some camera, I want one too!. I would say cameras are cheaper in the UK. www.7dayshop.com is good for cheap Canons.

Grayling

In my experience higher pixel cameras are only needed if you want to crop the pictures.

Most PC monitors are unable to reproduce decent quality anyway. If you are only looking at pictures on the PC there is no point in using more pixels that you monitor will handle.

You only need about 2 mp to get a decent, reasonably sized print.

I have a Kodak 3.2 mp kodak and a Canon 7.1 mp camera and you can not tell the difference on a normal PC screen. It is only 'cropping' that shows up the difference.

As already suggested many lenses are crap anyway. There are many more variables than the number of mp.

Try experimenting with the resolution of your monitor and see if it makes any difference.

G