Comments on: Let’s talk Megapixels http://sandlapperstudio.com/lets-talk-megapixels Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:39:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The Canon T2i: Megapixel Overkill | Sandlapper Studio || the photography and design of Jim Ferguson || Greenville, SC http://sandlapperstudio.com/lets-talk-megapixels/comment-page-1#comment-116 The Canon T2i: Megapixel Overkill | Sandlapper Studio || the photography and design of Jim Ferguson || Greenville, SC Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:42:10 +0000 http://sandlapperstudio.com/blog/?p=152#comment-116 [...] may remember my post from a while back, Let’s Talk Megapixels. In this post, I talked about what megapixels actually are and how they affect your images. Well, [...] [...] may remember my post from a while back, Let’s Talk Megapixels. In this post, I talked about what megapixels actually are and how they affect your images. Well, [...]

]]> By: Jim http://sandlapperstudio.com/lets-talk-megapixels/comment-page-1#comment-36 Jim Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:43:37 +0000 http://sandlapperstudio.com/blog/?p=152#comment-36 Larger files definitely take more time to write to the memory card, but the write speed depends a lot on the memory card, memory card type and the camera itself. Each size/brand of memory cards have different write speeds, so that factors into the save time. I've seen cameras record at both 300ppi and 72ppi - that would be a good topic to research online and ask the store help before buying a camera because I think it depends on each individual model. Larger files definitely take more time to write to the memory card, but the write speed depends a lot on the memory card, memory card type and the camera itself. Each size/brand of memory cards have different write speeds, so that factors into the save time.

I’ve seen cameras record at both 300ppi and 72ppi – that would be a good topic to research online and ask the store help before buying a camera because I think it depends on each individual model.

]]> By: Rob Williams http://sandlapperstudio.com/lets-talk-megapixels/comment-page-1#comment-35 Rob Williams Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:21:22 +0000 http://sandlapperstudio.com/blog/?p=152#comment-35 one other mystery that exists is that I can't always tell if the camera is recording at 300dpi or 72dpi. The box info isn't usually specific on that. one other mystery that exists is that I can’t always tell if the camera is recording at 300dpi or 72dpi. The box info isn’t usually specific on that.

]]> By: Rob Williams http://sandlapperstudio.com/lets-talk-megapixels/comment-page-1#comment-34 Rob Williams Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:19:11 +0000 http://sandlapperstudio.com/blog/?p=152#comment-34 My first digicam (we still have but need to replace) is 3.2 megapix. And you know what? It does great. We have some 8x10 prints that actually look good from it though the charts say you can't. The problem now is since I want to replace it (there's nothing like a small point and shoot) I'm hard pressed to find anything below like 8 mp. And you're right, they take up more room on the memory card/hard drive, but do you know if they also take longer to record the shot? You know, if it's having to record and save all that info, do you know if the cameras are faster now to handle the 'download'? My first digicam (we still have but need to replace) is 3.2 megapix. And you know what? It does great. We have some 8×10 prints that actually look good from it though the charts say you can’t. The problem now is since I want to replace it (there’s nothing like a small point and shoot) I’m hard pressed to find anything below like 8 mp. And you’re right, they take up more room on the memory card/hard drive, but do you know if they also take longer to record the shot? You know, if it’s having to record and save all that info, do you know if the cameras are faster now to handle the ‘download’?

]]> By: Jim http://sandlapperstudio.com/lets-talk-megapixels/comment-page-1#comment-38 Jim Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:45:35 +0000 http://sandlapperstudio.com/blog/?p=152#comment-38 My first digital camera back in the day was a 3.2 megapixel Kodak and it actually took some really decent shots. Of course, my current camera has three times that, but I guess I kind of need it. My first digital camera back in the day was a 3.2 megapixel Kodak and it actually took some really decent shots. Of course, my current camera has three times that, but I guess I kind of need it.

]]> By: Nathaniel http://sandlapperstudio.com/lets-talk-megapixels/comment-page-1#comment-37 Nathaniel Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:34:35 +0000 http://sandlapperstudio.com/blog/?p=152#comment-37 Great post man! It is funny, when my brother was visiting a few weeks ago he was making fun of my camera (a five year old Kodak digicam) and that his had twice as many megapixels (mine only has 4 . . . but works fine form my use). I asked him if he even knew what a megapixel was. He didn't. I just emailed him the link to this post hoping that maybe it will clear things up for him. Great post man! It is funny, when my brother was visiting a few weeks ago he was making fun of my camera (a five year old Kodak digicam) and that his had twice as many megapixels (mine only has 4 . . . but works fine form my use). I asked him if he even knew what a megapixel was. He didn’t. I just emailed him the link to this post hoping that maybe it will clear things up for him.

]]>