Hi, I've been useing a 640x480 digital camera for a while now and have had mixed results, so i am ready to buy a new camera. My query lies in what would i benefit from buying a 3.3 m/pixal as opposed to 2.1 or even 1.3. I would probably print mainly 7x5 images but if i needed to go up to 10x8 i would want it to look good. (The camera i have in mind is the Sony S70 ) Also do images taken using the higher resolutions 3.3,2.1 lend themselves to smaller printed images eg 6x4. My limited experience with this using scanned in pictures, when i try to reduce the size the picture seems to lose sharpness. I know you have probably been asked this loads of times, but if you know before hand what size print you want can you equate this to a camera resolution eg

640x480 = ???? (6x4) 1.3 m/p = ???? 2.1 m/p = ???? 3.3 m/p = ???? (10x8) One of the reasons for wanting to know this, being used to loads of images on my 8meg card you dont seem to get many on these hi-res cameras eg, Sony S70 5 on a 8meg stick.

Any help would be grately appreciated, Thanks Mark Evans (England)

-- Mark Evans (mrmarkevans@lineone.net), June 25, 2000

Answers

I can't answer all the questions posted, but I'll takle what I can. First of, if you can afford it, I'd go with the 3.3 mp camera crop. The more image information that is captured, the bigger you can make your prints. Of course if you make them too big, your printout will look lousy.

As far as sharpness....if you take a 5"x7" and resize it down to a 1"x1", you're going to get the same result. It's not the camera's fault - it's your eyeball's perception of lost detail. Detail or lack there of is evident when you blow up an image, so why shouldn't it also work in reverse when you shrink an image? Think about the Sistine Chapel - would you see as much detail in the artwork IF it were shrunk down to fit inside your wallet? Of course not, so that's why you feel you're losing sharpness/detail on a reduced scale.

-- Sue Bald (destiny3@ix.netcom.com), June 25, 2000.