First of all Hi, I have just take photography back up as a more serious hobby and switched from my old point and shoot to a Panasonic FZ38, I have one query a t the minute and I am wondering whether people could help me on this one my camera is 12 megapixels to sabe space on my memory card I was switched down to 8 megapixels will this make any difference to the quality my photos, thanks
Megapixels and photo quality
- Thread starter wanda
- Start date
- Messages
- 957
- Name
- Sean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It will mean you can print them at a smaller size or crop them less, you loose no quality, just size.
8 Megapixels wont be any issue though and is likely to be more than you'll ever need, but memory cards aren't very cheap either, do you save that space much downsizing them?
Just watch the 'Quality' Setting is set on 'high' or 'super fine' as that affects the quality of the photos.
As a guide 3 Megapixels will easily print a 6x4 and you can get nice results at 10x8 too, Megapixels is quite the gimmick unless you need to print very big or make large crops but its nice to have, you'll often look back on older photos and may want to print them big or do a new crop etc.
8 Megapixels wont be any issue though and is likely to be more than you'll ever need, but memory cards aren't very cheap either, do you save that space much downsizing them?
Just watch the 'Quality' Setting is set on 'high' or 'super fine' as that affects the quality of the photos.
As a guide 3 Megapixels will easily print a 6x4 and you can get nice results at 10x8 too, Megapixels is quite the gimmick unless you need to print very big or make large crops but its nice to have, you'll often look back on older photos and may want to print them big or do a new crop etc.
- Messages
- 992
- Name
- Dave Pickett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have just printed some A2's from my Fuji S5 pro - the limiting factor is the lens, not the number of pixels.....
- Messages
- 110
- Name
- Kim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, obviously you'll lose quality, you're reducing the amount of picture information you're storing. The question, though, is whether it's enough to bother you and only you can really work that one out. It's mostly about how large you'll be able to view your shots before the loss becomes unacceptable; different people have different ideas of what acceptable .
This may help put it in perspective:
12mp => 4240 x 2824 pixels (3:2)
8mp => 3464 x 2312 pixels (3:2)
If you assume 300dpi to be acceptable then 12mp allows you prints of roughly 14" across, 8mp roughly 11.5". 300dpi is what magazine publishers used to - maybe still do, I don't know - insist on but it's high and you may get away with more.
Remember also that you may want to crop.
Best answer, look at your pictures, see if you still like them at 8mp.
This may help put it in perspective:
12mp => 4240 x 2824 pixels (3:2)
8mp => 3464 x 2312 pixels (3:2)
If you assume 300dpi to be acceptable then 12mp allows you prints of roughly 14" across, 8mp roughly 11.5". 300dpi is what magazine publishers used to - maybe still do, I don't know - insist on but it's high and you may get away with more.
Remember also that you may want to crop.
Best answer, look at your pictures, see if you still like them at 8mp.
- Messages
- 6,953
- Name
- Tel
- Edit My Images
- No
Personally i would always use my camera at the maximum setting ie 12mp, as you can always downsize photos without problems, whereas it's not so easy to up size and keep the quality i want, memory is so cheap nowadays, particularly as your using a bridge camera and therefore have no need for a fast card 
- Messages
- 685
- Edit My Images
- No
Depends what you mean by "quality". One could argue that as the image size is reduced, the quality improves at the expense of maximum print size. For example, some downsizing of a 12MP image would mask the noise inherent in using a 12MP small sensor.
So I guess it all comes down to how you use your images. If you are only viewing them on the computer/Internet and only printing good old 6x4" then you could get away with 5MP, probably even 2 or 3. Memory cards ain't expensive, but if you can shoot more and not lose much in the way of acceptable (to you) image size, then go for it.
So I guess it all comes down to how you use your images. If you are only viewing them on the computer/Internet and only printing good old 6x4" then you could get away with 5MP, probably even 2 or 3. Memory cards ain't expensive, but if you can shoot more and not lose much in the way of acceptable (to you) image size, then go for it.
- Messages
- 992
- Name
- Dave Pickett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My A2s at around 150 dpi show no signs of pixelisation, but the do show the softness of the sigma 10 - 20 at the edges.........
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not entirely correct, but I know where you're heading. You can still print an image at A2 from a 2mp camera with a totally crap lens but what you'll get will be an image that's looks pants.
A good lens will help you get more from your sensor though
We still use 300dpi. Seems industry standard still
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Not entirely correct, but I know where you're heading. You can still print an image at A2 from a 2mp camera with a totally crap lens but what you'll get will be an image that's looks pants.
A good lens will help you get more from your sensor though
We still use 300dpi. Seems industry standard still
DPI has nothing to do with quality
quality starts wirh lighting, then lenses & exposure, which is translated in to an image by a sensor. This system has a resolving power, which in blunt terms defines resoloution
Lens distortion, abberations, difraction and focus all have a part to play
Post processing (if not a JPEG) or in camera processing - all have a part to play too
Down the line, the image is displayed on a screen or printed. Sharpenng and profiling have a part to play here
IN digital DPI is a red herring, it really only realtes to a final print
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Richard King, the 300dpi thingy was aimed at Kimaldis' post referring to whether the press printing still uses it. 
Hmmmmmm, again I can't agree with that. Depends what we're talking about when we refer to 'quality'....
Good lighting does often make a better (read: more pleasing) photo but it doesn't improve its ability to be printed at a larger size. Of course, if you're talking about visible noise then it will be more apparent at a larger print size and that does refer to getting exposure spot on to that ugly minimise colour noise you get when you try to process it to bring out shadow detail etc....
Chromatic Aberrations again are just a case of what the viewer sees as being ugly. But I do appreciate that major CAs are highlighted more at bigger print sizes. That's also so the case with an form of distortion created by crappy glass, and oversharpening (etc...) also fall into this camp.
Totally agree about viewing format and profiles though. Screens can make images look ace that in real life don't transfer to print very well
DPI/PPI does have an overall effect on viewing quality if you're pushing a small image beyond the realms of normalcy (i.e. blowing an image up to ridiculous sizes through poor resizing procedure) then you'll end up with gash prints.
Interpolation is something i understand to an extent but I do want to know more about to know the limitations of what digital images offer.
Hmmmmmm, again I can't agree with that. Depends what we're talking about when we refer to 'quality'....
Good lighting does often make a better (read: more pleasing) photo but it doesn't improve its ability to be printed at a larger size. Of course, if you're talking about visible noise then it will be more apparent at a larger print size and that does refer to getting exposure spot on to that ugly minimise colour noise you get when you try to process it to bring out shadow detail etc....
Chromatic Aberrations again are just a case of what the viewer sees as being ugly. But I do appreciate that major CAs are highlighted more at bigger print sizes. That's also so the case with an form of distortion created by crappy glass, and oversharpening (etc...) also fall into this camp.
Totally agree about viewing format and profiles though. Screens can make images look ace that in real life don't transfer to print very well
DPI/PPI does have an overall effect on viewing quality if you're pushing a small image beyond the realms of normalcy (i.e. blowing an image up to ridiculous sizes through poor resizing procedure) then you'll end up with gash prints.
Interpolation is something i understand to an extent but I do want to know more about to know the limitations of what digital images offer.