im thinking of getting a dig. camera, but i want film quality, what amount of mega pixels allows for film like quality, and by that i mean highly comparable to film when printed out on a color laser which im probably going to be buying before the camera.

anyways, im thinking that 6+ megapixels will do the trick, but wanted to know from the "pros" that use one almost daily.
________
VAPIR OXYGEN 4.0 REVIEWS (http://vaporizers.net)

I have a Canon S45. It's 4.0mp and takes FANTASTIC shots. It's nice and compact so I can take it when I hit the slopes. It also takes MPEG videos w/ sound. I make my printouts on a Canon i850 Photo Printer and it's FANTASTIC as well when I use Glossy Photo Paper. The print outs are really nice... no banding... no color saturation. Just make sure you use photoshop or something as good when making printouts.

If your looking to get a 6.0mp digicam, you must really have some Xtra cash to spend. The cheapest ones are in the 1k range the last time I checked. If you did get a 6.0mp camera I would suggest you get at least a 1gig card depending on the media the camera supports. But yeah test out the cameras at a local retailer. You will know what you want then. Hope that helps! :D

I got the Panasonic NV-MX5000. I rocks! Problem with it is it's not available in US version, so ya gotta get the Jap version with Jap-labeled buttons & menu, so ya gotta learn the buttons & have an english translation around for when you forget. Check it out by starting here. (http://www.supervideo.com/MXmouse.htm)
The watered-down model PV-DV953 is at this time the only english Pana that comes close.
(Yahoo has a users group for the MX5000, here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MX5000/) .)
Uses mini DV tape & also SD memory cards for stills, audio recording & mpeg video recording.

If you want just a stills camera, I've been known to drool over the Nikon D1X.

My dog breeder (see avatar) is also a professional photographer. She takes pics of food - I laughed too, but someone has to make fast food and stuff look good in magazines...

Anyway she said you need around 11 megapixels or more for true film quality (depending on what ASA you are trying to replicate) - she laughed at my 3.3 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 990 even though to my eyes an 8"x 10" print (via stunning Epson photoprinter) looks as good as a real photo. For non-professional work 3-5 megapixels is good enough for letter size prints or smaller.

For professional applications see here (http://www.ltlimagery.com/film_v_digital.html) for more info. To summarize it states:

The 11MP and higher SLRs (Kodak DCS 14n, Canon EOS-1Ds) should produce overall subjective image quality equal to or above fine-grained 35mm film. Again, the grain factor comes into play here with enlargement, but analysis tends to indicate this level of digital camera has caught up with 35mm film.

Digital point & shoot cameras can not yet compete with fine-grained 35mm film.

Originally posted by pelucidor
Anyway she said you need around 11 megapixels or more for true film quality (depending on what ASA you are trying to replicate) - she laughed at my 3.3 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 990 even though to my eyes an 8"x 10" print (via stunning Epson photoprinter) looks as good as a real photo. For non-professional work 3-5 megapixels is good enough for letter size prints or smaller.

Digital point & shoot cameras can not yet compete with fine-grained 35mm film

that's precisely what i was going to say... you need +8Mp to compete with 100 ISO, and my friend, there is nothing like the look of Fujifilm's Velvia 50 ISO slide film... you can make page-sized prints without too much graininess, and colour contrast and depth that's tricky to replicate with photoshop.... and that's for just 35mm... if you want quality, you cannot beat celluloid.

Resolution is only one factor you need to consider. You also need to take into account optics and the quality of the image processing routines in the camera you purchase (though I'd argue that with good glass you'll get very nice quality pictures out of any 6mp digicam).

For non professional use, a ~2mp photo is BARELY suitable for printing an 8x10 on photo paper or via a well calibrated dyesub (close examination of the photo looks slighly blocky) -- but you probably won't be using either of those anytime soon (a good 8x10 dyesub runs a couple of grand, and a good silver halide printer will cost in the neighborhood of $10k). If you're printing it on a laser printer or inkjet, 2mp should look fine in 8x10 form.

The res povided by a 6mp digital camera was considered suitable for printing images up to 10x13 in a portrait studio environment at the company I used to work for.

If you are really picky about color & quality, be sure to spend the time to properly color calibrate your camera & printer.

I've personally been impressed with what I've seen output by the Canon EOS D10. The Fuji S2 also puts out some nice pictures (but the images are not 12mp like they claim; it's really a 6mp sensor). I'm hoping to have the cash saved up to get an EOS D10 and a decent lens to go with it sometime this year.

I have an Olympus E-10 and it's fantastic! Highly recommended. It's not a point and click toy though, it's the real deal.

Take a look:


E-10 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e10-review/)

screw it lol, i just want some nice photos IF i ever get around to taking some, that stuff is too hardcore for me, ill probably just stick with disposable cameras lol

edit:
which reminds me, i found 6mp cameras on ebay for around 340-400 USD, but these didnt have any bells and whistles, just really bare digital cameras, but they were still 6mp, supposedly.
________
VOLCANO VAPORISER REVIEW (http://vaporizer.org)

Okay, I couldn't resist.....I have a colleage who has the E-10. After comparing it to my 4040 - I like my camera way better.

You can buy and inexpensive "macro extension ring and lens for about $80. I think the camera is down to about $450 on www.pricewatch.com.

My camera is 4.1 megapixel and is able to take way closer more detailed photos than the E-10.

They now offer the c5050 which is 5 megapixels. check it out; better, smaller camera, for an even better deal!

Check it out.

edit: the pic was too big so I had to make it smaller!

What's that Q? Your molars??? Arghhhhh!:eek:

Originally posted by QuantumTheory08
Okay, I couldn't resist.....I have a colleage who has the E-10. After comparing it to my 4040 - I like my camera way better.

You can buy and inexpensive "macro extension ring and lens for about $80. I think the camera is down to about $450 on www.pricewatch.com.

My camera is 4.1 megapixel and is able to take way closer more detailed photos than the E-10.

They now offer the c5050 which is 5 megapixels. check it out; better, smaller camera, for an even better deal!

Check it out.

edit: the pic was too big so I had to make it smaller!

Your colleague doesn't know how to use the E-10:


http://www.rzatek.com/new/Macro.jpg

Originally posted by P00Man
screw it lol, i just want some nice photos IF i ever get around to taking some, that stuff is too hardcore for me, ill probably just stick with disposable cameras lol

edit:
which reminds me, i found 6mp cameras on ebay for around 340-400 USD, but these didnt have any bells and whistles, just really bare digital cameras, but they were still 6mp, supposedly.

Well, you DID ask for opinions from the Pro's, and generally when you talk about 6mp cameras you get into the expensive SLR type cameras. :)

If you're wanting something to replace your point and shoot 35mm camera and want to print the pictures on your laser printer, any middle grade consumer camera from Nikon, Olympus, or Cannon will suit you just fine. I personally have never been impressed with the price/quality from Kodak digital cameras, and Sony cameras lock you into their media format. And I've also been rather unimpressed with Fuji's consumer grade cameras (I suspect the "6mp" cameras you saw were Fuji cameras, which only have 3mp sensors).

I currently use a Nikon Coolpix 800. The camera is over 3 years old now, and it was way better than the crappy 35mm camera I replaced with it. And the great thing about it is you can take as many pictures as you want without having to worry about getting film developed and the costs associated with it. If you're anything like me, you'll take pictures of the stupidest things just because you feel like playing with the camera. The next great thing about it is that you know instantly if the picture you took sucks or not (you don't have to worry if it'll "turn out" ok).

http://www.10south.net/~mprobins/albums/LA.images/small/Dscn0021.jpg

Now this was a picture taken with 3 year old tech. I think it's a pretty good picture. The quality of picture you can get from a good digicam these days is noticeably better in both resolution, color quality, and noise. Now a bad digicam will be worse, but... :)

If you visit http://www.dpreview.com you can see reviews of all sorts of different cameras -- from the expensive DSLRs to the elcheapo $100 variety.

...yeah, that's a "wax-up" of someone's teeth (not mine). I just wanted to show the great detail this camera is capable of and it is so small yet easy to use.

My point was: The E-10 could not do the macro type of work I was capable of doing, yet my camera was a third of the price!

When I get home later, I post some other pics of what I'm writing about. They will not be enlargements of a previous photo. Coins are a good standard to see what I'm talking about.

Later.

ok.. ill jump in and contribute some info.

a couple of weeks ago i watched techtv and a person asked the same question. Their advice was not to rely mostly on the pixel!! but the lense also plays a role in the quality of the pictures. So if you in for quality then they suggest going with top camera brand such as Cannon, Nikon or Olympus.

If you want just click and shoot then any 3.0 - 4.0 mega pixel should do the job. (such as Sony) of course this ranges in price and its getting cheaper and cheaper as we speak... ;)

So its really up to you on which camera cause at the end it all depends on how much budget you have...

Happy hunting and gd luck... :D

Originally posted by QuantumTheory08
...yeah, that's a "wax-up" of someone's teeth (not mine). I just wanted to show the great detail this camera is capable of and it is so small yet easy to use.

My point was: The E-10 could not do the macro type of work I was capable of doing, yet my camera was a third of the price!

When I get home later, I post some other pics of what I'm writing about. They will not be enlargements of a previous photo. Coins are a good standard to see what I'm talking about.

Later.

Q I think that you need to watch your wax carving. For a lower 1st molar the distobuccal cusp size is wierd (at least the dryopithecus y shape is present). (I always hated doing wax-ups myself!)

Originally posted by Titanium RX-8


Q I think that you need to watch your wax carving. For a lower 1st molar the distobuccal cusp size is wierd (at least the dryopithecus y shape is present). (I always hated doing wax-ups myself!)

Rotha! My point precisely... And me too. Yeah. Indubitably!

:D

.....six things: I'll make every effort to keep on the thread.

1. for some on the forum...my comments: BBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! !!!!!!! blah blah blah blah!!!! (please go to next thread if I've said too much already)

2. That molar photo is from the Stuart Gnathology study group in So. Cal. so if the wax-up morphology looks a bit funky, someone is trying very hard to rid this person of malocclusion (a bad bite where the teeth don't fit together exactly; stated for everyone else who won't know what "malocclusion" means) and TMJ (jaw joint disfunction). This type of major work is done sometimes where braces and oral surgery are not going to get the teeth in the right place, or the person doesn't want to go through that.

3. Dental macro photography was a real pain prior to digital cameras. Being that macro photography with film cameras usually required some type of "bellows" attachment (and accordian type of attachment in the middle of the lense to create and even higher magnification of the subject. With each change in magnification, a person would have to look up on a table what length of exposure was needed and what "F" stop to set the lens at, as to not over or under expose the film.

I would sit and do trials on different teeth or angles or whole arches of teeth. Just when I thought I had all the expores right, I'd take my photos of the patient of models of teeth or whatever and then WAIT FOR DEVELOPING. They would come back okay or....overexposed or underexposed - man that would tick me off. What I'm trying to say is that digital is like instant gratification. You know what your getting!

The point I was trying to make earlier in this thread was, you don't have to spend $2,000 for a digital camera, and still not get better results. My Olympus 4040 is a 4 megapixel. With the simple inexpensive attachments I puchased for the camera, I could "out magnify" the E-10. I'm ready to do some comparisons right here.

Let's take something with detail that we all know is small but we all know the size; like different places on a twenty dollar bill or a penny; we all know big it is, so if a person were to take a closeup of such a thing, everyone would know how much magnification there was.

The other factor is how clear is the magnification (think how dense or detailed are the pixels)? In other words, once you have the magnified photo, if you magnify that, when do you start to see the individual pixels? This would show the resolution of the camera.

The other problem here, is that I can't upload some huge file on the thread. I can upload what type of magnification is possible with my camera even though I'll compress the JPG, to make the file smaller. I can then also show a spot in the photo, up close, showing when individual pixels become visible. I'll attach on a new post.

4. Digital cameras have a more dynamic range of light gathering ability as compared to film. They are "more forgiving" and since they are digital, they can be altered with software to even become better than from the start.

With cameras being able to automatically set the exposure and the f-stop, it's a breeze now!

5. I've been an amatuer photographer since my 1st camera (minolta srt-101; now I know where Dodge got the name), and of the last five years I really started to become dissappointed with how film was turning out images. Yeah the wife wanted prints rather than slides, but I really noticed that the quality of many printing places, at least in my area, just went from fair to poor in return. I just stopped taking pictures for awhile.

I just love that digital camera! It has brought back the fun of photography.

6. Before I bought a digital camera, many of my friends had purchased one already. I noticed on a trip I took with some family friends who had two different digital cameras, how one camera had more color in it (the Olympus 3020) rather than the other (Nikon coolpix 950). Both where still stunning compared to film photography.

I have to use a different computer to post the photos; I'll be back.

....man, I had to look that one up.

Good one. Yeah, teeth shaped like human teeth... good one.

"dryopithecus" y (a groove shaped like a "y").

wow.

Here's a close-up that has been compressed and reduced in size to at least fit in the forum.

The second photo is a "cut" piece of the of the 1st photo, showing the Lincoln monument of just Lincoln's head and shoulders inside. It has not been compressed so you can start to see the individual pixels (showing resolution of this magnification with just using a 4 mega-pixel camera with macro attachments).

I'm curious what the E - 10 can do.

Here's the other: (I don't know how to upload multiple photos- anyone? anyone?)

The scale is 300 pixels per inch for photo quality.

If you don't plan on printing images larger than 8x10 then stick to 3-4 MP. Anything more will be overkill. You'll end up paying more for the camera and much more for memory.

Here's a couple of helpful websites:
www.dpreview.com - for great unbiased reviews

www.ofoto.com - for professional prints (blew me away)

I apoligize for tooting my own horn.

2. That molar photo is from the Stuart Gnathology study group in So. Cal. so if the wax-up morphology looks a bit funky, someone is trying very hard to rid this person of malocclusion

Q, just a gentle ribbing about the morphology. (and I had to pull out my copy of Kraus' Dental Anatomy and occlusion to check on the spelling of dryopithecus

3. Dental macro photography was a real pain prior to digital cameras.


I agree. I use a Nikon Coolpix 4500 (successor to the 990) for my intra-oral and extra oral photos and find it really useful. All without the expense of the SLR digitals. Actually had a half day seminar on digital dental photography on Friday. Very enlightening.

Hope the non-dentists out there aren't to bored with this post.

I'm going to drag this thread out again before it disappears. We're about to buy a new digital camera, and I need it to be able to take at least decent pictures because my job entails me to act the part of a photojournalist(these don't have to be serious photo quality). So far, we are seriously looking at the Sony DSC-F717, because it has a nice 5X optical zoom and lots of accessory packages (a decent telephoto lens, tripod, etc., which would come in very useful when I'm taking pictures at work). Does anyone have any experience with these? We're trying to keep everything around $1,000, with accessories, or else it'll eat into my RX-8 DP!

The one accessory I found was essential was a wide-angle lens as most digital cameras start at about 38mm equivalent focal length. I bought a 0.63x (24mm) wide-angle (Nikon WC-E63) for my Nikon 990 for about $150, I am sure other good brands will have similar options.

Originally posted by QuantumTheory08
4. Digital cameras have a more dynamic range of light gathering ability as compared to film. They are "more forgiving" and since they are digital, they can be altered with software to even become better than from the start.


This depends on your perspective. The sensativity of a CCD is completely different than that of film. CCDs have a linear sensativity to light, where film has a logarithmic senativity. This actually hurts digital cameras, because in the range that you actually care about (your eye is NOT sensative to light in a linear fashion) ends up being much smaller with a digital image (the raw digital capture needs to have the colors "stretched" out so to speak). Cameras makers use all sorts of fun algorithms to convert the photo you take with a digital camera to a similar logarithmic curve that you'd find on a photo print.

Additionally, the gamut of a 24bpp photo taken from a camera does not have a better dynamic range than a film photo (especailly not if it's in an sRGB colorspace). Even if you just look at the sheer number of color combinations possible, you've only got 256 shades of red, green, and blue to play with -- far less than what is possible with film. This is not to say that the resultant images will be "crappy" or substandard or anything -- because they're not. But to state that it is superior to film is incorrect. To exceed film we'd need to have an extra byte per color channel (48bpp images), but unfortunately there is almost nothing that is capable of processing data in that form.

Internally, before any processing is done to the image, there are many things that the camera's software can fiddle with to get you a good image (the sensors used these days generally read 12bit values instead of 8bit values, which helps a lot with the rounding, lookup tables, and other postprocessing/whatnot) but the image you see on a computer monitor or a printer does not have more dynamic range that what is present on film.