You can get some very good pictures with a 3 megapixel camera. I don't know how fussy you are. I still don't think a digital camera in the hobby price range will compete with a 35mm Nikon with fine grain photo film especially in the 8X10 or 16X12 sizes you are referring to. Like everything else, the camera is only part of the story. The right printer and paper can make a big difference. It takes some time to find a setup that will please you. I use Corel Paint to control the size, quality, color balance, contrast etc. If you use one of the newer printers that have 1200 or better DPI capabilities, the results to me are plenty good enough. If I plan on posting them on the net, they must be reduced in size and DPI. A three megapixel picture not only will take forever to send and download, it takes up a lot of disk space. Even with a fast computer, these pictures can take a long time to process at home and print. For home use and posting to the internet, 3 megapixels is fine. If you plan on sending them to National Geographic I don't think so.
Hans Huyler( sp?) posts pictures on the Thursday night LS chat group from time to time. Hans is a master at getting pictures that are razor sharp and have a perspective that makes you not really sure if you looking at Gauge 1 or a full scale loco. That makes them superb in my eyes. Phil I'm partial to Epson printers by the way. I'm using a not very expensive 785EPX. I would get one with the new non water soluble inks by the way. My opinions only Phil > Hi Trent, Dave et al, > As with high quality 35mm film cameras, Nikon etc. the end results are > totally dependant on the quality of the lens in the enlarger being > comparable to the original photographic lens. > Therefore, I would be interested in knowing which colour printers and > paper do you guys use for supporting the quality of these high definition > photographs at 3-6 megapixels. i.e look brilliant on the screen, but not > much use if final print quality is not comparable. > I am talking in terms of 10 x 8 to 16 x 12 print sizes, not postcards. > Please advise, > Thanks guys, > Tony D. > > At 10:57 PM 3/4/03 -0600, Trent Dowler wrote: > >Hello Dave, > > > > Thanks for the additional information. It gives me a lot more > > confidence in > >the 3 Megapixel market. > > I'm currently considering the Sony Mavica CD-400, but haven't convinced > >myself to make the purchase. I'll definitely take a closer look at the > >Fuji S602 > >now that I've seen actual photos from it. > > Thanks again for the information. > > > >Later, > >Trent > > > > > >Dave Cole wrote: > > > > > *it's a fuji s602. > > > > > > *it has 6x optical zoom and macro capability (focuses down to three > > inches). > > > > > > *it has manual (as well as auto) shutter speed and aperture. > > > > > > *it has all the features of a six-megapixel, but is only captures > > > three megapixels (this is the tradeoff). > > > > > > *santa paid around $500 for it (same features and six megapixels > > > would be $1500-$2k). > > > >
