.jpg)
highest megapixel camera consumer image
pretoria
I would like to purchase a digital camera that is as uncomplicated as possible, but still takes good quality pictures of oil/watercolor paintings to post on the internet.
Answer
For posting pictures on a website, you don't need gobs of megapixels. That's marketing hype. In fact, if you do just the slightest bit of research on it, you'll realize that today's ultra-high megapixel cameras suffer from highlight clipping, and reduced dynamic range, which would actually negatively affect your goal--posting nice pictures of paintings. You would lose detail in the shadows, which would otherwise add depth to your shots. Unless you plan to crop a whole lot, or you plan to print at 24x36" sizes, you really don't benefit much from a 10megapixel camera (and as an aside, many 10mp cameras don't offer the full 10mp resolution at apertures smaller than f2.0 since they're differaction limited to lower resolutions).
In fact, your needs are pretty simple to meet. You could even get a 2 megapixel camera and have enough to publish pics on the web (a 1280x1024 screen will only require a 1.3megapixel image to totally fill up its screen). You don't need a super zoom, you don't need image stabilization. What you really want to focus on is this:
1) manual controls that allow you to adjust color balance details...not just white balance, but contrast, sharpness, and color emphasis.
2) Consider cameras that don't employ significant noise reduction. Some cameras are more "consumer" oriented in terms of the manufacturer's choices of how much noise reduction to employ, and how much color manipulation to employ. Often, manipulated pictures will be appealing to the general public because they will have "punchy" dramatic colors, and the image will seem pretty smooth. But I would recommend a cameral that lets you decide which colors to emphasize. Furthermore, the smoothness of a picture that has had significant noise reduction applied to it gains its smoothness at the expense of detail. If you want to catch the details of your paintings' brush stroke, and canvas texture, you'll want as little noise reduction as possible, because it will rob you of those details.
3) I'd lean towards larger sensor sizes versus smaller ones. Remember the comment on reduced dynamic range? Well, the loss of dynamic range is dependent on how concentrated the photoreceptors are on the sensor. If it's a real small sensor, the individual photosites don't do a very good job at picking up details. So, infallibly, you will find the larger sensor sizes offer better dynamic range. (Fuji's SuperCCD sensor is the one exception, and I usually recommend those, but not in your case) I don't know if size is a priority, but that typically means I'm not in favor of the really small subcompacts.
4) Stick with cameras that have proven to have good image quality. Image quality is more than just the quality of the lens. It's the quality of the lens and the quality of the camera's ability to focus, and the camera's sensor ability, and the in-camera noise processing. Sites like DPreview and Image Resource do thorough image quality tests on many levels. You can get a sense of what you can do there.
Specific cameras? There are many I would think that you would find adequate. If you want to go fancy, off the cuff, here are a feww I'd throw out there.
Canon Pro1 for its ISO 50 performance
Canon Powershot G6
Canon Powershot A640
Possibly the Fuji E550
For posting pictures on a website, you don't need gobs of megapixels. That's marketing hype. In fact, if you do just the slightest bit of research on it, you'll realize that today's ultra-high megapixel cameras suffer from highlight clipping, and reduced dynamic range, which would actually negatively affect your goal--posting nice pictures of paintings. You would lose detail in the shadows, which would otherwise add depth to your shots. Unless you plan to crop a whole lot, or you plan to print at 24x36" sizes, you really don't benefit much from a 10megapixel camera (and as an aside, many 10mp cameras don't offer the full 10mp resolution at apertures smaller than f2.0 since they're differaction limited to lower resolutions).
In fact, your needs are pretty simple to meet. You could even get a 2 megapixel camera and have enough to publish pics on the web (a 1280x1024 screen will only require a 1.3megapixel image to totally fill up its screen). You don't need a super zoom, you don't need image stabilization. What you really want to focus on is this:
1) manual controls that allow you to adjust color balance details...not just white balance, but contrast, sharpness, and color emphasis.
2) Consider cameras that don't employ significant noise reduction. Some cameras are more "consumer" oriented in terms of the manufacturer's choices of how much noise reduction to employ, and how much color manipulation to employ. Often, manipulated pictures will be appealing to the general public because they will have "punchy" dramatic colors, and the image will seem pretty smooth. But I would recommend a cameral that lets you decide which colors to emphasize. Furthermore, the smoothness of a picture that has had significant noise reduction applied to it gains its smoothness at the expense of detail. If you want to catch the details of your paintings' brush stroke, and canvas texture, you'll want as little noise reduction as possible, because it will rob you of those details.
3) I'd lean towards larger sensor sizes versus smaller ones. Remember the comment on reduced dynamic range? Well, the loss of dynamic range is dependent on how concentrated the photoreceptors are on the sensor. If it's a real small sensor, the individual photosites don't do a very good job at picking up details. So, infallibly, you will find the larger sensor sizes offer better dynamic range. (Fuji's SuperCCD sensor is the one exception, and I usually recommend those, but not in your case) I don't know if size is a priority, but that typically means I'm not in favor of the really small subcompacts.
4) Stick with cameras that have proven to have good image quality. Image quality is more than just the quality of the lens. It's the quality of the lens and the quality of the camera's ability to focus, and the camera's sensor ability, and the in-camera noise processing. Sites like DPreview and Image Resource do thorough image quality tests on many levels. You can get a sense of what you can do there.
Specific cameras? There are many I would think that you would find adequate. If you want to go fancy, off the cuff, here are a feww I'd throw out there.
Canon Pro1 for its ISO 50 performance
Canon Powershot G6
Canon Powershot A640
Possibly the Fuji E550
What are the best megapixels in a camera?
Q. As far as high quality goes? Is it the higher, the better?
Answer
Nope! The higher megapixel count does not mean better image quality. However, that's what marketing tries to promote as a good feature upgrade in the newer cameras on the market. It's easy to say higher is better, because often you don't need to prove it... people just unconsciously believe a larger number means automatic improvement.
If you ask a regular consumer to choose between two identically featured cameras and the only difference between them are 8mp and 10mp, most people would take the 10 megapixel camera. And what's their justification? I believe most would say that they get better image quality, or the more informed consumer will say they get more megapixels for cropping. You know which camera I would chose; yup the 8mp camera! Here's why:
1) generally lower noise in low lighting conditions
2) roughly equal image quality, if not better than the 10mp camera.
3) likely cheaper price
4) smaller image files, hence you fit more images on one memory card
5) likely quicker operation writing/reading to or from memory card because less data needs to be transferred
6) likely quicker overall camera speed, because reduced time to transfer data means quicker turn around in between shots
7) 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 prints made with an 8mp camera is virtually indistinguishable from those made with a 10mp camera
For all these reason, it would be really senseless to go for a camera that is only two megapixels more. Go for the lower megapixel camera in general.
Nope! The higher megapixel count does not mean better image quality. However, that's what marketing tries to promote as a good feature upgrade in the newer cameras on the market. It's easy to say higher is better, because often you don't need to prove it... people just unconsciously believe a larger number means automatic improvement.
If you ask a regular consumer to choose between two identically featured cameras and the only difference between them are 8mp and 10mp, most people would take the 10 megapixel camera. And what's their justification? I believe most would say that they get better image quality, or the more informed consumer will say they get more megapixels for cropping. You know which camera I would chose; yup the 8mp camera! Here's why:
1) generally lower noise in low lighting conditions
2) roughly equal image quality, if not better than the 10mp camera.
3) likely cheaper price
4) smaller image files, hence you fit more images on one memory card
5) likely quicker operation writing/reading to or from memory card because less data needs to be transferred
6) likely quicker overall camera speed, because reduced time to transfer data means quicker turn around in between shots
7) 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 prints made with an 8mp camera is virtually indistinguishable from those made with a 10mp camera
For all these reason, it would be really senseless to go for a camera that is only two megapixels more. Go for the lower megapixel camera in general.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: What is a good digital camera for taking pictures of paintings to post on the internet?
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment