12M pixel cameras . . . .

[pertfoxylush 10]

I currently have an 8.1MP camera and am looking at a 12MP one.

 

I don't take loads of photos but I do enjoy the quality my camera gives me now.

 

Is there TONS of difference between them and are they difficult to use?

[pennangton 10]

You will not see the difference in a 8mp and 12 megapixel because they will be putting to many pixels onto a tiny sensor. There would only be a difference if you was to do something with a big resolution such as posters or large prints etc.

[medusa 16]

Moved to the photography group.

[mrmist 10]

It really depends on what 8MP camera and what 12MP camera. If you're talking about 2 compact cameras, don't even bother. If you're talking about moving from a compact 8MP to a 12MP SLR, then you may well see a difference in output quality, but it'd not be from more megapixels.

[jezzyjj 10]

If you are talking about your 8m SLR camera fronm 2 years ago compared to a 12m SLR camera just out, yes there will be a difference. But as mentioned above and it's well worth repeating, if you are talking compact cameras, i.e. not SLRs, adding more MP does not necessarily increase quality, but will probably increase noise.

It would be more helpful if you said what camera you had now.

[pertfoxylush 10]

I currently have a Vivitar 8.1MP and I'm not sure what sort of 12MP I'd be looking at.

 

I'll be honest, I'm not a professional but I do enjoy taking pictures. I've taken some black and white ones but when increased in size they don't have the same quality.

 

It's mainly kids (my nieces & nephews) and scenery I photograph and it's purely a hobby.

 

I'm not sure that I can justify spending almost £200 if not more on a new camera and it was more a general query.

 

Thanks!

 

Edit: It's a compact digital camera I have at the moment and would be looking for the same thing.

[jezzyjj 10]

How the image appears is more to do with how it is 'developed' than sensor size.

JPEGs out of compacts are usually quite crappy and have a nasty video look to them. Which is not unsurprising as that's what they are fundamentally.

I've done nice big prints from 2.1M and a 6.0 M cameras. But I know how to process files to get the best out of images You need something like Photoshop Elements [it's the cheap but still very powerful amateur version of Photoshop] to 'develop' your images. Though I'm not sure in PSE can do actions [where you record a series of manipulations], so you can redo a complex process to repeat easily.

You would be better off learning how to use what you have than spend more money on a camera, that is very litle better. Especially at the prices you are looking at. Expecting great results from a compact digital camera without putting some effort in after taking image is very optimistic.

 

BTW take all your images in colour and then use some decent software to convert to B+W. You'll get much, much better results that way.

Programmes like Lighroom/Aperture are not really suited to this task.

[Cuey 10]

its all been said above although i would add one point. Digital (or good digital cameras) excel at colour prints.

 

In BW they are at a weakness. Even good DSLRs developed in Photoshop struggle because they can't match the scales of grey that 35mm film can offer. You can get a good effort but it may still lack the punch that you think you can get from BW.

[jezzyjj 10]

Learn to use your camera + PS properly and you can get great B+W from digital.

Many classic B+W images are easily matched by a good digital camera and someone who knows how to use the software. And that's the key thing, it's the person that makes the picture and not the camera or the software.

[richardwheel 10]

I have the canon 20d and the only reason I want a 5D is for the enlarged viewing screen to make it easier to compose. If you interpolate your photos well, you should be able to blow them up to A3 or even A2 size (and get them professionally printed)

 

Hope that helps

 

http://www.peak-photos.co.uk

[jezzyjj 10]

The 5D produces images that are very different to the 20D, as the sensor size makes a much bigger change than a few more pixels. In fact, the difference in pixels is near irrelevent compared to the optical differences.

The 5D is a much, much better camera as a result.

 

If you want a bigger viewing screen buy an Olympus OM film camera, the design is probably over 30years old by now. yet it has a bigger viewing screen than a 5D and is about half the size.

A Hasselblad has an even bigger viewfinder! And a way bigger price!

[richardwheel 10]

the 5D it is on my list of to buy it and am looking forward to seeing the results then,

 

cheers for the info

 

rich

http://www.peak-photos.co.uk