LiewCF.com

More pixels is better....... at least for shooting pretty chicks like the ads above :)

If you are going to perform direct print the photo using a large format printer, for example Canon iPF6100 (24") or iPF8100 (44"), the picture size is very important to ensure the output quality.

http://trace-ability.blogspot.com/2009/03/canon...

@Marco: the advantage of more pixels is only significant when print in large format. how many home users print their photos at A4 size?

wow..that's very nice ad..

More pixels gets you bigger files. Which you can crop. Suppose you crop a 12 megapixel image to half it's size. You end up with 2 megapixels. Just barely enough to print at 8R size.

"Liew, nice job there getting that big account for us; and the two others last week. The board have met and we've decided to make you a director. You're also going to get a new company car. Would you like the Mercedes 2.8 or 2.2?".

Camera manufacturers use megapixels the same way car manufacturers use engine sizes. As an indicator of price and quality. You would not expect a more expensive car with a bigger engine to come with cheaper, lower quality parts. Similarly, a more expensive camera with more megapixels, will not come with poorer quality lens, firmware, etc.

When you buy a new car, the engine size is not the only consideration. When you buy a camera, megapixel should not be the only consideration. Neither should you ignore it completely. A 2L Proton will not be better than a 1.5L Mercedes. A 6 megapixel Aiptek will not be better than a 4 megapixel Canon. Nevertheless, you'll have a hard time finding a 4 megapixel Canon Ixus that's better than a 6 megapixel one.

It is easy to start with a low quality sensor with high pixel count, add a cheap plastic lens, lousy firmware, and end up with a cheap, high-megapixel camera that feels like a toy and take crummy pictures. Except outdoors, in bright daylight. That may not be a problem if you're a construction company that only takes site pictures in bright daylight. Suitability to task. Plenty of people are happy with 0.66L Kancils.

of course support more lah.
but true also, a 3/5MP camera is good enough for 4R size.
no need to get 10MP unless you are doing some serious printing.

There are other important specs to "focus" on, like sensor size, lens etc etc.

Another marketing sleight-of-hand :D

The ad is kind of sexy, very easy to get male audience attention.

Well, maybe is not about quality but I like women with a lot of pixels :)

me also.. really sexy :O

Practically, shoot with sufficient pixels for different applications. More pixels for large format printing such as banting, banner etc, but less pixels for normal 4R or 5R photo printing, and least pixels for uploading to website. Hope this helps.

Actually, I always shoot the highest resolution possible on the camera. Not always the lowest compression level, but always the highest resolution. Everyone else I know does the same.

There was a time in the early days, when memory cards were expensive, when you run out of space, you're forced to reduce the resolution just to get more photos to fit. But not now, cards are cheap. And when they're full, you can easily move them to your notebook.

Unless you are using an SLR with a zoom ring, it's almost impossible to frame shots properly. Plus, it's easier to crop later in Photoshop. We're just lazier. :-) And like I said earlier, when you want to crop, the more megapixels you have to work with, the better.

With large mega pixels, the picture has wide range of usage. And you can squeeze down the mega pixels via software for Internet uploading. But with small mega pixels, you're unable to enlarge the size of picture while maintaining the quality. Make sense?

I agreed on "More pixels do NOT mean better quality". Every SLR user should know that. I prefer bigger image sensor size (Full frame) and quality lens. More pixel won't help improve your photo quality. :D

WTF
haha.. more pixel, more sexy....
very nice ads for buying their latest model, rite?

cheers liewcf!

@ballot, yes I agree.. more pixel, more sexy hahaha...

well, im noob in photographing.. but what have i noticed about camera during each travel trip together with friends where everyone is holding different brand of camera .. based on same budget in RM.. CANON still is the best and always perfom the best quality if compare to NIKON, OLYMPUS and KODAK for those camera layman user who buy camera just to use the snap button.. most of the users not really care bout the setting, ISO, function..bla bla bla..including me..

Liewcf.. for user like me and for most of the user.. which bran or type should i go for?

Kodak tries to build extremely simple, extremely easy to use, point-and-shoot cameras. Something your illiterate grandpa can handle. But I find it a bit to simplistic. Not enough controls.

Olympus and Fuji have some good extremely high ISO cameras, but they use xD cards. xD cards are the spawn of evil that eats your photos. The dreaded "card error" message appears usually when you've shot some important photos, and just before you've copied them to your computer.

That leaves Canon & Nikon. You can shoot a burst of 10 photos, and before the camera is finished saving them all, pop the door and pull out the card. Only the unsaved photos are lost. Try that on an xD and see if all the photos on the entire card is not toast.

hahah, i have to agree with that, by the way.. the girl is smoking hawt ! ^^