Several types of twelve megapixel digital cameras are selling on Ebay for prices like $75 and up, including shipping, depending on the bidding. That is a considerably higher pixel count than the sensor has in the camera I am currently using, and a camera with that many pixels should be able to take more detailed pictures than a 35mm SLR with any type of film in it. So, I'm thinking of buying one of the 12 MP cameras. However, there are of course other factors affecting the quality of the pictures you turn out with a camera, including the optical quality of the lens, the imaging software, and the general quality of the camera's chip. Has anybody bought and used a 12 MP camera in this general price range, and did it produce consistently better pictures than cameras, either cheap or expensive, with lower pixel counts?

12 Megs for $75? Surely you jest.

My first SLR camera was a Nikkormat manual. The Nikon lenses make the camera and are the expensive part of the investment. I'm had Minolta's and Canon's and they are just as good.

First, no digital camera gets a picture better than a 35mm slide. Film always has finer grain than any digital (including 12 megapixel cameras). Think about blowing up a slide to wall or movie size. Think about 5247 film for motion pictures.

THAT being said, what do you want to do with the camera? Start a business? Buy Canon, Nikon, etc... the name brands, the established cameras to use for business. Don't buy cheap junk to use for a business. it doesn't make sense.

If you are buying this camera to take pictures of the kids and snapshots at family functions, you don't need that many pixels.

As the old saying goes..."You get what you pay for" and "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is".

Personally I use a 3.1 mp Canon A400 and it works just fine for everyday pictures and makes very nice 4 x 6 prints. I got the camera and a Canon SELPHY CP400 printer as a gift. I'm happy with both of them.

I've got a Casio 3.5 Mp and also a fancy Canon 6 Mp. I find that for most of my photography, the little Casio does a great job. The Canon is nice, but is big and clumsy to haul around. The other problem is that the Canon's pictures are too big for easy storage on my computer. Also it takes longer to edit them due to the large number of pixels. I'd hate to think what 12 Mp would do to my disc drives! Unless you have a big commercial printer 13" x 19" or larger, forget about high pixel counts.

Dave (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:36 am 12 Megs for $75? Surely you jest.

My first SLR camera was a Nikkormat manual. The Nikon lenses make the camera and are the expensive part of the investment. I'm had Minolta's and Canon's and they are just as good.

The Nikkormat FTn was my first good camera. I currently use a Canon 10D for digital and a Canon Elan 7 for film. I make a lot of 12x18 full frame prints from the 6.3 megapixel digital and it does a great job. If I was not careful in composition and filling the frame with the subject I might need more megapixels. Once you crop the image you lose some quality.

tugon (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:52 am The Nikkormat FTn was my first good camera. I currently use a Canon 10D for digital and a Canon Elan 7 for film. I make a lot of 12x18 full frame prints from the 6.3 megapixel digital and it does a great job. If I was not careful in composition and filling the frame with the subject I might need more megapixels. Once you crop the image you lose some quality.

Most photo editors will allow you to add more pixels by interpolation. I did a lot of fooling around with some of the oil painting and water color plugins and found that I needed fewer pixels not more to get the best hand painted effects. So total pixels needed depends on what the desired result is.