Canon 7 MP Digital ELPH??

"Ryan" wrote in message
om...

Almost certainly, one will be in the works. It would be uncharacteristic
of
Canon to miss out on the big 7mp scam with it's Elph/Ixus series.


I am curious, what makes you call this "the big 7mp scam"??

I sell a lot more cameras than A3 printers- and i'd say 16x12" is the only
way you'd spot the difference between a 5mp and 7mp. The price difference
between the Sony P120 and forthcoming P150 will be about £100UK, and most
P150 buyers will effectively be throwing those extra £££s away.

And the JPEG samples from a 7mp compact look horrible at 100% anyway.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

I found no significant perceptible difference on
8x10 prints between 5 and 8 mp images.

Alan-

I did a similar test a couple of years ago, between prints from a Kodak 1.3 MP
and an Olympus 3.3 MP camera. At 8 1/2 X 11, the difference was barely
perceptible, and was probably as much a function of the better Olympus lens!

Fred

I found no significant perceptible difference on
8x10 prints between 5 and 8 mp images.

Alan-

I did a similar test a couple of years ago, between prints from a Kodak 1.3 MP
and an Olympus 3.3 MP camera. At 8 1/2 X 11, the difference was barely
perceptible, and was probably as much a function of the better Olympus lens!

Fred

I sell a lot more cameras than A3 printers- and i'd say 16x12" is the only
way you'd spot the difference between a 5mp and 7mp. The price difference
between the Sony P120 and forthcoming P150 will be about £100UK, and most
P150 buyers will effectively be throwing those extra £££s away.

And the JPEG samples from a 7mp compact look horrible at 100% anyway.


Thank you all for the valuable information.

I think the general thought for those who don't know better (me
included) is that any size photo will look much better taken by a 7 mp
camera than a 5 mp camera, so we just to buy the next new thing out
there.

I shall hold off and enjoy my Canon S500.

I sell a lot more cameras than A3 printers- and i'd say 16x12" is the only
way you'd spot the difference between a 5mp and 7mp. The price difference
between the Sony P120 and forthcoming P150 will be about £100UK, and most
P150 buyers will effectively be throwing those extra £££s away.

And the JPEG samples from a 7mp compact look horrible at 100% anyway.


Thank you all for the valuable information.

I think the general thought for those who don't know better (me
included) is that any size photo will look much better taken by a 7 mp
camera than a 5 mp camera, so we just to buy the next new thing out
there.

I shall hold off and enjoy my Canon S500.

I sell a lot more cameras than A3 printers- and i'd say 16x12" is the only
way you'd spot the difference between a 5mp and 7mp. The price difference
between the Sony P120 and forthcoming P150 will be about £100UK, and most
P150 buyers will effectively be throwing those extra £££s away.

And the JPEG samples from a 7mp compact look horrible at 100% anyway.


Thank you all for the valuable information.

I think the general thought for those who don't know better (me
included) is that any size photo will look much better taken by a 7 mp
camera than a 5 mp camera, so we just to buy the next new thing out
there.

I shall hold off and enjoy my Canon S500.

"Fred McKenzie" wrote in message
...
I found no significant perceptible difference on
8x10 prints between 5 and 8 mp images.

Alan-

I did a similar test a couple of years ago, between prints from a Kodak 1.3 MP
and an Olympus 3.3 MP camera. At 8 1/2 X 11, the difference was barely
perceptible, and was probably as much a function of the better Olympus lens!

Fred

In my tests it seemed that everything depended on
the kind of image. Some images depict large
objects where fine detail is insignificant. Many
portraits and landscapes are like that. For these,
low megapixel images can be enlarged more without
harming the apparent quality.

Other images depict fine detail, for example
a close-up of an insect, or images that have
signs or writing in them that is important to
read. These images suffer if enlarged to the
point where the fine detail appears fuzzy.

Another factor is how far away you are when
you view the image. A photo mounted on a wall
and observed from 3-5 feet away can get away
with a lot less detail than one held in the hand
and examine close up. Television technology
relies on this effect. Standard (not high-def)
TV looks terrible if you sit one foot from the
screen. It is designed to be viewed from a
couch 5 feet away or more - where higher
definition may not even be observable.

Alan

"Fred McKenzie" wrote in message
...
I found no significant perceptible difference on
8x10 prints between 5 and 8 mp images.

Alan-

I did a similar test a couple of years ago, between prints from a Kodak 1.3 MP
and an Olympus 3.3 MP camera. At 8 1/2 X 11, the difference was barely
perceptible, and was probably as much a function of the better Olympus lens!

Fred

In my tests it seemed that everything depended on
the kind of image. Some images depict large
objects where fine detail is insignificant. Many
portraits and landscapes are like that. For these,
low megapixel images can be enlarged more without
harming the apparent quality.

Other images depict fine detail, for example
a close-up of an insect, or images that have
signs or writing in them that is important to
read. These images suffer if enlarged to the
point where the fine detail appears fuzzy.

Another factor is how far away you are when
you view the image. A photo mounted on a wall
and observed from 3-5 feet away can get away
with a lot less detail than one held in the hand
and examine close up. Television technology
relies on this effect. Standard (not high-def)
TV looks terrible if you sit one foot from the
screen. It is designed to be viewed from a
couch 5 feet away or more - where higher
definition may not even be observable.

Alan