Re: [OT] Digital Camera

>
>>3) Megapixels - more is better.  Decent results can be had with 4
>>mega pixels, but 5 or 6 is preferrable as they allow you to "zoom-in"
>>by cropping the photos afterwards without any serious loss of final
>>picture quality.  Most pictures for website use or printing a 4x6
>>look fine at 2 megapixel resolution, so if you start with a 4
>>megapixel image, you can zoom in and crop 50% of the area and still
>>have a respectable picture.
>
>I think your numbers are a little high for web resolution, as I've been
>getting decent results with my 2 megapixel Canon. A lot depends on how
>big your picture is going to be, and how much detail you want to show.
I
>typically keep my images to about 325 pixels on the long axis, but
>that's because I want the pictures to work on an 800 x 600 screen
>resolution, I use up about 200 pixels in columns on either side of the
>main part of my page, and I like to have a little extra border around
>them. Since I've had people ask about buying some of my pictures, I
must
>be doing something right.

Allan is quite right about the resolution (mega-pixel) issue, though it 
does depend on your intended use.  If you are aiming for web-use only,
then 
a 3 megapixel camera is plenty, as long as the camera has an optical
zoom.

For example,

http://www.stargrunt.ca/gallery_modeling/sg2_gal_gurkhas/sg2_gal_gurkhas
_8.htm

is a close-up shot of some figures that I took under fluorescent
lighting 
at a convention a few years back.  This "close up" is actually just a 
clipped part of a larger image:

http://www.stargrunt.ca/gallery_modeling/sg2_gal_gurkhas/sg2_gal_gurkhas
_9.htm

The original shot was photographed with my 3 mega-pixel camera.  Neither

version on the website is at the full resolution - they've been greatly 
reduced for web use.  No "post-production" photo manipulation (digital 
zooming, for example) was used to create the close-up, other than
clipping 
the bit out that I wanted.  Well, I might have done some colour
correcting, 
but the fact that the 3mpx camera took an image of high-enough
resolution 
meant that I didn't need to worry much about fiddling around trying to
zoom in.

I have a macro feature on my 70mm - 210mm zoom lens (for my 35mm SLR 
camera), and have tried figure photography with that.  As someone
pointed 
out, getting the camera close enough to use that kind of feature means
that 
your depth of field is paper thin.  I found that I was able to focus on
the 
figure ok, but the depth of field was SO fine that if the front of the 
figure was in focus, the back would be out, and anything else in the
image 
(scenery, etc) was completely blurred.

And, as was pointed out, you get *every* last little detail of your 
painting technique showing up when you zoom in that close.

Having said all that, if you can afford a 5mpx or 6mpx camera - then go
for 
it.  It will allow you to set up your shots with the camera much further

from the figures and still get good close up shots (that you can create 
afterwards) if you need them.  This eliminates the depth-of-field issue 
with extreme zooming.  I find a 3mpx camera is fine for all my web use
(and 
I use it professionally).

If you want good print copies of your pics, then lots of megapixels is 
good.  However, I've printed photos taken with my 3mpx camera at 4" x
6", 
and they looked just like "real" photos.  If you want prints larger than

4x6, then the more megapixels the merrier...

-Adrian

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
www.stargrunt.ca