File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What do you think?
Not bad for a 5MP camera, right?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeVIVITARCamera ModelViviCam 3945SCamera Software1.02VIE1Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2004:11:15 02:03:18Exposure Time1/32 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceStandard Light AFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length5.40 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2560Image Height1920RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>85579
"Not bad for a 5MP camera, right?"
Hi, you must be new here, welcome to /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>85582
So you're saying it's bad?
>> Anonymous
I LOL'd
>> Anonymous
>>85583
Your mentioning of 5MP. Megapixels is irrelevant when talking about how good your camera is.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>85595
I beg to differ.
>> Anonymous
>>85606
look a few threads down at the 12mp pictures of buildings.
>> Anonymous
>>85607

>>85600
>>85598
to be specific.
>> Anonymous
>>85606
MF digital is primarily better because it has a larger sensor, not because it has more megapixels, than 35mm-scale full frame and APS-C digital.

Megapixels do affect resolution and image quality, but ultimately, they're the most minor concern, behind the lens, the sensor quality, the sensor size, and things like anti-alias filters and so on. (Those all are in no particular order.)

After six or so megapixels, one finds rapidly diminishing returns in image quality at regular print sizes. A five megapixel camera is certainly enough for almost any application. In fact, on a small-sensor camera like the Vivitar model in question, less megapixels (to a certain point) is an advantage, because large pixel counts push the limits of the sensor size and lead to more noise.
>> Anonymous
Oh, and OP, yes, your photograph is good, composition-wise, although the foreground is extremely underexposed. The way around that would've been (if your camera will take a filter adapter) to use a graduated ND filter, or to set the camera in a fixed positiion, expose one for the foreground and another for the sky, and combine them, whether by (sensible) HDR or by simply chopping them together.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>85623
This is my camera.
>> Anonymous
if you got down on the ground, you could have avoided the horizon altogether and just had a silhouette of the swing alone. Woulda been awesome.
And you don't ever need XBOX sized pictures. I usually don't bother with above 2MP. I'll go higher if I need detail but that's rare.