2.1 vs 3 Megapixel

[Keefe]

I am thinking about getting a digital camera and I am wondering if there is a large difference between 2.1 and 3 megapixels.  If anyone has and pics from both, please lemme see the different.

[Uranium-235]

My dad has a 3.2. It's has very impressive quality and very high resolution.

[Omega]

I think for internet/computer imaging, a 2.1 MP camera would do quite nicely. For printing, and trying to make photos comparable to that of conventional photography, 3 MP or higher would be preferable. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert.

[Uranium-235]

Here is my dads. It cost him ~$500

i always borrow a canon a30 or so from a friend for me reviews. has nice quality too and a res uv 1280*960. i think that means the cam gots 1.2 mpixel. nevertheless, nice quality. i mean u can even see single hairs, that is something, i would have never believed that thing could capture my micro-goatie ;D

[Uranium-235]

My dads maxes at the res above 1200x1600. Don't specifically remember what it is though

What is the difference in speed ?
If you want to report from a soccer game for instance ?

[Omega]

Are you talking about shutter speed, or image processing/storage speed, or what? I think that's going to vary from camera to camera, but with a 3 megapixel the processing time may be slightly greater, but then again they may just put a stronger processer in a 3 megapixel camera.

P.S. They'll generally list information such as shutter speed options and image processing time either on the manufacturer's site, or a thorough review site like Steve's Digital Cameras.

Have seen this, Minimal shutter lag time - 0.01 sec
Talked to a reporter he said that for still pics of
faces 2.1 megapixels is fine but the sports reporters
used 4-5 megapixel cameras
Regular old film gives about 20 mega pixels
digital up to 6 mega pixels.
Here is some help http://www.shortcourses.com/choosing/contents.htm

it is all just a question of $