CameraLore
Side-by-side comparison

Praktica DC 32
vs Praktica Mini

Archive illustration for Praktica DC 32

Praktica / 2003

DC 32

Full specifications
VS
Archive illustration for Praktica Mini

Praktica / 2004

Mini

Full specifications

Sensor area

Calibrate screen size

Enter your display diagonal so sensor rectangles are shown closer to their physical size.

21 mm²
DC 32
31 mm²
Mini
Area ratio
1.44:1
Absolute difference
9 mm²
Relative difference
44.1%

The Mini has the larger sensor area. More area usually means greater light-gathering potential, though real image quality still depends on sensor architecture and generation.

These cameras were released 1 years apart. Consider sensor generation when comparing pixel metrics.

Key specification differences

DC 32MetricMini
3.1 MPEffective pixels3.2 MP
5.33 × 4Sensor6.4 × 4.8
2.62 µmPixel pitch3.1 µm
6.88 µm²Pixel area9.6 µm²
14.54 MP/cm²Pixel density10.42 MP/cm²
6.49Crop factor5.41
—Maximum video—
185 gWeight90 g
MultiMedia, Secure DigitalStorageSecure Digital
2x AABattery2x AAA

Amber marks the value that is generally preferable in this comparison context. It is not an overall camera score.

How to choose between these cameras

The Mini has the larger sensor area. The Mini has the lighter body. The Mini has the higher effective resolution. The Mini is the newer release. Also consider the lens system and subjects you shoot.

Reasons to choose DC 32

Released in 2003, DC 32 has about 21 mm² of sensor area, 3.1 MP effective resolution, and a 185 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Reasons to choose Mini

Released in 2004, Mini has about 31 mm² of sensor area, 3.2 MP effective resolution, and a 90 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Choose different cameras