“My right eye is at a fine five megapixel. But the left one, I feel, has only a VGA resolution.”
See if you agree with this. Add your two cents.
Forget the silly debate over pixel counts among digital cameras. There is little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings. For instance, a 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18!” I know because I’ve done this. Have you?
The megapixel myth was started by camera makers and swallowed hook, line and sinker by camera measurebators. Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. They use it because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel increase, since the total pixel count varies as the total area of the image, which varies as the square of the linear resolution. In other words, an almost invisible 40% increase in the number of pixels in any one direction results in a doubling of the total number of pixels in the image. Therefore camera makers can always brag about how much better this week’s camera is, with even negligible improvements.
[…]
One needs about a doubling of linear resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as a quadrupling of megapixels. A simple doubling of megapixels, even if all else remained the same, is very subtle. The factors that matter, like color and sharpening algorithms, are far more significant.The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something’s goodness can be judged.
If you do fret the pixel counts, I find that it takes about 25 megapixels to simulate 35mm film, which is still far more than any practical digital camera. At the 6 megapixel level digital gives about the same sharpness as a duplicate slide, which is plenty for most things. Honestly, I have actually had digital files written back out onto film to see this.
Tired of ordinary images of landscapes? Here’s a way to make them far more vibrant.
I call BS on this one.
Resolution is never wasted, and can provide significant benefit.
The author talks about blowing up an image to 12 inches, but that’s starting with his original image. Once you start sub-windowing (what cameras do when they claim “digital zoom” you start running out of resolution quickly.
Let’s say we take a picture, and crop it to show that hot chick in the bottom left corner. We’re no longer dealing with that 3-megapixel image, we’re dealing with one that may be 500 pixels wide. If we take an 8-megapixel image, that same cropped except will still be over a megapixel. That’s where one can really see the difference.
There is no such thing as too much resolution if you wish to retain maximum creativity. Leave the 3-megapixel imagers to phones and the modern equivalent of the instamatic.
Not everyone needs a lot of pixels, but those that do cannot be satisfied by 3 megapixels.
I’ll add while more resolution is better, even more important is good optics and large sensors (to reduce noise). That’s why a 6 megapixel DSLR will blow away a 10 megapixel point & shoot camera. Canon’s high end 16 megapixel DSLR is already better than film, you don’t need to go to 25.
Good point, everybody forgets the importance of good optics.
I’m a trained media professional and my expert opinion is “maybe.”
For most people who take snapshots, the answer is “don’t waste your money on a bunch of megapixels. Three or four is enough for a 4×6 print. ”
If you have money burning in your pocket, spend it on a better optical zoom. Or a bigger screen. Or an extra big memory chip.
Or on a smaller model. (smaller means you are more likely to have your camera with you when that great shot happens. )
But, if you do lots of cropping, twiddling, enlarging, etc, then pay for more megapixels (you know who you are.).
I’m an untrained amature and I say “Yes”.
Why? I don’t edit photos. I take them, and either delete them or save them. I’m happy with my 3.2 camera and have no reason to upgrade.
There was a story in PC Magazine a few years back supporting this logic, making the case that the average picture taker didn’t need anything more than 3.2. I wonder who wrote it…
This article could be rewritten “cars don’t need more than 4 cylinders”.
I enjoy reading comments regarding this subject on the Digital Photography Review website’s forums.
Most of the people posting there openly complain about the “megapixel wars” – where each new generation of camera has more pixels – but not better dynamic range, or less imaging noise, which is where most people want the technology to be focused [no pun intended].
Panasonic is particularly guilty of this with their 12x-zoom cameras going from the 5-MP FZ20 to the 8-MP FZ30 – with imaging noise visible at low iso. And after the FZ30 got a lukewarm reception for having “N-word” [noise] issues, Panasonic proves themselves tone-deaf by then announcing the FZ50 – with 10-MP crammed into a tiny sensor.
One thing most megapixel rants don’t address is the fact that low-MP cameras also have the fewest features – slower lenses, slower focus, limited controls, crappy screen resolution. It can be difficult to find a camera with well-designed controls and useful features that doesn’t also suffer from marketing-driven pixel-cramming.
Megapixils are only part of the issue when getting a camra, I would say look for optical zoom (this has been pointed out here already) and another thing I would look for is the ablity to hold the shuter open for x amount of time.
When I got my “new” digital camra 3 years ago, I look for optical zoom (I have 10x there) this way I don’t have to use digital zoom (if I need that I can do that back at home on the computer, and that happens maybe once every 200 pics)
Also I like the PALS mode, where I can change the exposer time, and apature size. This is one reason I do not want to upgreade my camra, the new version can only be open for 8 seconds max, mine can go aslong as 16 seconds, combin that with a tri-pod and a good shot of Pittsburgh at night, and WOW you get some good pics, also you can have fun with that. The fun is to take your own “ghost” pictures, stand infront of it for 8 to 10 seconds out of the 16 seconds in a darkend room, that can be fun đ
I was just reading a book by Andy Rooney. Rooney has a chapter about tools that are better than we are. In 1991 we were going to have fuel cells and cheap electricity with no pollution in ten years. Westinghouse was spending $20 million a year on that effort. Energy costs just keep going up today. We’re saving money by not processing film, which is good. If we could figure out how to burn less coal, oil and gas, we could have more money for better cameras that are better than we are at taking pictures.
As a professional photographer, I can tell you that yes you do need more than 3MP. 12′ X 18″ isn’t that big if you use photography for you living. Of course image sensor size if far more important.
This article could be rewritten âcars donât need more than 4 cylindersâ.
If you consider a camera and a car to be of equal importance, yes.
However, most people do not.
My opinion is that 8.2 MP with good glass allows a lot of flexibility. I take a lot of photos with a 50MM lens and the optics are incredible.
Not everyone wants to spend the money for a Canon DSLR, but I’m glad I did. I think the photos on the site speak for themselves.
Right now I’m saving my pennies for a Canon 5D or equivalent maybe for christmas.
This week, the Blue Angels have been practicing in the distance. Now, with my Point and Shoot camera (Nikon 7600) in the sun, I can’t really zoom in on them. I can frame the quickly enough or even see anything in my LCD. Even with a DSLR, I wouldn’t be able to frame, zoom and focus on the planes.
But with plenty of megapixels, I don’t have to be as accurate with my framing. I can shoot a large swath of sky, and then later crop and zoom the image to just that part I want.
I got some pictures this week that I wouldn’t have been able to capture with my 10X optical zoom, 3 megapixel camera.
Other elements are also critical, of course. On a higher end camera I would demand better optics and light sensitivity.
But for a quick point and shoot, that’s small enough to carry with me, I’ll take the extra mega-pixels now so I can fix things later.
I’m amazed that this guy printed this. Nobody can take him seriously any more. Anyone with a 3 megapixel camera (I have at least 5 of them) who also has Photoshop and 4,5,6,7,8 or 10 megapixel camera (yes I have those too) knows this is bullshit. There is a huge difference with each two megapixel jump. That said I have seen some camera with 7 megapixel imagers that do not take as good a picture as a good 5 meg camera. So?
Yes John, I have to disagree. We were into scanning full-size blueprints for inclusion in a CMS system…. A 35MM photo/slide of the print mounted on a copy board could be scanned successfully with adequate detail on the notes, etc. to read them in the app. Once dig-cams got up to about 5-6 MP is where we could take the image directly with a digital camera and forget the film/scan process. 3MP – definitely not – notes and dimensions were not readable. So by this unscientific standard, I’d say a 6MP digicam is pretty close to a 35mm film cam, at up to 36×24″ images, which is what a D size blueprint amounts to. 25MP would be nice, but is unnecessary. I should also mention though that the physical size of the CCD seems to have a large bearing on the results as well.
The major issues in imager size is sensitivity and optics matching. A larger sensor can have larger pixels which accept more light, and the size of the chip affects the resulting focal length of the camera.
Sensor and optics quality are more important but resolution is important too. What is most important is the ability to shoot the 12 bit raw format with 4,096 tonal values per pixel compared to 256 for JPG.
So, comparing pixels is like comparing processor clock speeds.
And, there’s something to be said for the quality of the individual pixels.
For lenses, what good are all those pixels if details never focus finely enough to fall on individual pixels.
Professionals spend a lot of money on separate lenses, but a built-in lens can make or break a camera. This was true with film and it’s still true.
Professionals always look farther then superficial specs, and never waste money on what will never be used. It’s better to get better quality pixels if all your images will always be croped for Web pages. Note that professional photographers tend to have multilple camera bodies as well as lenses.
Advertisers will always try to catch your eye with a brief statement that’s geared to look astounding. So, its no surprise that marketers chose to use a non-linear number that makes a small improvements in products look like a big changes. And, since the acceptance of this specification is a matter of the basic shap-shoot user, the smaller professional market has been dictated to. Professionals, as usual, have to spend more time to better understand the specs then the common snap-shot user.
Cromely, I have used a DSLR on aircraft in flight and have no problems framing them and taking a picture. I used a 400mm 2.8 lens (heavy sucker). If you want to take photos of aircraft in flight, you need a long lens.
The market is made of more than two slices, and can’t be split into “beginner” and “pro”.
Imaging needs extend from a 4 x 6 shot to images that have to be printied poster-size on glossy paper, with multiple gradations in between.
James said, “If you consider a camera and a car to be of equal importance, yes.”
There are a lot of people who do, contrary to opinion.
Building to the lowest common denominator is what got us into trouble in the first place.
No argument from me on that, but I doubt the majority would be in that “lot of people”.
There’s always a sweet spot when it comes to technology. With the beginners market you’ve defined that point is 3.2 MP, with limited zoom capabilities, who do zero editing (beyond maybe making a picture smaller). Anything more is overkill.
#20 In fact, applications are an additional dimension on top of the various levels of expertise.
Still, marketers focus on a majority consisting of non-professionals, and in that majority is are those who made almost no study of photography.
The marjority isn’t everything.
There are suppliers/retailers/catalogs that cater to professionals. The better ones won’t focus on a single spec.
Besides, I think of beginners as embarking on the study of a subject. That’s at least one step above those who have no time or interest to learn about what they buy. There are stores that I avoid–not because of a predjudice against the uneducated masses–but because I have trouble stomaching the parasitic advertising that gorges itself off of such people.
Ok, here’s something you need to know about Ken Rockwell…he’s full of shit. I’m a professional photographer…meaning that is what I do for a living and I can tell you that megapixels are no myth. I currently shoot with a Canon 5D which is 13 megapixels along with a full 35mm size sensor. The detail it has and noise it doesn’t have in the shadow areas are amazing. Oh, and in case anyone is curious (I doubt it), I shoot stock, portraits and the occasional company annual report. I gave up on weddings because it was too much stress. WAY too much stress.
But anyway, you should read some photography forums and you will find that pretty much it’s a consensus that Ken Rockwell is pretty much a joke…as you’ve pretty much sniffed out already.
Oh, and James, I consider my cameras MUCH more important than my car…for obvious reasons.
I am still using my Nikon Coolpix 3100 for work. This camera takes amazing photos with only 3.2 Megapixels. I have been thinking about upgrading to a D50, but only to look more professional. For web design, my Nikon 3100 color quality can’t be beat by most of the newer cameras. Or maybe it’s my ability to take good photos? I agree with John on this one.
Resolution IS wasted.
so what you have a 10 Megabit Picture, if the hardware insode dont USE that much data, or renders it DOWN, there isnt much difference.
A digital camera is not a camera. Regardless of how big it is, it produces an interpretation of a scene, not a record. But it is very nice to hear some debate on the subject, of whether a big expensive piece of junk is better than a small expensive piece of junk.
edwinrogers, what are you talking about? Bored at The Department of Physics at the University of Auckland so you decided “hey, let’s troll Dvorak.org”?
Try harder next time!
OK, my take on all this. What do you need in a camera to take a good picture?
The mega pixels are important, but are not everything. Included in a good camera are optics (didn’t think I saw that coming did you), memory card (yup, you guys forgot memory), sensor, (ya, I’m a sensitive guy), and camera processor (no smart aleck remarks for that).
Of secondary importance, but still important is camera weight, camera size, physical camera/lens length, and controls.
And each is important in proportion to your need.
My main camera is a Canon Rebel XT with an effective 40-130mm zoom. For standby I use an Olympus C-4000. I wish the Canon were lighter and the Olympus had a longer (105mm) zoom. Both are darn good, but if I only had a Canon 5d,…
Mpixels Ratio MPx Sqrt Ratio Sqrt
13000000 3605
5100000 2.549 2258 1.59656494 59% Gain
3500000 1.457 1870 1.207121724 21% Gain
Some round numbers to go with the square heads:
Mpixels Ratio MPx Sqrt Ratio Sqrt
13000000 3605
5100000 2.549 154% Gain 2258 1.596 60% Gain
3500000 1.457 45% Gain 1870 1.207 21% Gain
Taking the square root for the linear relationship is a bit rough (formula should allow for aspect ratio). But the results are fair. Now someone can factor in price. Remember that for pros, a higher cost may be an inescapable requirement.