Interesting article on Megapixels

» Best picture quality with 6 megapixels!

I have had friends that are semi-pro photogs that swear you dont need more than 6.

Interesting article.

Looks like the Germans maybe assuming too much, like assuming that the chip sensor makers (Japan and Korea) are just cramming more mega pixels into the same surface area occupied by a 6 mega pixel sensor.

When in fact the sensors are growing in size as the mega pixels numbers increase.

For example

Cannon G9 and A650 @ 12 mp, have a 1/1.7” size CCD

Cannon G7 @ 10 mp has a 1/1.8” size CCD

Cannon A720 @ 8 mp has a 1/ 2.5” size CCD

They have to increase the sensor size to keep within the noise limits of the ISO standard.

Yes, Interesting, I heard this several years ago at about the 4pix level when the Nikon D100 first came out??
I mentioned it and was Immediately "pounded" for being absolutely ridiculous that "... more might not be the best.." heheh.. but couldn't find the article that indicated it...
So finally..., not saying it's factual or not, just that the idea was tossed about a few years ago also...
Interesting to say the least... as I just purchased the D300 w/12mpix?? heheheh... but I didn't buy it for the pictures eh??? ;-))

DP Review agrees that you need to consider more than just number of pixels
And there is confusion on what sensor size numbers mean .. a 1/1.8 sensor is larger than a 1/2.7 sensor.... Sensor Sizes: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review
and about pixel quality .. Pixel Quality: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review
if comparing two cameras with similar features, go for the larger sensor

I suggest that there are a few other factors one should consider in addition to the megapixels.

The first is the quality of the lens. The "prosumer" cameras have a fixed lens that is quite small. Sure you can use optical zoom, but check the quality of the lens compared to DSLR and the price point you are using to make a decision. More megapixels will not give you a better picture if the lens quality is going to cause distortion.

The second is just what are you going to do with your photos. If you are going to show them to your family on a computer screen or on an LCD screen then more megapixels is not necessarily better. The resolution of the projected or displayed photo does not have to be that high (72-100 dpi on standard computer monitors). If you are going to print only 4 x 6 type photos, then you can get just as good a print from a 6 mp camera as you can form a 10 or 12 mp camera at 300 dpi. Now, if you are doing a lot of cropping or you plan to print larger photos then you do need to consider the megapixels. This article by Thom Hogan gives a pretty good explanation.

As for me, it is not just a question of the increase in the megapixels. I will have to really take a long look at what I plan to do with the camera before investing in a new camera body and a new housing. I may be able to get some of that back by selling the used equipment, but then again the incremental cost may not be worth it for what I plan to do with the photos.

SamT:

When in fact the sensors are growing in size as the mega pixels numbers increase.

For example

Cannon G9 and A650 @ 12 mp, have a 1/1.7” size CCD

Cannon G7 @ 10 mp has a 1/1.8” size CCD

Cannon A720 @ 8 mp has a 1/ 2.5” size CCD

They have to increase the sensor size to keep within the noise limits of the ISO standard.

Click to expand...

If you go to the bottom of the article, those sensor sizes are addressed. For the 1/1.8" you note with 10mp, they show the optimum is only 4mp! for the 1/2.5 with 8, should have no more than 2.7mp. So, yes they do address your point.

It seems to me that for DSLR's with 35mm sensors, the article is saying that 97 megapixels is the magic number.

fpoole:

Interesting to say the least... as I just purchased the D300 w/12mpix?? heheheh... but I didn't buy it for the pictures eh??? ;-))

Click to expand...

If you go through the whole article you find out that based on their "minimum" area per pixel of 3micrometers (don't have a Mu sign on my keyboard) our D300's have about 3 times the sensor area they need. I think the article mainly addresses the new compacts with runaway megapixel counts on tiny sensors.

People have questioned the 4/3 format the Oly uses on their new DSLR's (ours is APS-C). Even the 4/3 has at least double the minimum size. I think the bigger issue with these is the crop factor compared to 35mm when you use the same lens. Even on the D200/300 there is a 50% crop factor, so a 35mm lens becomes a 53 and a 12-24 super wide angle becomes an 18-36 normal wide angle. On the 4/3, I think it's 1.8, so they had to make special lenses designed for that format.

Ignore the double post. Lost connection halfway through and it saved both ways. Couldn't figure out how to delete this one.

fpoole:

Interesting to say the least... as I just purchased the D300 w/12mpix?? heheheh... but I didn't buy it for the pictures eh??? ;-))

Click to expand...

If you go through the whole article you find out that based on their "minimum" area per pixel of 3micrometers (don't have a Mu sign on my keyboard) our D300's have about 6 times the sensor area they need. I think the article mainly addresses the new compacts with runaway megapixel counts on tiny sensors.