Digital Camera - Pixels

[JanetRose]

Is there a big difference between 7 and 11 pixels? I only take regular size photos.

 

[ssanders79]

Here is some food for thought.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

 

[TheLionKing]

If you are talking 7 MP versus 11 MP and you only print at 4 x 6 inches and you don't find that you need to crop because it is a bird far away, for example, then 7 MP is more than enough.

 

[ukcatfan]

IMO around 6MP is ideal for a p&s camera. Once they start adding too much more, the manufacturers do one of two things. They either let the image have more noise or they combat that noise by reducing it with the side effect of less detail. It is a different story with a DSLR because the image sensor is many times larger. They are up to the ~15MP mark and have done alright controlling noise. I personally do not see them going much higher though.

 

[ukcatfan]

I made this some time ago to show how there is a diminishing effect of adding more MPs. With each jump up, you are gaining less "real estate".

 

[VVFF]

I made this some time ago to show how there is a diminishing effect of adding more MPs. With each jump up, you are gaining less "real estate".

But the point is to look at increases in percentage terms. For instance, the increase from a 10MP SLR to a 15MP SLR is the same as the increase from 2MP to 3MP in percentage terms. This is a practical increase that a person looking on the market today could easily decide between.

It also depends on the pixels/sensor area as we all know though. 20MP in a 1/2.5" sensor means practically nothing compared to a 1Ds or similar.

 

[manning]

IMO around 6MP is ideal for a p&s camera. Once they start adding too much more, the manufacturers do one of two things. They either let the image have more noise or they combat that noise by reducing it with the side effect of less detail. It is a different story with a DSLR because the image sensor is many times larger. They are up to the ~15MP mark and have done alright controlling noise. I personally do not see them going much higher though.

The canon 5D mark II is up to 25 MP.

 

[ukcatfan]

The canon 5D mark II is up to 25 MP.

Should have been more clear. I mean consumer grade DSLRs with APS-C sensors.

 

[seashoreCM]

Another unknown is whether the lens is sharp enough to make use of the higher megapixels.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

But the point is to look at increases in percentage terms. For instance, the increase from a 10MP SLR to a 15MP SLR is the same as the increase from 2MP to 3MP in percentage terms. This is a practical increase that a person looking on the market today could easily decide between.

It's true that the increases are proportional. What makes ukcatfan's chart so useful is that when people see the numbers they don't think about the geometry. When you double the number of pixels, you are only increasing each linear dimension by 1.41x rather than 2x. In other words, if I go from 2 megapixels to 4 megapixels, I don't get twice as many pixels across and twice as many pixels down. I go from about 1,155 x 1,732 to 1,633 x 2,449.

Now trying to explain to people that the linear measure increases by square root of the increase in area is a lost cause. Most people have already quit reading this post because they saw numbers and words like linear. On the other hand, when they look at a picture they get it. They can easily see that the picture isn't growing in size as quickly as they first imagined when they heard the new resolution numbers.

Incidentally, the reverse effect occurs for people looking at TVs. In the case of a TV, people buy they based on diagonal measurements. They often don't realize that when the diagonal measurement doubles, the area of the picture quadruples.

 

[JR6ooo4]

So Jaye? You got all that so far, heheheheee

What cameras were you looking at?

MIkeeee

 

[jfinke]

It's true that the increases are proportional. What makes ukcatfan's chart so useful is that when people see the numbers they don't think about the geometry. When you double the number of pixels, you are only increasing each linear dimension by 1.41x rather than 2x. In other words, if I go from 2 megapixels to 4 megapixels, I don't get twice as many pixels across and twice as many pixels down. I go from about 1,155 x 1,732 to 1,633 x 2,449.

Now trying to explain to people that the linear measure increases by square root of the increase in area is a lost cause. Most people have already quit reading this post because they saw numbers and words like linear. On the other hand, when they look at a picture they get it. They can easily see that the picture isn't growing in size as quickly as they first imagined when they heard the new resolution numbers.

Incidentally, the reverse effect occurs for people looking at TVs. In the case of a TV, people buy they based on diagonal measurements. They often don't realize that when the diagonal measurement doubles, the area of the picture quadruples.

So, you are saying a picture is worth a 1000 words?