How many mega-pixels does it take before you notice a difference?

[FergieTCat]

i know what I want to ask, but I'm not sure how to clearly express it, so bear with me --

How many megapixels does take before you notice a difference in quality? For instance, I know there's a difference in quality between a picture shot at 2 MP vs. 4 MP. There doesn't appear to be much of a difference between 4 MP and 5 MP (at least not in 4x6 photos). Is there are big difference between 4 MP and 6 MP? How much of a jump in MPs should there be before you should buy a new camera? 2? 3?

I have a Canon A520 that's 4 MP. i discovered yestereday that Canon has 7.1 MP cameras. Should I be thinking of buying a new camera? Is the change in quality that noticeable? If I bought a 7.1 MP, how long could I wait before I upgraded again? 10 MP?

I hope I made sense! Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[AndrewWG]

This question will undoubtedly lead to a discussion of sensor size. Cramming more MP's into small sensors is not the best thing for point and shoot cameras. The image won't necessarily improve. Since I don't really understand it all, I would also like to add to the question if I could. At what point does a small sensor of a point and shoot camera become "overloaded" so to speak? Has this been determined?

My answer to your question would be that if you can upgrade to a 6MP on a point and shoot camera, the pics still seem to look great but I'm not sure you want to even bother with anything over that amount.

Andy

 

[YEKCIM]

If you're not making any huge prints, I would say stay with the 4MP camera, unless there are other features (longer zoom, higher ISO, IS, whatever) that are drawing you to the 7.1MP camera. I have made very nice 8X10 prints from images made with the 2MP still imager on my *camcorder*. For examples, feel free to look at my WDW 04/05 album: http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/fasteddiew/DisneyWorld 2004-2005/

Here is one shot from that album, for example:

Megapixels alone are not sufficient reason to upgrade, IMO.

~YEKCIM

 

[allie5]

It depends on what you want to do with your images.

If you wish to print them out at regular photo sizes (6x4, 7x5 etc) then there will be barely any noticeable difference between a 4 or 7mpx camera. Differences will start to show if you want to view or print your pictures at much larger sizes. A 4mp picture may start to suffer at A4 but a 7mpx would still be fine. If you wanted to print regularly at A3 then you would need to consider more MPs. I have a 7.1 Canon and a 8.2 MP Canon and there is no difference even at larger sizes.

Unless you have a fairly old 3MP or less, MP alone is not really a reason to upgrade your camera. If you are getting decent shots that print out well at the size you like, then stick with it. If you are finding that you like to make enlargements of many of your photos then it maybe worth an upgrade to something with a higher MP count - but dont automatically assume that the higher the count the better the camera. Choose a decent zoom range and build quality before MP count!

 

[deletedpenguin]

As the other posters mentioned above, it is not all about MP size, it's the size/quality of the sensor in the camera itself.

 

[0bli0]

i've mentioned it before - after the onset of digital photography (specifically - quality dslrs), the most popular camera for Sports Illustrated photographers was the Canon 1D... in all of its 4 megapixel glory. There were dozens of cover shots, plenty of 2 page spreads, and hundreds or thousands of photos published from this relatively low resolution (by today's standards). what made this camera specia was a) it was a CMOS and not a CCD (excellent colour and low noise) and b) the sensor size was much closer to a 35mm piece of film.

 

[AndrewWG]

Thinking more about this subject, I looked over some of my shots from my 4MP Canon A85 to my 5MP Canon S2IS and I really don't notice much of a difference at all. The big difference in the camera was the S2 I upgraded to has Image Stabilization, a rotating LCD and the 12X optical zoom. The image quality is, as far as I am concerned, the same. Also, I have noticed that the photos on here from the S3 (6MP I believe) are also about the same quality overall.

Where the sensors on all these cameras are about the same size or identical, are the photo companies hurting themselves by using MP as the selling point for most cameras? That is if, in fact, the image quality will eventually be degraded a bit at super high MP and super small sensors. Seems that they will need to upgrade the sensors eventually and the average consumer will not understand the differences.

Andy

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Megapixels alone are not sufficient reason to upgrade, IMO.

Quoted for truth!

There are a lot of features that are far more important than the number of megapixels; lens type and quality, Image Stabilization, sensor size, built-in image processing hardware/software....

Don't upgrade just for more megapixels, upgrade for features that will actually make your photography better!

 

[boBQuincy]

Megapixel count is a single number and is easy to sell, image quality is much more difficult to market. This is a generalization, but to differentiate a product the marketing department chooses the easiest selling point, and the marketing department overrules the engineering department almost every time! Moore's Law shows that the number of elements on a chip doubles about every 18 months, making more pixels easy to crank out. This is how we got into the megapixel wars, and it shows no signs of stopping (although Canon declared the mp wars over when they released the 30D with the same mp count of it's predecessor, then turned right around and launched the 10 mp XTi to play catch-up with Nikon, who never bought into the cease fire to begin with).

My Canon D30 (3 mp) still takes great photos which can make beautiful 8 x 10 prints. Monitors are usually no more then 1 mp, even the best HD TV is only about 2 mp. Probably 99+% of all printers sold only go to 8 x 10 so there isn't much point in going beyond 3 mp in any of these cases. Beyond 3-4 mp what really counts is the quality of the pixels.

Until we can convince the marketing department that we will buy quality over quantity(and I don't see that happening), we will continue getting more pixels but not better ones. In other words, you probably won't see any improvement from the newer camera over your current camera. By upgrading to a dSLR (larger pixels), you are likely to see a great improvement.

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

Where the sensors on all these cameras are about the same size or identical, are the photo companies hurting themselves by using MP as the selling point for most cameras? That is if, in fact, the image quality will eventually be degraded a bit at super high MP and super small sensors. Seems that they will need to upgrade the sensors eventually and the average consumer will not understand the differences.

Andy

I think that most people don't understand that higher MP doesn't always mean better pictures (I didn't until I read here). The companies tell people that higher MP equals better and people believe it. Then, when they don't have the greatest picture quality, they blame themselves or something other than the MP.

Also, I believe that introducing a larger sensor, means they have to have a bigger camera. Lots of people want cameras that fit into a pocket. They don't really care about the quality of the photo.

I know my mother doesn't care about the quality of a picture; she just wants something that is easy to use and small.

 

[cpbjgc]

I think that the lens quality and sensor quality is way more important than the MP count. The only real benefit to a high pixel count is if you do a lot of cropping. If most of your prints are 8x10 or less, your current camera would be just fine. As others have mentioned, while there may be some features you might want to have (e.g. greater optical zoom, image stabilization, taking short videos), don't let the pixel count be the only reason to upgrade.

I have had a 3.2 mp camera up until March 1 when I got a DSLR. Here are some pictures that support the argument that size is not everything

-------------------

------------------

------------------

------------------

 

[Corey10112]

Here's an addon question that I was wondering about. It's specific to night time shots. I have a 6MP P&S that I use at 6MP. If I reduce the amount of MP for night time shots, will that help to cancel out some of the noise?

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Here's an addon question that I was wondering about. It's specific to night time shots. I have a 6MP P&S that I use at 6MP. If I reduce the amount of MP for night time shots, will that help to cancel out some of the noise?

Not really ... it will just take a smaller picture which will have less overall detail and will still have the (about) same proportion of noise. You might *notice* less noise just because the picture is smaller, but going smaller doesn't really eliminate noise.

At least, this is my experience with both our older 2MP Fuji FinePix and our new Canon S3 IS.

Only big sensors (DSLRs), or slow shutters (P&S), at low ISO will get low-noise night shots. Unfortunately, you need to use a tripod (or learn to hold a camera VERY steady) to get good night photos without a flash. During exposures of 2-10 sec, it's almost impossible to hold the camera completely steady by hand....

cpbjgc: LOVE that picture of EE with the birds flying past! WOW!!!

 

[deletedpenguin]

Here's an addon question that I was wondering about. It's specific to night time shots. I have a 6MP P&S that I use at 6MP. If I reduce the amount of MP for night time shots, will that help to cancel out some of the noise?

See if you can change the ISO on the camera. The ISO is the speed of the film (computed digitally). The smaller the number the better for low light, as it's slower. You'll get less grain with a lower ISO.

 

[YEKCIM]

Leaving the megapixels issue for a moment, I'd like to elaborate on some features that I think might be very good reasons to consider an upgrade. The first is zoom range, the second is IS (image stabilization), and the last is high-ISO perfomance.

When I bought my Fuji S5200, the most compelling feature it had was its 10X (38-380mm equivalent) zoom. In addition, it had class leading high-ISO performance. What it lacked, that others (Canon S2 and Sony H1) had, was IS. I opted for the Fuji and have not regretted the purchase. Not to say that the others are not very capable cameras; they are. It's just that for what I had to invest at the time, the S5200 was the best fit.

Looking at Canon's current crop, the A710IS has a 6X zoom and the S3, a whopping 12X. The flexibility of an expanded zoom range is very useful, at least to me, and most of my +/- 2000 July 06 pix were at the long end of the zoom on my Fuji.

I would not obsess over megapixels, but if you have a few hundred burning a hole in your pocket, you may want to look at some of these other features. You'll get more MP in the "bargain", since the bar has been raised to the point that 5-6MP is considered entry level today.

~YEKCIM

 

[photo_chick]

I have a 4mp Fuji p&s I got in 2003. I make great 11x14 prints from it. It takes great pictures. It handles low light well for a p&s. Then I briefly had a 5 mp Sony and was unhappy with the quality of the images. I am hard pressed to make even a good 8x10 print that is not at least slightly pixelated from the files from it.

The comparison between those two cameras was my first lesson that not all megapixels are created equal. It also showed me a lot of the quality of the image also has to do with how the camera processes the image as well.

 

[cheshirekitty]

I'm sorry, I have to chime in here....

Is that why all of my night pictures come out blurry? It's not my camera, it's me because I'm not completely still taking the picture?

My canon a530 has a night setting to use but when I try with it they still come out blurry.

 

[YEKCIM]

I'm sorry, I have to chime in here....

Is that why all of my night pictures come out blurry? It's not my camera, it's me because I'm not completely still taking the picture?

My canon a530 has a night setting to use but when I try with it they still come out blurry.

Shutter speed is too slow. Adjust the ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed to allow a faster shutter speed and/or use a tripod or other support.

~YEKCIM

 

[cheshirekitty]

Ok, thanks!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Have to agree with posters here. I was always quite happy with my first 3.1MP HP camera - really no complaints. I began to think about replacing it when I dropped it one too many times and the shutter didn't always open. Here are some shots I took with it:

Then I got a 5.1MP camera (free as part of a printer bundle) and there wasn't much difference in quality. However, the battery life was horrible and I knew I couldn't live with it - it caused me to miss some nice shots at Disney last fall. I also became frustrated getting shots like this with the measly 3X optical zoom (note you can barely see Wally by the dugout):

So last November, I got the Canon S3 not only for the better zoom and battery life, but so I could use some of the more advanced features and hopefully become a better photographer. I took this the other night using the 12X zoom - ah, much better, there's Wally waving to the crowd (and DiceK warming up right before his first game at Fenway; lots of excitement from the crowd including the person who jumped in the corner of my shot, one of these days I'll edit it out ):

This one was clear across the park from the furthest distance possible - taken from behind the grandstand b/w 3rd and home to the back of the bleachers:

It's nice having a camera that operates the way I like and expect it to. The 6MP is fine for me. The downsides are that I can't just slip it in my pocket or purse, and learning to use it's been a little more complicated than I expected it to be. But once I learn to use it fully I'll be in good shape.