- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 5,903
My current way of thinking is that the best way to think of it is that megapixels are like the size of a print being made from a film camera.
A small megapixel (2-3) camera will be like, say, printing 4x6 prints - generally, things will look pretty good. Bigger (5-7) is more like 8x12 prints - you can see more detail but also more grain, lack of focus is easier to notice, and it's not as sharp. Bigger still (8-10) is like a poster print - and if you've seen some poster-size blowups from cheaper film cameras, you know how bad they can look!
It's not a perfect analogy because with film, the grain remains constant as you go up in print size, while with digital, you are going to inherently get a worse-quality photo as the megapixels go up, without a corresponding bump in sensor size.
Like some of the others, I started with a 2mp 6x zoom digicam and was very happy with the results, and usually got tack-sharp photos with it (and excellent-looking 4x6 prints.) I then went to a 5mp 12x zoom IS camera and was very unhappy with the results, due to the high levels of noise, despite it being very fast and responsive. The photos also looked worse when resized to the same 1600x1200 that the 2mp look natively.
I then went to a 6mp DSLR, with a sensor about 15x as big as in the 5mp PnS, and was very happy again, and was able to take photos that on a purely technical level, were vastly superior to anything the PnS could take.
As I've learned more since then, I've really become a total sensor size convert. My wife has a digicam with a 1/2.5" sensor because she wanted something very small, but in retrospect, I don't think I'd buy another PnS with less than a 1/1.8" sensor. If I was buying today, I think I'd have to get a Fuji with their 1/1.7" sensor, even if I was comparing it to a similar camera from the competition with IS but a 1/2.5" sensor. I would also lean towards a sensor that was set for lower megapixels, even the lowest is more than big enough nowadays.
I think most of the camera review sites don't make enough of the sensor issue, and furthermore, they don't give you proper "real world" sample photos. Let's see some photos that didn't work so well, that are noisy or blurry, not just bright sunny outdoor photos taken as low ISO levels.
I think it also speaks volumes that "poor low light performance" seems to be the top complaint with newer digicams (shutter lag being the big one for older ones!) - this can be directly attributed to the tiny sensor in today's incredibly small cameras.
A small megapixel (2-3) camera will be like, say, printing 4x6 prints - generally, things will look pretty good. Bigger (5-7) is more like 8x12 prints - you can see more detail but also more grain, lack of focus is easier to notice, and it's not as sharp. Bigger still (8-10) is like a poster print - and if you've seen some poster-size blowups from cheaper film cameras, you know how bad they can look!
It's not a perfect analogy because with film, the grain remains constant as you go up in print size, while with digital, you are going to inherently get a worse-quality photo as the megapixels go up, without a corresponding bump in sensor size.
Like some of the others, I started with a 2mp 6x zoom digicam and was very happy with the results, and usually got tack-sharp photos with it (and excellent-looking 4x6 prints.) I then went to a 5mp 12x zoom IS camera and was very unhappy with the results, due to the high levels of noise, despite it being very fast and responsive. The photos also looked worse when resized to the same 1600x1200 that the 2mp look natively.
I then went to a 6mp DSLR, with a sensor about 15x as big as in the 5mp PnS, and was very happy again, and was able to take photos that on a purely technical level, were vastly superior to anything the PnS could take.
As I've learned more since then, I've really become a total sensor size convert. My wife has a digicam with a 1/2.5" sensor because she wanted something very small, but in retrospect, I don't think I'd buy another PnS with less than a 1/1.8" sensor. If I was buying today, I think I'd have to get a Fuji with their 1/1.7" sensor, even if I was comparing it to a similar camera from the competition with IS but a 1/2.5" sensor. I would also lean towards a sensor that was set for lower megapixels, even the lowest is more than big enough nowadays.
I think most of the camera review sites don't make enough of the sensor issue, and furthermore, they don't give you proper "real world" sample photos. Let's see some photos that didn't work so well, that are noisy or blurry, not just bright sunny outdoor photos taken as low ISO levels.
I think it also speaks volumes that "poor low light performance" seems to be the top complaint with newer digicams (shutter lag being the big one for older ones!) - this can be directly attributed to the tiny sensor in today's incredibly small cameras.
