The camera companies keep saying the megapixel race isn't over, but we'd like to see if you have a different opinion.
I'm one of those people who doesn't believe more megapixels necessarily makes for a better digital camera. Sure, at least theoretically having more megapixels permits larger prints and tighter cropping, but it also can impose penalties such as image noise, lousy low-light performance, smeary noise-reduction artifacts, and other drawbacks. There's a trade-off here.
Which would you rather have, more megapixels or better sensitivity?
So it's time to vote now for what you'd benefit from more in a camera: more megapixels or higher sensitivity. Click the button to register your opinion and explain yourself below in the TalkBack section if you want to make your case in more detail.
Camera makers seem unable to resist the temptation of higher megapixels in compact cameras right now, marching on past 10 megapixels to 12. But in the SLR domain, where buyers are more sophisticated and larger image sensors provide more leeway, there are some interesting trade-offs going on.
Most interesting to me right now is Canon's approach. Its entry-level EOS 450D is a 12-megapixel model, but one step up the ladder is the 10-megapixel 40D. The 450D's top sensitivity is ISO 1,600, but the 40D offers 3,200.
Canon and Nikon provide another contrast with their top-end models. Canon's 1Ds Mark III offers 21 megapixels, while Nikon's D3 has 12 megapixels. The 1Ds Mark III reaches ISO 6,400, but the D3 can go to 25,600 in a pinch. (Although these are top-end models, Canon's 1D Mark III, with 10.7 megapixels and maximum ISO of 6,400 but a smaller image sensor than the D3, is probably a more direct comparison with the D3.)
Now that we're beyond the 2-megapixel era, I'd prefer better sensitivity over a couple extra megapixels. I find myself much more constrained by dim conditions or fast-moving subjects such as children and wildlife than by insufficient pixel quantity. I've blown up my 8-megapixel camera's images to 20x30-inch prints without trouble.
Take a pixel peep at the cropped photo I took with the Nikon D3 of a BMW racing by on a Las Vegas track at about 80 miles per hour. The picture won't be gracing the pages of Sports Illustrated, but using ISO 6,400 let me freeze the action with a 1/8000 shutter speed, and the full image looks fine.
I recognise it's not a simple case that sensitivity is better than megapixels, and clearly some people may have different priorities. If you're in controlled studio conditions and shooting stock photos, a market that sometimes pays by the pixel, more pixels is probably helpful. And lacking a mammoth telephoto lens, I do sometimes wish I had more pixels left over after I crop heavily to better show a bird.
Optical resolution is another issue. Lower-end and sometimes even expensive lenses can lack sufficient sharpness to really take advantage of all the pixels on the sensor.
Gratuitous megapixels have other drawbacks besides noise. Image processors that convert sensor data into a JPEG have to do more work -- especially with the double whammy that they often must use more sophisticated but power-hungry noise-reduction work.
Perhaps most obviously, more megapixels means memory cards and hard drives fill up faster. Sure, storage is cheap, but what if what you're storing is bulkier but no better?
There are signs that the industry is moving beyond its megapixels-uber-alles worldview. When Panasonic unveiled a number of compact cameras at a press conference Tuesday at the Photo Marketing Association trade show in Las Vegas, the company took pains to emphasise all the attributes besides megapixels it hopes to use to sell cameras.
You know where I stand on the issue. Let's hear your voice.
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
NDT
01/02/2008 01:41 PM
Now domestic point and shoot cameras have reached about 10MP, the companies are focusing on other pic improvement technolies, like cleaner high iso shooting and stabilising functions. Most people dont realise the more MP you pack into a tiny sensor, the more noise and abberations you create. A 3 MP camera is enough to print a decent 6x4, and lets be honest, how many of you have ever printed larger than 6x4" ? The sooner consumers realise MP are only a small consideration. the better.
Report offensive content
Tyranus
01/02/2008 02:22 PM
Most of the time you can't tell the difference above 5, I've got an Fuji S7500, and during Australia day celebrations was taking photo's of aircraft and helicopters. to ensure I was able to snap it in full flight I specified ISO800 which forces 3MP. Photo's look great! Would prefer to use 5 though and have a faster ISO. But my main usage is optical zoom, I can't get enough of it!!
Report offensive content
Nathan
01/02/2008 03:29 PM
You can always tell the difference between different megapixel photos if you are viewing them at their acutal size. And the higher the megapixels of your camera the worse a photographer you can get away with being as you can do more in post. The problem I have is the noise you start to see once you go over ISO 400. I think I would always choose megapixels over ISO as you can always add more light too the scene somehow and run at a lower ISO setting but you cant do anything to make your picture bigger without losing quality if you're stuck at low megapixels.
Report offensive content
dchambers76@gmail.com
01/02/2008 10:27 PM
Control of light is more important to me. I often use a 4 megapixel digital and I am able to enlarge photos without too many problems. Besides what is the point of a 10 megapixel camera if the majority of dead pixels are in the one area? Best thing to do is try the exact camera before you buy.
Report offensive content
aheald
01/02/2008 11:03 PM
as a casual user, here's what i think. I had a Kodak 3MP before (with Schneider-Kruz whatever lens) and now have a 5MP Panasonic. A standard 4x6 pic looked far better on the Kodak. Case example is comparing a 3MP camera phone to the Kodak - a world of difference!!! I know it's going to extreme's, but we all know the lens in a phone is lousy, so clearly MP's don't count. Give me a good optical zoom, quality lens and good processing any day.
Report offensive content
pauldwade
04/02/2008 11:27 AM
Frankly in a point and shoot I don't see much need for anything over 6MPS, plus the more MPs the more file storage required. People have lived with 35mm for decades and not worried about size, it would have been like companies trying get consumers to start using medium format in a point and shoot, completely unecessary for your average snapper. Camera companies should be looking at getting bigger optical zooms. If I had the choice between 10MPs with 3x zoom, or 6MPs with 5x the latter would win any day. Let's see more 5x models and above.
Report offensive content
Ronan Hyde
24/03/2008 07:12 AM
The magapixel race reminds me of when transistor radios first came out. Proudly displayed on the radio was how many transistors the radio had in it. Soon it was discovered that bogus, "do-nothing" transistors were being put on the circuit board just to inflate the number on the box. Sooner or later the average consumer will wake up to the megapixel inflation hoax. But by then, I'm sure a new scam will have been foisted upon us!
Report offensive content
Agabon
09/04/2008 03:32 PM
For me it's hard to wrap my head around how people neglect to view pocketcameras light sensitivity as important, I bought a FinePix F31fd last year and friends more or less laughed, it had only 6.3MPS, I was a sucker. Now me and my friends have been to conserts where flashes where prohibited and snapped photos at pubs and such, they refuse to believe my photos are taken with a pocket camera. Why is that? Well, because you can actually see what I have taken photos of as opposed to their 10MP+ superslim overdesigned fashion acceories. :) The problem with the MP race is easy to spot, the market and nonspecialised reviewers has managed to educate consumers about what MP is, average people don't know about ISO sensitivities or noicereduction algorithms. I must say I do like that Panasonic is trying to break of from the MP-race and hope others follow. I wouldn't mind an updated version of my F31fd with even better lowlight performance and picture quality in the same size for sure(Perhaps also with better manual controls for when you have time to tweak before shooting). I do have a decent SLR, but I am more interested in what happens in the smaller sized markets as it's their I see more room for improvements, their is a fair amount of SLRs I find more then enough for my needs, but in the point and shoot bracket the options that work well in a very diverse range of lighting and ranges is far in bewtween all the inflated "numbers and design" only cams.
Report offensive content
Agabon
09/04/2008 04:41 PM
For me it's hard to wrap my head around how people neglect to view pocketcameras light sensitivity as important, I bought a FinePix F31fd last year and friends more or less laughed, it had only 6.3MPS, I was a sucker. Now me and my friends have been to conserts where flashes where prohibited and snapped photos at pubs and such, they refuse to believe my photos are taken with a pocket camera. Why is that? Well, because you can actually see what I have taken photos of as opposed to their 10MP+ superslim overdesigned fashion acceories. :) The problem with the MP race is easy to spot, the market and nonspecialised reviewers has managed to educate consumers about what MP is, average people don't know about ISO sensitivities or noicereduction algorithms. I must say I do like that Panasonic is trying to break of from the MP-race and hope others follow. I wouldn't mind an updated version of my F31fd with even better lowlight performance and picture quality in the same size for sure(Perhaps also with better manual controls for when you have time to tweak before shooting). I do have a decent SLR, but I am more interested in what happens in the smaller sized markets as it's their I see more room for improvements, their is a fair amount of SLRs I find more then enough for my needs, but in the point and shoot bracket the options that work well in a very diverse range of lighting and ranges is far in bewtween all the inflated "numbers and design" only cams.
Report offensive content