More megapixels, better photos: Fact or fiction?

[greggh]

This is an interesting article

http://news.com.com/More+megapixels%2C+better+photos+Fact+or+fiction/2100-1041_3-6156398.html?tag=nefd.lede

[Riley]

i guess predictably the answer is, well it depends

5Mp will do amazing things, you can, with a camera that has good IQ, print A4
but the files tend to be a bit thin, a dont stand too much post processing (PP)

On the other hand, crowding a sensor with Mp has a definite attraction for noise. So the answer really is, there must be balance.

My view is, on smaller camera sensors its harder to afford more Mp. But marketing of cameras depends heavily on Mp as the primary selling point. Of course thats not good for the low light performance, but they are right in that new users almost without exception look at the Mp first.

That said, technology is moving on, and the expectations for better low light performance are improving. And it seems the race for more Mp is abating too.

[cdifoto]

More megapixels = bigger photos. Not necessarily better. There are a zillion variables to a "better" photo, some of which can override others.

[LR Max]

Indeed on the larger photo.

I had always heard that after 6MP, that the optimized quality had been achieved and then you were just enlarging your image after that (so below 6MP, the lack of pixels hurts image quality). Dunno if that is true or not but its the rule I follow.

I find there is more damage to the image due to ISO than megapixels (as you could imagine). My sony point n' shoot loves running that high ISO, kills the picture :rolleyes: .

[cdifoto]

Indeed on the larger photo.

I had always heard that after 6MP, that the optimized quality had been achieved and then you were just enlarging your image after that (so below 6MP, the lack of pixels hurts image quality). Dunno if that is true or not but its the rule I follow.

I find there is more damage to the image due to ISO than megapixels (as you could imagine). My sony point n' shoot loves running that high ISO, kills the picture :rolleyes: .

I would agree if we're talking about Point and Shoot type cameras. They have tiny sensors so you really don't wanna pack too many on them since you'll end up with a big mess of muck after awhile. On a dSLR you can have 22MP+ and still get excellent image quality.

I'd rather have a 3MP P&S than a 7MP one, assuming all other factors are equal.

[jmaso]

Fiction in my opinion an others.

There are other features in the camera that make the photos to have more quality such as ISO, metering, AF, ...

Just my thought.

Jaime
http://www.jmraso.com

[Riley]

this goes for most digicams

they need to concentrate on noise issues
not waste our money on adding Mp

primary quality is in my view mostly the lens
if the lens cant capture the detail, you're smoked already

yes! its a combination of factors
but remember the beautiful detail LC-1 was capable of with just 5Mp

[Norm in Fujino]

"Fact or fiction?" A resounding YES! :D

I didn't notice this thread yesterday, so I started my own on the megapixel myth (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28641), linking to a couple of NYT articles.

[Canon PowerShot A540]

My Personal Opinion Is Fiction. There's An Old Saying Which Is Very True. "Bigger Isn't Always Better". I Have Been Told By My Grandpa Who Used To Do A Lot Of Photography Said "The point I was trying to make is that the "quality" or "wow-factor" of many pictures is NOT the camera, it is the skill and knowledge and experience of the person HOLDING the camera, the photographer.";)

[jthutcheson]

This is an intriguing question. As the MP count increases, you have the ability to capture more detail, as the smaller pixels can hold more information. However, smaller pixels also mean more noise. This is the balance point of all digicams, and unfortunately what consumers overlook the most.

Unfortunately, the digicam market was ruined in the early days, as increased pixel-count did, in fact, mean better pictures. However, once the industry passed about the 5MP mark, it became more and more obvious that manufacturers were using stronger NR to keep things clean, masking the all-important detail (the main reason for adding more pixels). I'm not sure what the relationship between noise and pixel pitch is, but its at least algebraically proportional, if not geometrically or exponentially so. (Sorry for the big words, just don't think I could express it any other way...if you don't understand, just ignore them, I'm a geek and i know it ;-) )

[coldrain]

Not just that smaller pixels get more noisy, and that de-noise and sharpening after that do not make photos any better... it is also a case of that the lenses themselves are NOT able to resolve enough detail to actually make use of the sensor resolution.

That is why you sometimes see manufacturers sharpen in-camera a lot, to mask this (panasonic comes to mind).