More megapixels, better photos: Fact or fiction?

[willy]

http://news.com.com/More+megapixels%...ht&tag=nl.e703

And here's more ...

Why increase pixel counts?

There are advantages to increasing the number of megapixels. Larger prints that require a minimum pixel count can be easier to make, and consumers can crop images to focus on just the subject matter they want.

But there are costs, too. Among the more obvious burdens: Camera image-processing chips have more data to digest; memory cards and hard drives fill up faster; and photo editing puts greater space, memory and time demands on computers.

More subtle problems also are possible. Camera image sensors rarely get larger from one generation to the next, so squeezing more megapixels out of a sensor means each pixel on the sensor is smaller. In most of the chip business, smaller electronics are dandy, but with cameras, they translate to less light per pixel.

That light difference means it's harder to distinguish the signals produced by light from the electronic noise in the sensor. The idea of making the signal-to-noise ratio worse may sound pretty technical, but possible consequences are easily understood: Images suffer from color speckles, and cameras work poorly in dimmer conditions such as indoors.

"If you try to cram more pixels into the same amount of space, you risk getting signal degradation because you're not getting as much light into the same pixel," said Chris Crotty, an analyst with iSuppli.

It can be tough for consumers to understand why they might not want to snap up the most megapixels possible. "People can understand the idea of more numbers is better," Crotty said. "But signal-to-noise, fill factors, dynamic range, blooming--these are concepts most people aren't going to understand."

--Stephen Shankland

[Menace]

A good read.

'"We went past the point where more megapixels made a difference years ago," MacAskill said. "In the last 3 million prints we've made for very discriminating eyes, none were returned for lack of pixels."

This seems to be the same analysis as p3nis

[the one]

Here is another interesting article:

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

[xanatos]

If you're the average user who posts stuff online, and develops 4x6s and the occasional 8x10, 3 or 4 megapixel is plenty. I've been using my 2 megapixel Canon Powershot A40 and its great for about 98% of the pics I take.

Most people in fact only develop 4x6s in which case anything over 2MP is fine.

The times when I want more:
When developing 8x10s, as I mentioned, 2MP isn't quite enough here, 3MP or 4MP is plenty.
Landscape pictures, taking with a 4MP and up would be great, then you could crop to create "wide angle" like shots.

[spol]

I think anything over 6MP for a P&S is almost pointless.

[B0000rt]

Exactly. My uncle's old D1H takes amazing pictures, even compared with today's 6mpixel+ P&S (D1H only has a 2.6mpixel sensor)

[goofball]

It would be a whole lot better if they didn't put the Megapixels as the first feature on every camera.

How many times you hear that people "must have" 6 or 7 or 8 megapixels...or they look down on a DSLR cause it only has 6MP.

And some salespeople are not helping. Walk by FS and listen to them talk about the camera. It's pretty disheartening...

Mind you, that's what NA society is all about, isn't it? Bigger is better?

[ShadowVlican]

i think they are starting to boast other features such as zoom and ISO performance now

but at least now hopefully "joe average" will begin to realize that MP count isn't everything

[B0000rt]

It would be a whole lot better if they didn't put the Megapixels as the first feature on every camera.

How many times you hear that people "must have" 6 or 7 or 8 megapixels...or they look down on a DSLR cause it only has 6MP.

And some salespeople are not helping. Walk by FS and listen to them talk about the camera. It's pretty disheartening...

Mind you, that's what NA society is all about, isn't it? Bigger is better?

It's not bigger is better, but sales people, are what they are, sales people. I mean with an uneducated consumer, why get into all this other mumbo jumbo. Numbers are the EASIEST thing when comparing different products, even though the specification might not be that applicable.

Heck, look at cars, horsepower this, horsepower that. What good is x horsepower if you have to rev all the way upto 8000rpm?

[bionicbadger]

optics is more important than megapixels in most cases. You phone might have 3 megapixels but will never take a really good photo because of the crappy lens.

[B0000rt]

optics is more important than megapixels in most cases. You phone might have 3 megapixels but will never take a really good photo because of the crappy lens.

Combination of decent lenses and decent sensor. The N90 had Carl Zeiss optics , but the images weren't that great. Same with the N93. The SE K800 has better images, maybe the Sony aspect of SE helped there.

[weedb0y]

It would be a whole lot better if they didn't put the Megapixels as the first feature on every camera.

How many times you hear that people "must have" 6 or 7 or 8 megapixels...or they look down on a DSLR cause it only has 6MP.

And some salespeople are not helping. Walk by FS and listen to them talk about the camera. It's pretty disheartening...

Mind you, that's what NA society is all about, isn't it? Bigger is better?

I love my 6MP DSLR! It ownz 10MP camera that my buddy got! lol

[Blackjack]

If you're the average user who posts stuff online, and develops 4x6s and the occasional 8x10, 3 or 4 megapixel is plenty. I've been using my 2 megapixel Canon Powershot A40 and its great for about 98% of the pics I take.

Most people in fact only develop 4x6s in which case anything over 2MP is fine.

The times when I want more:
When developing 8x10s, as I mentioned, 2MP isn't quite enough here, 3MP or 4MP is plenty.
Landscape pictures, taking with a 4MP and up would be great, then you could crop to create "wide angle" like shots.

Yup, thats me, average "joe". I'm using my Canon A60(2 megapixel). My daughter has a Canon A430(4 megapixels) which works great for 8x10's.

[rfdrfd]

Mind you, that's what NA society is all about, isn't it? Bigger is better?

Please SUPERSIZE me

[ShadowVlican]

Combination of decent lenses and decent sensor. The N90 had Carl Zeiss optics , but the images weren't that great. Same with the N93. The SE K800 has better images, maybe the Sony aspect of SE helped there.

i think bad picture quality had more to do with Nokia's post-processing of the images (over saturation, over use of sharpness?, etc...)