Is more pixels better???

[dicklaxt]

I have seen some awfully goodpics taken with a 3 mgp,just run of the mill around the house snapshots-not professional photo taking shots, that looked really good to me.

Technology is bringing more and more pixel numbers to the table, is this a way of saying your camera is obsolete and its time to buy a new one(money maker for the manufacturer,marketing ploy) or is there a discernable difference to the naked eye that makes the new purchase justifiable?

Laying out piles of bucks to buy the latest is not what the average consumer can do every two or three years.

I think manufacturers have to keep up with the competition and take strides to do so just to stay afloat and then the consumer has to pay the price....is that called "You have to pay to play"?

dick

[Lowner]

Dick,

If everything else remains the same or better, I'm thinking here of things like sensor noise levels and aberrations, even file saving speeds etc, then the more the merrier. The problem is that these things don't remain the same.

Adding more sensor "sites" creates vast technical problems, not all of which are capable of being solved given the current scientific knowledge. The smaller the sites are, or the closer together these are forced (it's got to be one or the other after all) increases noise and many/many other technical problems for the manufacturers. A lot of point and shoot cameras pack the specs with high numbers because it sells cameras. I've read comparison tests on some of these where the conclusion was that the earlier, lower spec'ed camera was the better of the two.

I believe we will soon all be shooting with full frame 100 mpixel bodies. These bodies may well not be the "SLR" format as we know it today, but rather an expensive "live view" LCD with possibly no proper shutter or aperture, instead we might have a full electronic operation. I will probably hate it, but then learn to live with it.

[engrmariano]

for me, around 8-12MP for a dslr will do.

higher MP can save the day when you need to crop at almost 100%.

[primalcarl]

Yeah, being able to heavily crop shots is a huge advantage of having high resolution photos

[Phil Light]

...If everything else remains the same or better, I'm thinking here of things like sensor noise levels and aberrations, even file saving speeds etc, then the more the merrier. The problem is that these things don't remain the same...

This is exactly correct. Pixel quality trumps pixel quantity every time.

[m-bartelt]

Is more pixels better???

No.

It's not really worse either.

Subjectively (and a made up, but mostly accurate statistical number,) more than 99% of all the pictures every digital camera would ever take, more megapixels would be meaningless.

[form]

This is exactly correct. Pixel quality trumps pixel quantity every time.

So we should all go and buy Sigma dSLRs then? They're the sharpest pixels out there.

Yes more pixels is better, so long as there is no sacrifice in noise, dynamic range or any other aspect of image quality. I would've bought a 5D instead of a 40D in a heartbeat if I could've afforded it and a whole new set of compatible lenses. Why? Almost 3mp difference, and better bokeh/DoF characteristics for many purposes.

More is better because of enlargement quality, printing resolution, and the ability to have room to crop.

[m-bartelt]

More is better because of enlargement quality, printing resolution, and the ability to have room to crop.

I'd still disagree without the caveat of what you intend on doing with the images. If all you're doing is uploading them to Flickr or making 5x7's for the family photo album, even 6mp is more than you would ever need with plenty of room to crop.

And, unless you're doing gallery quality prints, ppi decreases as size increases. Most people don't pixel peep poster sized prints... and in case you are doing those, yes, then greater than 10mp resolution absolutely matters.

[Player9]

I think the manufacturers have done fairly well with the DSLRs in managing the pixels versus noise compromise, but with the P&S cameras the images are turning to crap. I can tell you this, I have a 3mp Canon S30 and a 7mp Canon A570IS. Guess which one takes better pictures with less noise? The S30 by a mile (unfortunately that camera has other problems including an unbelievably bad battery life of about five minutes).

[m-bartelt]

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

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

[sebr]

I don't mind a higher resolution as long as I can get cheap memory cards and storage ;)

[Tapeman]

Take every photo like it will be your masterpiece; the better the file the more options you will have when you get it.

[Phil Light]

Dick,

If everything else remains the same or better, I'm thinking here of things like sensor noise levels and aberrations, even file saving speeds etc, then the more the merrier. The problem is that these things don't remain the same...

This is exactly correct. Pixel quality trumps pixel quantity every time.

So we should all go and buy Sigma dSLRs then? They're the sharpest pixels out there.

Yes more pixels is better, so long as there is no sacrifice in noise, dynamic range or any other aspect of image quality...

Apparently you didn't read my post very carefully.

[Tandem]

If a manufacturer were to put today's technology into a 6mp p&s sensor it would be the best little camera out there. But quality doesn't sell for the masses, numbers do, and companies have been advertising that more mega-pixels makes a better camera. More mega-pixels equals smaller sensor sites and more noise but increased technology makes it come out even.

[RhondaRae]

Hi, Dick.

I see you're a new member, as am I. Welcome!

I think I can answer your questions "Is more pixels better?" and "is there a discernable difference to the naked eye...?"

I wrote an article that covers just those concerns ("Megapixels - What are Megapixels and How Many Do You Need in a Digital Camera?"). My article includes a MP breakdown and what the results will be using a digital camera that falls within the certain MP count. Have a look and hope it helps answer your questions:

http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/1000.aspx

Cheers!

Rhonda

[chauncey]

Rhonda is correct in her number analysis...if you don't plan on PP and cropping and that sort of thing. Yes...

There are folks that take and create superior images with a cell phone, but you've got to ask yourself "am I that good".

For the vast majority of us prosumers, more MP means a better camera and better images.

[m-bartelt]

Hi, Dick.

I see you're a new member, as am I. Welcome!

I think I can answer your questions "Is more pixels better?" and "is there a discernable difference to the naked eye...?"

I wrote an article that covers just those concerns ("Megapixels - What are Megapixels and How Many Do You Need in a Digital Camera?"). My article includes a MP breakdown and what the results will be using a digital camera that falls within the certain MP count. Have a look and hope it helps answer your questions:

http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/1000.aspx

Cheers!

Rhonda

Good article, however, the one thing you didn't really mention is that the larger you print, the less PPI you actually need.

The larger an image, the farther the optimal viewing distance, the less PPI needed to convey sharpness.

But since we're on a digital SLR forum, everyone here probably has more than 8MP, which ,uncropped, is enough for poster sized prints with a viewing distance of 6' give or take.

[RhondaRae]

As I mentioned at the end of my article, you don’t need to print at 300 PPI, you can still achieve great results printing at 200-250 PPI. Anything much less than this, for photographic purposes, can result in grainy looking photos – assuming the prints will be displayed in the home, gallery or printed in magazines or other media (IOW, not viewed from a great distance).

Fair enough, a photo that is viewed from 5-10 feet away can be printed at 150 PPI. So you’re right, the further distance the image is being viewed from, the less PPI the photo will need to be printed with, since our eyes will naturally blend the pixels together.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I'll consider revamping my article. :D

[Glenn NK]

I often get the feeling that "more pixels" is for salespersons in camera shops - the dumb ones that is.;):lol:

My son has a Canon P/S with ten MP; my 30D with 8.1 or so will beat the crap out of his camera - badly.

[Sean921172]

Surely the most important thing is composition. Using any camera a photo will look great if the composition and exposure are spot on. The megapixel factor only comes into play when determining print sizes and manipulation eg cropping.

[Phil Light]

I often get the feeling that "more pixels" is for salespersons in camera shops - the dumb ones that is.;):lol:...

I agree. People should be more concerned about pixel density rather than sheer numbers of pixels. Some people don't understand that even if you can cram more pixels into a small sensor, the price you pay for lower dynamic range and more noise more than offsets any advantage you might gain in cropping. Those are the people who will buy a stereo receiver because the volume knob goes to 11 rather than 10... One louder, right? :D

[polarbare]

Our 1D @ only 4MP is still an awesome camera for anything you need including posters.
More MP != better.