Why do people tend to think this way about cameras?

[Vigor]

People will think $100,000 car is better than a $20,000 right? or A Core 2 Duo is better than a Pentium 1 processor, correct?

Then when it comes to compact cameras why do people say the 8mp or 10 mp is better than a 14.5 mp camera? "Oh yeah sure the $250 camera is wayyy better than the expensive $400 one." It drove me crazy.

I could easily prove that wrong with a simple prediction. Ahem... what would still be in the market 5 years from now the 8mp camera or the 14.5 mp? Without a doubt the 14.5mp. The lower mp cameras will always be replaced with higher mp cameras.

So what you guys are saying is that the 8mp camera is better than what future cameras can bring? Maybe I should sell my car and buy a horse and a wagon, or when a flying car is invented I shouldn't consider buying it.



Prove me wrong.

[Junior's G7]

OK, I'll rise to that bait. I believe your question to be this: "Why do people think an 8mp camera is better than a 14mp one?" Is that essentially what you're asking?

If so, there are plenty of folks who can answer that question.

First off, let's set some terms. Let's say "all other things being equal" when comparing these two hypothetical cameras, fair?

If so, then the reason some would argue in favor of the 8mp camera (myself being one of them) is that given the same sensor, the more information packed onto it (mp), the more degradation of image quality you must accept. This degradation comes in the form of digital noise, and essentially uselessness at higher ISO settings.

There are advantages to higher mp counts - and most of us never take advantage of those benefits - instead realizing the negatives incurred with too many megapixels packed on a sensor.

Check out this site, which pretty well lines out the argument for fewer megapixels:

http://6mpixel.org/en/?page_id=32

If I've mistaken your point, I'd be happy to try again. :)

[Vigor]

So what do you suggest the maximum pix on a 1/1.33 and a 1/1.72 sensors?

[Junior's G7]

My G7 is 1/1.8, and I'd love 8mp. I'd probably be really happy with 6.

I've never shot with either of your choices, so I can't say. If you're looking for a magic ratio, I can't give you one.

[woodsie]

I'll take a 8-10mp sensor with less noise over a 15mp sensor any day. I have printed 8mp up to A3 size and the quality was more than good enough for me. Yes, for sure, the 15mp 50D has much better high ISO capabilities than my good old 8mp 20D. But imagine what they could achieve using the same technology to produce a 10mp 50D? Imagine how crystal clear a 10mp full frame would be.

Why the hell do people want 15mp compacts to take pictures that will only ever appear of facebook when a 3-5mp camera would actually take much better photographs?

Oh, and my $20,000 Ford 351 Clevo will blow a $100,000 BMW to the weeds, looks cooler, is more fun to drive and pulls more wimmin. ;)

[conkeroo]

To the OP: Some information on it here...
http://6mpixel.org/en/?page_id=32

[Sorarse]

To the OP, having a high mp camera is not the be all and end all of obtaining high quality images, and therefore shouldn't be used as a measure of which camera is best.

It's like arguing that one car is better than another just because it's bigger, and we all know that ain't necessarily so.

[Mike]

My 4 mega pixel Konica Minolta Dimage Z2 was a real winner at certain shots printed at a certain size. I was a little sad when I sold it.

[gjl711]

To use your car analogy, a V8 engine with a displacement of 1099 cubic inches has to be better than Woodsie’s Ford 351 Clevo right? It has three times the displacement after all. But the 351 is designed with a car in mind and has a supporting feature set to make that car go fast. The 1099-V8 is designed for a Peterbuilt and kicks ass when you have to tow 40 tons of goods across the country.

MPs are basically the same thing. It is one measure of a tools performance and it alone can tell you nothing about the capability of the tool. You have to evaluate the entire package with all its supporting features to draw any kind of conclusion as to which is better than another.

[tonylong]

There are various factors that come into play in these discussions.

Technically, there is a balancing act between the theoretical limits of resolution and the quality that current technology can deliver at a given resolution. The current 15 MP 50D is pushing against the theoretical edge for optimal resolution for our better lenses (for a 1.6 crop sensor), so technically is not overkill. Newer technology has enabled increasingly clean pixels, so the 50D at 15 MP is pretty much at a par with the 10 MP 40D for cleanness.

Full frame cameras don't push the pixel count as much, as a rule. The current 1Ds Mk III and the upcoming 5D Mk II weigh in at 21 MP, which sounds like a lot, but actually only have the pixel density of the three-year-old 8 MP 30D. These sensors will try to optimize image quality -- the three-year-old 12 MP 5D Classic has set the standard for image quality for the past three years, and it appears that the new 5D will re-set the standard. The full frame pixel count would have to double to reach the theoretical limit that the 50D is pushing against.

So, technically, DSLRs have not yet reached overkill, and, since there are gains in clean high ISO performance, there is not a compelling argument for the "less is better argument (I'm only referring to current DSLRs). Yes, a 10 MP 1.6 crop camera with the current technology would be cleaner than the 15 MP 50D, but that's pretty moot. The 50D will give more resolution (assuming good glass) with acceptable IQ (equal to the 40D) so it will be "better".

However, a big factor in choosing gear is what is affordable and practical for your needs? This is where you see a lot of advice adding up to "less is more" -- start with an older or smaller body and build up your lens collection, because the older or smaller bodies are capable of capturing fantastic images, and you preserve money that can help to fill out the rest of your kit. In fact, the 50D with an inferior lens will be no better than, say, an XTi or a 40D. Plus, your level of skill comes into play: will you be able to make full use of the laest and greates technology before it becomes "old"?

There is also some attitude that comes into play. Some people like to be old-fashioned or minimalist or whatever. You will hear over and over "it's the photographer, not the gear". Well, this is a truism, but it certainly has some merit in that you should not assume that the latest and greatest gear will make you a better photographer. But, still, each new generation of cameras offers something of value. Only you can decide what is best for you.

[golfecho]

There are various factors that come into play in these discussions.

Technically . . .


. . . Only you can decide what is best for you.

Wow, now THAT was a great posting!

[FlyingPhotog]

People will think $100,000 car is better than a $20,000 right? or A Core 2 Duo is better than a Pentium 1 processor, correct?

Then when it comes to compact cameras why do people say the 8mp or 10 mp is better than a 14.5 mp camera? "Oh yeah sure the $250 camera is wayyy better than the expensive $400 one." It drove me crazy.

I could easily prove that wrong with a simple prediction. Ahem... what would still be in the market 5 years from now the 8mp camera or the 14.5 mp? Without a doubt the 14.5mp. The lower mp cameras will always be replaced with higher mp cameras.

So what you guys are saying is that the 8mp camera is better than what future cameras can bring? Maybe I should sell my car and buy a horse and a wagon, or when a flying car is invented I shouldn't consider buying it.

Prove me wrong.

Because they only read marketing literature and only drink Kool Aid...

They have no real-world experience nor benchmark against which to make comparisons.

If you know better, that's all that matters. Go forth and shoot!

[20droger]

Because they only read marketing literature and only drink Kool Aid...
More likely because they only read (and believe) marketing literature and drink excessive amounts of generic beer.

The very fact that they believe what the marketing departments tell them automatically discounts anything they have to say. At least in my opinion.

But then, I could be wrong because, as we all know, marketing departments never lie. After all, the Ford Pinto was the best little compact car ever built. Ford marketing said so! The fact that it turned you into a charcoal briquette if somebody bumped its rear end was irrelevant.

[Vigor]

Excellent postings everyone, that saved me a few hundred dollars on my first purchased digicam, buying into the theory of more is better is false when considering cameras.

Thank you, everyone!

[Tee Why]

I think for a digicam 6MP probably gives the best IQ to noise ratio. I've the Fuji finepix f30/31 in mind. Well known for high quality IQ and near dslr noise level.

For APS-C sized sensors, I'd say about 8-10MP. I think 12 or more give more noise and the resolution increase is not useful unless you print really large.

For Full frames, I still say 12 or so as Canon 5D, Nikon D3/d700 seems to have better noise than 1DsMII, 1DsMIII, and the Sony alpha 900.

Personally, I think if print at 8x12 or less, 6MP is probably enough. Just my view.

I hate the MP race, cramming more pixels into a same size sensor tends to increase noise, take more memory, and require a faster/more expensive computer. All for what purpose if you don't print really large? Measurebating?

[birdfromboat]

faster horses, gentlemen. The 'merican way, after all. Personally, I enjoy watching so many emerging technologies feed off of each others success, I just bought 2gig of memory for fifteen bucks! I know what I am going to do with that, but I can hardly wait to see what the camera/cellphone/personal music player/gps mapping/??? people do with it. This is a very interesting time to be a consumer, aint it?
15 is better than eight because 8 was better than 3.9, and so on.
Someday we won't even care what the megapixel count is, and bit depth or some other measurement will be the standard. Then we can argue about that, see ya then.

[tonylong]

I think for a digicam 6MP probably gives the best IQ to noise ratio. I've the Fuji finepix f30/31 in mind. Well known for high quality IQ and near dslr noise level.

For APS-C sized sensors, I'd say about 8-10MP. I think 12 or more give more noise and the resolution increase is not useful unless you print really large.

For Full frames, I still say 12 or so as Canon 5D, Nikon D3/d700 seems to have better noise than 1DsMII, 1DsMIII, and the Sony alpha 900.

Personally, I think if print at 8x12 or less, 6MP is probably enough. Just my view.

I hate the MP race, cramming more pixels into a same size sensor tends to increase noise, take more memory, and require a faster/more expensive computer. All for what purpose if you don't print really large? Measurebating?

Three years ago, I would have agreed to a large degree with you about full-frame -- the 5D Classic is still sort of the Gold Standard there. Not so much about the crop bodies -- they are sacrificing clean for resolution, so they always fall a bit behind. A 1.6 crop of the 5D would be ~5 MP.

Even then, though, there was always a tradeoff. There is always some noise. Even in the mighty 5D.

Technology progresses -- the 10 MP 1.3 crop 1DM3 is close to the 5D in high ISO noise and many find it has better overall IQ. A full frame version of the 1D would be ~16 MP. A lot of us, in fact, really would have loved to see a 16 MP 5DM2. It could have been a thing of beauty...

But, for better or for worse, we have the 5DM2 at 21 MP. But, from what I've seen, the tech advances have paid off -- the 5DM2 appears, in full-size images I've seen, to be about a stop improvement over the 5D Classic and the 1DM3, which, if true, is great news.

So we have both improved noise performance and a real increase in resolution. And the resolution is not optical overkill -- you'd have to pack in over 15 MP to get close to real optical overkill. The 15 MP 50D is approaching that point, but not quite there.

So, for some, "good enough" would be, say, to shoot the 5DM2 or the 50D in sRAW. But having 21 good, clean MP that are able to squeeze more goodness out of good lenses to me sounds sweet, even if I don't jump on it any time soon.

[bjordan]

Blah Blah...

Prove me wrong.

Really? Your first post on this forum? Troll much?

[Karl Johnston]

To use your car analogy, a V8 engine with a displacement of 1099 cubic inches has to be better than Woodsie’s Ford 351 Clevo right? It has three times the displacement after all. But the 351 is designed with a car in mind and has a supporting feature set to make that car go fast. The 1099-V8 is designed for a Peterbuilt and kicks ass when you have to tow 40 tons of goods across the country.

MPs are basically the same thing. It is one measure of a tools performance and it alone can tell you nothing about the capability of the tool. You have to evaluate the entire package with all its supporting features to draw any kind of conclusion as to which is better than another.
That was pretty good

[rral22]

People will think $100,000 car is better than a $20,000 right? or A Core 2 Duo is better than a Pentium 1 processor, correct?

What people think is often wrong. The fact that people think something is no proof that it is correct.

Then when it comes to compact cameras why do people say the 8mp or 10 mp is better than a 14.5 mp camera? "Oh yeah sure the $250 camera is wayyy better than the expensive $400 one." It drove me crazy.

What on earth makes you think that such numbers are proof of anything? You have no idea about marketing, the effects of advertising, and the relative merits of pixel counts. You may be crazy.

I could easily prove that wrong with a simple prediction. Ahem... what would still be in the market 5 years from now the 8mp camera or the 14.5 mp? Without a doubt the 14.5mp. The lower mp cameras will always be replaced with higher mp cameras.

You're confusing real value with marketing success again. What marketers do with their products is hardly proof that one product is better than another or has any real superiority. What consumers do is absolutely not proof of any form of actual superiority in the product. McDonalds sells burgers, lots of them. That doesn't make them good food. You need to become more mature in your analysis of product quality.

So what you guys are saying is that the 8mp camera is better than what future cameras can bring? Maybe I should sell my car and buy a horse and a wagon, or when a flying car is invented I shouldn't consider buying it.

No, what is often said is that megapixels alone is a very poor way to judge the quality of a camera. You have obviously not yet learned that.

Prove me wrong.

You're wrong.

[In2Photos]

Really? Your first post on this forum? Troll much?
This thread has been dead for almost 8 months. Why resurrect it with this kind of response? :rolleyes: