More megapixels isn’t necessarily better quality
Photography, Science 04/25/2004 |Something I need to keep in mind while continuing my search to replace my digital camera: 8 megapixels isn’t always better than 5.
With spring has come the release of several new 8 megapixel “prosumer” digital cameras. These new “digicams” sport the latest optics, metering, focusing systems and of course, sensor resolution. I would contend, however that in many cases the limitations imposed by capturing 8 million pixels on a 2/3” size sensor negate the assumed advantages of increased pixel output. There just might be more to look for when selecting your next camera than the number of megapixels listed in the specifications.
Don’t get me wrong, I find that “8.0 megapixel” stamp on the front of the camera as enticing as any other high-tech craving camera connoisseur. The problem lies not in the number of pixels recorded, but in the quality of those pixels. Now, if I am to make any sort of logical argument that labels these new cameras as having “low-quality” pixels, I must provide a concrete example of “high-quality” pixels for direct comparison. Thus, I introduce into the argument the current crop of digital single lens reflex (DSLR) cameras.
The Slashdot discussion that I picked this up from has a lot of good discussion buried in it too, including this fun little tidbit: the cameras on the Mars rovers that have been sending back all those gorgeous, ultra-high-resolution digital photographs? One megapixel.
NASA’s Spirit Rover is providing a lesson to aspiring digital photographers: Spend your money on the lens, not the pixels. Anyone who has ever agonized over whether to buy a 3-megapixel or 4-megapixel digital camera might be surprised to learn that Spirit’s stunningly detailed images of Mars are made with a 1-megapixel model, a palm-sized 9-ounce marvel that would be coveted in any geek’s shirt pocket. Spirit’s images are IMAX quality, mission managers say.
<
p>Even more amazing, at the end of that article comes the little tidbit that the sensor in the Hubble telescope is a whopping .8 megapixels — only 800 by 800 pixels.
Of course, if I could get a portable camera with the Hubble’s optics attached to it, I probably wouldn’t need all those extra megapixels either…
iTunes: “Dream Baby” by My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult from the album Sexplosion! (1992, 5:47).
[See also: Digital camera recommendations? | Narrowing the field | Size Matters | Canon EOS Digital Rebel | Camera! ]
8 Responses to “More megapixels isn’t necessarily better quality”
Leave a Reply
Cheryl
Bertamum
Michael Hanscom
Snail_5
Bob
April 25th, 2004 at 8:07 pm
eclecticism > More megapixels isn’t necessarily better quality
eclecticism > More megapixels isn’t necessarily better quality More megapixels isn’t necessarily better quality Like, totally dude. Hence my current lust for this: Or possibly this:
April 25th, 2004 at 9:41 pm
So, since you seem to be trading your present toys for a better-balanced checkbook and presumably new camera - what have you narrowed it down to and did you ever get to Glazer’s Camera?
April 26th, 2004 at 1:41 am
Still on the search, actually — since I’m currently being lent a camera, that’s giving me more time to save and debate the finer points of the various options (and possibly get a higher-end model than I was going to).
The Konica-Minolta A2 was my object of lust, but DPReview just posted an in-depth review of the camera, and all is not rosy: specifically, unusually soft images (the worst of the various 8MP cameras out right now) and an occasionally tweaky autofocus system.
Right now, I’m thinking of aiming for either the Canon EOS Digital Rebel or the Nikon D70 — both in the $1000 range, the D70 is slightly more expensive, but according to DPReview, very worth it.
Either way, it’s going to be a bit before I plunk down the money, so I’ve still got a while to waffle.
April 26th, 2004 at 8:40 am
Ok so the dirty little secret is out. Camera makers for years have been talking about 2 megs 4 megs 8 megs as the latest and greatest hoping that buyers will move up to the latest and greatest.
As you noted the lens is the thing, the cheap pocket camera from a brand you never heard of no doubt comes with a plastic lens instead of glass. Ever wonder why you can buy a 5 meg camera for $99 and then see a 4 meg camera for $1,000. Its the lens.
I’m not sure now but for years the leader in lens making was Karl Zeiss and I bought Zeiss lens (lens’es?) for my Minolta X700. I’ve used that camera for well over 15 years and taken untold thousands of pictures with it and the lens is still the thing. In your camera search if you stick to the well known brands Cannon, Nikon, Minolta and the like you are sure to get a very good lens. In you first posting of pictures form Rick’s camera, someone noted that the pictures looked brighter and clearer. That’s the lens. That’s the difference between a camera for snapshots and a camera for photographs.This quality of shot is the only reason to spend $1,000+ on a camera when there are some very good point and shoot digitals for less than $400.
My life is photography, I make my living selling photographs. For me there is no option. But you need to stop and think. Is the quality of a shot that will be posted on a blog really worth the extra 5 or 6 hundred dollars its going to cost?
Can you live with a $300 point and shoot and use the other $700 for other things?
April 26th, 2004 at 11:32 am
on a semi-related note, i found a link to the dimensionizer from whatdoiknow and thought you would find use for it.
another neat widget for OSX. useful too!
April 26th, 2004 at 12:00 pm
You’ll need a bigger shirt pocket for the .8mp camera if you expect to use the hubble lense
I’m still going to get myself the pentax *ist-D when some more $$ comes in. I have pentax lenses already, and “need” a dslr to get good lenses attached to. If I could put in better lenses on my little canon A70, I would, but that’s not going to happen
April 26th, 2004 at 12:45 pm
While it’s true that more pixels do not equal a better image, it’s worth noting that more pixels does equal a better image.
Let me explain: make an 11x14 print from an 8MP camera and from the 1MP Mars Rover cameras. No matter how you look at it 1000 clear pixels spread over 11 inches (roughly 90 ppi/dpi; not enough for photographic-quality reproduction) will look much, much worse than 3200 noisy pixels over 11 inches (290 ppi/dpi; more than enough for photographic-quality reproduction).
With all those extra pixels you can do some resampling to get a lower resolution (but still good enough for a photo print) while eliminating/minimizing some of the noise.
May 2nd, 2004 at 7:21 pm
As far as I know, the Mars rover images are mosaics of many single images stitched together.