Jump to content

How many megapixels are enough?


Recommended Posts

This is a bit more of a rant than a question, but I do want to here

other opinions and ideas on this topic. What type of image quality

could we expect from a 10.5 mpxl f/1.8 sensor. The noise levels on

the current 8 mpxl sensors are at a point where photos are almost

unusable. Wouldn't it be a better idea to put R & D money into better

battery life and product dependability? How many megapixels are

enough for a point and shoot camera? It seems that the industry as

let itself be carried away by the marketing departments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I persoanlly think that 5MP is the maximum that is really required for a point and shot camera.In fact the Fuji F10 which is 6MP should be able to do A4 without ant problems.

 

Since most people use theses cameras to view the pictures on screen and probably print the pictures at no more than 7"x5" and then perhaps the odd A4 or A3 print I think any more MP is not really required!

 

Lens quality and the amount of noise and the way that any noise is processed is MUCH MORE important and impacts on image quality probably more!

 

Also overstrong compression algorithms usually do not help also!

 

Start-up time and continuous shooting ability are also important and good autofocus and image processing circuitry is a must.

 

Hence I conclude that the number of megapixels is not an important factor really as long as the minimum threshold level has been reached(3MP and above!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly when comparing "noise levels" you need to realize that RMS alone isn't a good measurement - because RMS measures per-pixel noise, but forgets that fact that with a high pixel count you have a lot of signal to work with.

 

A high pixel count allows to choose between lots of detail (keeping all the pixels) or less noise (downsampling), and smart noise reduction can do miracles.

 

On top of that, a picture downsampled from a high-resolution sensor has fewer artifacts caused by the RGB filter.

 

While I certainly don't expect the same image quality from such a small sensor and from my Canon 5D, I don't see anything wrong with cramming very high pixel counts on small sensors as long as there are some efficient microlenses.

 

High pixel counts also allow "digital zoom" (i.e. aggressive cropping), which is a cheap substitute for bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses.

 

That being said, I've made very satisfactory letter-sized prints from a cheap 5MP kodak point-and-shoot (with 2.2um pixels), and I guess that extremely few consumers ever print larger than that.

 

Personally, I'd expect such a sensor to be able to produce images worth printing at 12x16, assuming that it's mated to a good lens (you need a lens that's diffraction-limited at f/4) and that there's enough light (at least bright overcast).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For P&S cameras, I agree that 4MP or 5MP was the sweet spot with these models. And I can't see any reason to further develop the postage-stamp sensor for the P&S market unless they are working on noise suppression.

 

In time, it would be a wise move to migrate the APS-C sensor to serve the higher-end P&S market for the advanced photographers who want better image quality but don't need/want an interchangeable-lens DSLR. That also might include the DSLR photog looking for a second/backup camera or even a so-called walkaround camera.

 

And let's face it, most P&S photogs probably are shooting family snapshots and events, send pics via e-mail and make some 8x10s but overall don't fret over such issues as noise, chromatic abberation or barrel distortion.

 

And many buy purely on specs -- so if 10MP is the latest and greatest, then 5MP must be ancient and unusable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

 

Earlier in this thread: "...What type of image quality could we expect from a 10.5 mpxl f/1.8 sensor..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: What's an f/1.8 sensor?

 

Thanks.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - Or, do you mean 1/1.8" sensor as used in cameras such as the Nikon Coolpix 995? See http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ and http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html

 

Sensor size relative to subject information size can be balanced or tweaked where

 

- large pixels produce low electrical noise images but require a anti aliasing (blur?) filter, and

 

- small pixels produce low artifact and low moire images and need less of an anti aliasing (blur?) filter, and so on.

 

Pick one ... or the other! ;-)

 

I see digital camera TOTAL system design as more important than one specification. Megapixel wise, I can save 125mb 16 bit per color channel TIF files from my Konica Minolta DiMage 7-A-series TTL EVF cameras and software, and they print beautifully and clearly to 19" and larger.

 

Will I NEVER consider another camera?

 

Lemme see ... ISO enhancements, noise reduction enhancements, different lens features and benefits, flash improvements, speed of sequential shooting, and on, and on -- there are many many opportunities for enhancement.

 

I do not see the same old cameras with merely more megapixels. I see entirely new cameras along with the new chips. Good for us!

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/res-demyst.shtml is good too to remind ourselves just what's happening at the sensor plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>This is a bit more of a rant than a question, but I do want to here other opinions and ideas on this topic. What type of image quality could we expect from a 10.5 mpxl f/1.8 sensor. The noise levels on the current 8 mpxl sensors are at a point where photos are almost unusable. Wouldn't it be a better idea to put R & D money into better battery life and product dependability? How many megapixels are enough for a point and shoot camera? It seems that the industry as let itself be carried away by the marketing departments.

</I><P>

 

This reads like it was generated by one of those Markov-Chain (e.g., "Mark V. Shaney") programs. I think Mr Schroeder is pulling our legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the basic assumption of the question is arrant nonsense.

"noise .....almost unusable" is crap :-)

 

With the Panasonic FZ30 they increased the sensor size and re-designed the lens for the increase to 8Mp from their 5Mp version.

Images are excellent at 100% on my monitor coupled with a little sharpening and interpolation I'm sure I will be very happy with the results at 16x12 or larger. But I have seen results from folk who simply didn't know how to handle their gear, or abused the results in PP.[ from my make of camera].

 

As suggested I suspect John of being a troll :-) and he gets a trollish answer from me :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me not troll! Me friendly opinionated Neandertal, but not troll. I am of the opinion that with a 1/1.8 sensor there is nothing to be gained by increasing the resolution over 5 or 6 megapixels. I'm also not so full of myself to believe that my opinions are infallable. I am inclined to ask others for their opinions. I seem to learn alot from asking questions? Somebody should start a forum so people can ask questions and find out what other people think and know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>Me not troll!</I><P>

 

You start by talking about an "f/1.8" sensor, something that doesn't exist.<P>

 

You then claim that 8MP sensors have noise levels that make them "unusable", despite the fact that the 8MP Canon 20D is one of the lowest-noise cameras on the market.<P>

 

You then totally change the subject to "battery life and product dependability".<P>

 

Sorry, but you're either an automated troll or have some serious problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the answer depends on "How much to you want to crop". Sometimes the ability to do a close crop can save a picture. I'm moving from medium format film to digital, and one thing I miss is that with MF I rarely had to frame when shooting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly he meant a 1/1.8 sensor, which currently is a standard size for middle-range digicams. The 20D isn't relevant to the question, such as it was.

 

Yeah, the Sharp 8mp chip was noisy. That doesn't mean it's a problem that impossible to overcome. I'm not sure why you're so upset about it -- but whatever camera works for you. There are more important things in the world to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our 1952 Eclipse Rocket 20 inch reel mower had a 1.8HP Briggs & Stratton; with Oak rollers; and a weird handle type recoil start. It lasted until 1964, The next Eclipse we got in 1964 had a 3.0 HP engine; and lasted until 1985. The Toro riding mower we got in 1985 is 11Hp; with a 32inch cut. When the toro ever dies do I get a 25HP mower; since this is the neighborhoods power user's "minimum to keep up with the Jones's" mower?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocean Physics Photo.net Patron, nov 05, 2005; 02:06 a.m. says . . .<BR>

<I>Clearly he meant a 1/1.8 sensor,</I><P>

 

What do you mean by "clearly"? It wasn't clear from his original question. How did you guess that he meant 1/1.8?<P>

 

 

Kelly Flanigan Photo.net Hero, nov 05, 2005; 11:45 a.m. says . . . <BR>

<I>Our 1952 Eclipse Rocket 20 inch reel mower had a 1.8HP Briggs & Stratton; with Oak rollers; and a weird handle type recoil start. It lasted until 1964, The next Eclipse we got in 1964 had a 3.0 HP engine; and lasted until 1985. The Toro riding mower we got in 1985 is 11Hp; with a 32inch cut. When the toro ever dies do I get a 25HP mower; since this is the neighborhoods power user's "minimum to keep up with the Jones's" mower?</I><P>

You've raised a fascinating and annoying problem . . .<BR>

<B>Why/How is it</B> that lawn appliances seem to constantly GROW in horespower while DECLINING in actual performance? I recently bought a 6 HP Sears push lawnmower that doesn't seen to have even as much actual power to cut through tall or wet grass as my old 2.5 HP Brigg&Stratton 1960's relic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter; I believe the maximum tip velocity on a lawn mower was reduced in the 1960's; for safety reasons. With ANSI B71.1-1968 is lists a maximum (mower blade) tip speed of 19,000 feet per minute.. When a mower blade is dull or sharp; going well above this legal limit seams to cut grass just by the impact velocity alone; in the tests I ran once. Many folks would adjust the governors abit higher; and run higher tip speeds in the 1960's; an many mowers came that way from the factory too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A high "megapixel" number is what the lay public wants. The same thing grabs their attention; like 5HP decals on vacuums; that just plug into a wall socket. Alot of theses P&S digitals die by being dropped; or get flakey due to cold solder joints and moisture. Many are not worth repairing; and folks just upgrade or hand down the digital to somebody else. Many friends here just get a newer P&S digital every couple of years; thus if it last 2 years the camera is "dependable enough". The general public doesnt worry about noise; but "focuses" on the megapixel number; just like the HP of a mower or vacuum cleaner. This is what sells the camera; often folks just look at the most real megapixels per dollar; then they compare models by features; knobology; buttonology. There are many average folks who have 5MP class P&S cameras; that have totally made their old 35mm gear be mothballed; since they just make small 4x6 or 5x7 prints mostly. The decals; big megapixel numbers are SUPER important; they sell the bulk of the cameras.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John S... Asking questions or posing theories is great but they should not be posed with trollish points of view ... I am often guilty of this. :-)

 

When I bought my FZ30 I was not particularly bothered/interested in the extra pixels it had over my FZ20 [although Panasonic cleverly have increased the sensor size to match the pixels] but am delighted at it's vastely better ergonics and controls in places I can adjust them while still looking through the EVF. The FZ20 was seriously bugging me in this respect by the time I gave it away to family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea of a Troll is somebody which post a comment like "Canon cameras are junk" or "Nikon makes soft lenses" for the sole purpose of bashing. I refered to myself as a Neanderthal because I have problems, it seems, making myself understood. I have opinions based on what I know. I gave my opinion so the people who disagree with me can tell me things I don't know and the people who agree with me won't waste their time telling me things which I probably already do know. I wish people who don't have anything constructive, or at least humorous, to add would just keep silent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They keep raising the bar even with the simpliest of camera's

like the 6.3mp Fuji F10 I've recently tried out. Both incamera

software and hardware engineers seem to be able to really

tweak these camera's into giving all they've got when it comes to

how much detail they can capture.

 

So the amount of resolution isn't really the concern, it's what's

captured by the interplay of the lens, sensor and software that

seems to count.

 

This is my first digital camera and after playing around with it for

several weeks I'll never go back to film. I'm just amazed how

much detail can be captured. I could never get this with scanned

film but then all I had to work with was PnS film camera's.

 

I've posted some images to show what I mean. These are

straight out of the camera shots, no editing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John your question of "<I> How many megapixels are enough for a point and shoot camera?"</I>; Appears sort of like a troll question ; since there is NO mention of print size; or purpose of the P&S camera's image. There is no answer. Many folks have been totally happy with Brownie 120; Instamatic 126; 110; newer 35mm P&S film cameras; and most all modern digitals. <b>How good is good enough varies with the application.</b> The bulk of all digitals sold is to amateurs; who shoot images for the fun of it; not to make money. A Nikon a Pro dslr was once only 1.2 megapixels; and cost thousands of dollars; they brought radically quicker images to newspapers. <BR><BR>A better question might be "How many megapixels are enough?" to shoot artwork; a two column image in the newspaper; a National Geographic cover; for a camera repair article; to print a nice 24x36 poster viewed XX feet away. Without any real meat/specifics to your question; it does appear as a troll question. Ie like how long does a piece of string have to be.<BR><BR>What application where you thinking; for your question?<BR><BR>Here I have sold over 200K worth of stuff on Ebay; using a 80 dollar 1.3 Olympus used Megapixel camera; using it only in VGA mode; ie 480x640; ie 0.3 megapixels. With scanning some fine artwork; my 35 Megapixel 4x5 digital back is sometimes not enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...