Megapixel Myth?
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- lnu0
There's a difference between photo quality and image quality.
The megapixel myth is a myth when it comes to point-and-shoot cameras with sensors remain tiny while resolution increases.
I've heard a lot of people complain after buying a newer Canon powershot sd/ixus and comparing pictures with their older model.High ISO could be great unless it's just another software option which the sensor can't handle = noise and artifacts.
I've started using my old, BIG and sloooow P&S just because of the superior image quality.
- nb0
Camera equipment has nothing to do with photo quality.
End of thread.
- pango0
Soooo..... Is my 2mps camera any good. Or I just don't know how to use it?
Cellphonez today takes better picture then my camera. :(
- felizfeliz0
you can change the megapixel settings on a camera. i've got a crappy 5megapixel pental but i shoot at 3 megapixels. and it still looks shite.
- Hear, hear! I once switched my K10D from 10MP to 6MP in Cuba to save memory card space :)raf
- ItTango0
As I take in this exhaustive discussion of the science behind the (digital) photograph, I wonder if this isn't a bit like Michelangelo or Dali waxing on about brush density. What have you in the end?
The truth of it is, no matter how much we may know about the architecture of digital prints, I doubt if any of us could break it all down just by looking at one... unless it's just a piece of crap.
Or to put it another way: If you can look at a woman and begin to identify all the elements of her make-up, she's probably done a shitty job.
Knowing the intended use of the photograph is wildly important. That said, the overwhelming majority of photographs (professional or otherwise) can be properly rendered shooting with 6 to 10 MP.
If you're lucky enough to be shooting billboards for car companies or Calvin Klein, then I doubt that you spent one second doing the lens, sensor, MP math. You took your ass to the store and pointed to some wet dream of a camera and called it a day.
Blah, blah, blah... I'm done.
- the great painters were all really picky and innovative with their brushes and paintseieio
- laurus0
If you need your images for print uses (not dye sub or inkjet, but offset) – the resolution definitely matters. If you enlarge a 6 MP image using photoshop to print on a an A4 you’ll see enlargement artifacts around slanted lines.
Now – this is not relevant for most non-pro uses. What the article was trying to say IMO – if you’re a home user, better invest in better lenses, look at how much the camera compresses the image, how it handles lighting, etc and not so much at the resolution.
- version30
relationship of lens groups to one another is really the contributing factor to the phenomena sequoia mentioned in regard to resolve, i for one am a fan of bokeh, vignetting and such other photographic aberrations offered by the optics. i would rather more pixel sensitivity in the same space as is the relativity of the 7d compared to 5d sensor.
- sequoia0
raf you are correct. I'm not a physicist either but I did study photographic optics in college. Lenses do have a limitation to how much they can resolve, which as V3 linked can be measured, usually in the form of a MTF chart. But this usually is not the limiting factor in a cameras final resolution. It's usually the senor.
Here's an odd fact. The smaller a lens the higher it's ability to resolve. But at the same time then you en up with a smaller image circle, which limits the size of senors that can be used.
- raf0
Just to be clear, I am not sure about the relation of lens limitation to sensor resolution, I am not a physicist.
I understand there is a limit beyond which a lens will not deliver more detail. If someone can prove me wrong and educate, I'll be happy.
- raf0
I once read an opinion that the ability of point&shoot camera lenses to resolve image ends at about 7MP (they have all small lenses, no matter Zeiss or Schmeiss).
I don't know how true this is, but I must say I kind of doubt I'd get a sharper image from a 12MP €300 camera than its 8MP predecessor from 2-3 years ago.
- you'd need to take the improvement in mechanical and onboard software also.airey
- quamb0
"lenses do have physical limitation as to how many lines of resolution they can deliver. "
Lenses have nothing to do with resolution. Sharpness & contrast is what you're after. This is the difference between a 200$ and 4000$ lens.
- It's not exactly "resolution", but detail. Is there a point a lens will not deliver more detail regardless of megapixels?raf
- DoktorDavid0
Lighting; subject; skill; "eye" - the rules really don't change - I've seen some 5mp images that totally stopped me dead in my tracks and some 20mp of my own that I go "what the fuck was I thinking?"
- raf0
I strongly disagree with high ISO being a hype. I would easily trade MP for ISO.
Being able to shoot hand-held in low light is something that was beyond reach with 35mm film. Actually, good high ISO performance is the only reason I am planning to upgrade my 5D to 5D MkII.
- version30
- MTF is a factor of the lensesversion3
- http://www.tmworld.c…version3
- version30
"lenses do have physical limitation as to how many lines of resolution they can deliver. "
what?!?!?!?!
i want to kick someone so hard right now- sounds like you hve anger management issues. take it easy dude.felizfeliz
- sequoia0
the test also doesn't deal with color resolution and dynamic range, which are important features that are updated with every generation of a camera.
- raf0
At some point sensor resolution isn't a problem anymore, it is when the lens becomes a bottleneck.
Not everyone realizes, lenses do have physical limitation as to how many lines of resolution they can deliver.