blog.johnath.com— This article takes apart the cooler-than-thou argument we've all heard about how more than 3.2 megapixels is just stupid, since that's all you need for an 8x10 print.
Jan 30, 2006View in Crawl 4
Well, I haven't even been able to read the article, but more resolution certainly never hurts. Of course, if the article was trying to make a point that 3.2MP is probably sufficient for the average point-and-shoot Joe, then it's probably correct. Still, you can do more with more pixels, such as crop or zoom. The problem with too many pixels, though, is interference and noise. Especially with the typical consumer digicam sensor size of 2/3", if you squeeze in more than 6MP, you start to see a noticeable increase in image noise resulting in electrical interference from one sensor to the next. In other words, nowadays they are simply stuffing too many sensors on a small CCD in order to be able to market higher megapixels without incurring the cost of a larger CCD. Unless you are willing to upgrade to a DSLR, you will start to see a increase in image noise with more than 6MP, and noise is almost as important to the overall quality of an image as resolution is.
How about this: your camera's sensor cannot resolve the high resolution you think it can. DSLRs are close enough (often using 90% of their advertised resolution), but many point and shoots are very poor. For example, The Fujifilm Finepix S9000 9 MP camera can only resolve 6.46 MP, and that's well above industry average. If you go for the S7000 you're down to under 5 MP of actual resolution. Other manufacturers have similar numbers.Where megapixels above 3.2 matter because cameras don't actually capture as many as they say they do. A Kodak Z740 5 MP camera is nice, but records under 4 MP so you're limited to only minor cropping if you want an 8 x 10 print. Don't be fooled by those 7 MP cameras either because some of them resolve no more than 4 - 5 MP.
mega pixels dont mean nearly as much as everyone makes them up to be. there is a certain number of bits per pixel, which means that a pixel can contain more information which leads to a picture that can hold better color tonal ranges. on a standard point and shoot camera there is about an average of 4 bits /pixel while in most professional cameras there are 12. in return a 4.1 megapixel camera that has 12 bits /pixel will give a much better picture than a 8 megapixel camera with 4 bits /pixel. and now to the lens thing. and there is also interpolation programs that will resize your image without actually changing resolution, which can be used for better cropping.between a 4 megapixel camera and a 6 or 8, you wont see the difference in the picture unless your pictures are extraordinary large.
For those of us who have no interest in printing their shots, 3.2 megapixels is enough. I use a 4 megapixel Fuji and it's more than adequate. Rather than move up on megapixels, I bought a camera with a large optical zoom range, so if I need more detail, I can zoom in on it. It maintains a pretty wide aperture even at full zoom, so it's no problem in dim lighting either.
tonicboyJan 31, 2006
Well, I haven't even been able to read the article, but more resolution certainly never hurts. Of course, if the article was trying to make a point that 3.2MP is probably sufficient for the average point-and-shoot Joe, then it's probably correct. Still, you can do more with more pixels, such as crop or zoom. The problem with too many pixels, though, is interference and noise. Especially with the typical consumer digicam sensor size of 2/3", if you squeeze in more than 6MP, you start to see a noticeable increase in image noise resulting in electrical interference from one sensor to the next. In other words, nowadays they are simply stuffing too many sensors on a small CCD in order to be able to market higher megapixels without incurring the cost of a larger CCD. Unless you are willing to upgrade to a DSLR, you will start to see a increase in image noise with more than 6MP, and noise is almost as important to the overall quality of an image as resolution is.
shakinJan 31, 2006
How about this: your camera's sensor cannot resolve the high resolution you think it can. DSLRs are close enough (often using 90% of their advertised resolution), but many point and shoots are very poor. For example, The Fujifilm Finepix S9000 9 MP camera can only resolve 6.46 MP, and that's well above industry average. If you go for the S7000 you're down to under 5 MP of actual resolution. Other manufacturers have similar numbers.Where megapixels above 3.2 matter because cameras don't actually capture as many as they say they do. A Kodak Z740 5 MP camera is nice, but records under 4 MP so you're limited to only minor cropping if you want an 8 x 10 print. Don't be fooled by those 7 MP cameras either because some of them resolve no more than 4 - 5 MP.
functioncodeJan 31, 2006
mega pixels dont mean nearly as much as everyone makes them up to be. there is a certain number of bits per pixel, which means that a pixel can contain more information which leads to a picture that can hold better color tonal ranges. on a standard point and shoot camera there is about an average of 4 bits /pixel while in most professional cameras there are 12. in return a 4.1 megapixel camera that has 12 bits /pixel will give a much better picture than a 8 megapixel camera with 4 bits /pixel. and now to the lens thing. and there is also interpolation programs that will resize your image without actually changing resolution, which can be used for better cropping.between a 4 megapixel camera and a 6 or 8, you wont see the difference in the picture unless your pictures are extraordinary large.
sinfonyJan 31, 2006
For those of us who have no interest in printing their shots, 3.2 megapixels is enough. I use a 4 megapixel Fuji and it's more than adequate. Rather than move up on megapixels, I bought a camera with a large optical zoom range, so if I need more detail, I can zoom in on it. It maintains a pretty wide aperture even at full zoom, so it's no problem in dim lighting either.
moose_headJan 31, 2006
Nothing beats cubic inches.
jeoncsMay 28, 2008
Both have major sensor dust issues go for the next step on both and you won't regret it.