The Megapixel Debate
Is more megapixels really important? Well it doesnt hurt. But the quality of an image doesnt come from the number of pixels, as much as the design of the sensor and the quality of the glass. But more megapixels is a good way to sell cameras and the manufacturers know this. Especially Canon, the brand of camera I use. The 2 cameras I currently use have 21 mp and 18 mp. What does this mean to a photographer? Larger files, slower processing, more memory. But it doesnt really make a lick of difference in image quality. In this image below, I am standing (for scale purposes) in front of an image of Dani Pedrosa that I took at the 2005 Moto GP race in Monterey. Im sorry about the 2 fold scores in the print, it was the only way I could fit a 48″ x 96″ print in my car. I took this image with an 8 mp camera. Today, they are slapping 8 mp sensors in camera phones. Now this print, is probably a little bit larger than most of you will print your photos, so dont worry about your megapixels. You have enough.
Great article Chris.
Chris, well said!
After all, a 6-megapixel digital S.L.R. takes better pictures than a 10-megapixel shirt-pocket camera, because its sensor is relatively gigantic. Its individual pixel sensors can be larger and soak in more light, even if there are fewer of them.Unfortunately, the camera makers and salespeople aren’t going to help you out here. You’re not going to see starbursts in the ads saying, “3/4-INCH SENSOR”! But you should.
In fact, the industry seems to go out of its way to prevent you from knowing what the sensor sizes actually are. It reports digital S.L.R. sensor dimensions in millimeters, like 23.6 x 15.8 mm.
Incidentally, where the megapixel myth really goes berserk is with cameraphones. Limited real estate forces the camera modules to be tiny, which means that the pixels get tiny–well under 2 microns–when the marketing people force the engineers to increase the pixel counts, because megapixels sell. Unfortunately, tiny pixels are noisy, work poorly in low light, and may not be utilized due to a physical phenomenon called lens diffraction.
But what do I know.
What Debra says is spot on. My wife has a good little Fuji 3.1mp pocket camera, and we were looking over her pics of the same subject I shot with my D200 – Pali Lookout in Oahu. Her’s were fine… then we looked at mine, taken with my D200 (10.2mp). It wasn’t the mp that made the difference, it was the ability of the larger APS sized sensor to absorb colour better. That was the difference. My wifes pics were green… Mine were GREEN. In large 72point font green. It was shocking. When looking at her images, I was impressed, but was simply floored by the color saturation and detail that the larger sensor produces.
From my estimate, 35mm is about the equivalent to about 12mp, or there abouts. I had a digital negative scanner that did 11mp. Anything past 12mp and all it does is offer the op to blow it up bigger, but even that isn’t a restriction if the base image is well shot (referring to the motorcycle image behind you).
a.