The Mega Pixel myth

[Genius.]

Could someone please explain the myth.

I was told that one should not trust the MP rating due to the fact that it has become a marketing gimmick. Cheap point and shoot cameras are boasting meg pixel ratings of more than 10.

Would this mean for example a Fujitsi point and shoot camera that has 12mp will take more detailed pics than a Canon point and shoot that has 6mp.

Its my understanding that one wouldnt be able to see the difference in detail, only if it is blown up real big.

[ldmelsa]

Let me give you example. There are P&S cameras that have 12MP but the Canon 5D is sharper and better in every way. It has more to do with the size of the chip and how the chip works than the MP.

Resolution is one small part of what makes a great pic. It has a lot more to do with dynamic range (colour range) than MP.

[SuPaStA]

I think the OP is referring more to what picture will have more detail, not which picture looks better (eg better lighting etc).

[mercurial]

I think the OP is referring more to what picture will have more detail, not which picture looks better (eg better lighting etc).

This makes no sense whatsoever.
If a picture has more detail then obviously it will look better.
Lighting on any camera is dependent on how well the camera performs in low-light conditions and it has nothing to do with MP.

[ldmelsa]

I think the OP is referring more to what picture will have more detail, not which picture looks better (eg better lighting etc).

They're all interlinked. Can't talk about the one without talking about the other.

[werner]

read, take in, enjoy
http://www.dansdata.com/gz059.htm
answer=megapixels mean very little.

[FrancTheTank]

read, take in, enjoy
http://www.dansdata.com/gz059.htm
answer=megapixels mean very little.

my head now hurtz

...but very informative, thanks

[koffiejunkie]

Higher MegaPixel means one thing and one thing ONLY: there are more pixels in the resulting picture. I does not mean you will get higher detail, especially not in Point&Shoot world. A big factor is the camera's ability to convert the sensor information to a high quality JPEG image. Most point&shoot cameras don't have the processing power that even entry-level DSLRs have, and the resulting images are almost always use faster (i.e. more lossy, poorer compression) compression algorithms.

One day I'll go back to some of the places I took pictures of with a 6 MP DSLR, and take those same pictures with my fairly expensive 8MP P&S and post them here for comparison.

[ldmelsa]

The Canon 450D and Canon 5D are great examples. Both are 12MP.

[Genius.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/te...jAfOJ0SHMHP09Q

[bwana]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/te...jAfOJ0SHMHP09Q

Yep - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=86044

[koffiejunkie]

OK, I went back and shot one of my shots again with my fairly expensive P&S. I tried to get the images as close to one another as I could with respect to the field of view, but unfortunately it seems the P&S's live view lies a little. Anyway, I set it in program mode, and ISO200 (because that what the DSLR shot was on), metering to center, focusing to center, NR on, face detect, red-eye reduction and all other gimmicks which might confuse the camera in this situation are switch off.

Here's a 100% crop from the P&S, Noise reduction on, ISO200, f/3.5, 1/1.5 second shutter, 12mm:


Now here's more or less the same 100% crop from the 6MP DSLR, Noise Reduction on, ISO200, f/8, 4s shutter, 55mm:


BTW, this particular P&S cost more new than the DSLR did. Both were end-of-line at the time.

I rest my case...

[PeterCH]

As your pixel counts increase the lens starts to become a problem. In expensive cameras the lens matches the CCD sensor, but in cheaper ones this is not the case.
In very high resolutions the lens presents the resolution barrier, the glass of the lens in fact.

In other words, you get what you pay for.

A camera with a Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon or Fujinon glass > than cheaper (yet branded) cameras with standard lenses.

I'm taking this from discussions about HD camcorders like the Panasonic HVX200 and the Sony PMW-EX1.

[koffiejunkie]

Agreed, but the blotches you see in my 8MP P&S shot are not due to the lens (it's a Zeiss lens, by the way), but a combination of noise, poor image processing and too lossy jpeg compression.

Incidentally, when I played with the Canon G9, the jpegs wasn't much better, but RAW was much sharper and in Aperture I was able to produce results much closer to what I expect from a DSLR.

One more piece of the puzzle, aside from the lens, and the size of the sensor, is the image processor. It never ceases to amaze me that my Canon 40D can spit out a very high quality jpeg image much much faster than my dual core 2GHz MacBook can.

I agree that you get what you pay for, but I'll add to that that what you get doesn't necessarily justify the money you spent. High end point&shoots are disproportionally expensive. Many of them are more expensive than entry level DSLRs, yet the results they produce are not as good. OK, for shots taken in good light, the differences may be harder to tell, but in anything other than perfect conditions, it's very apparent.

[koffiejunkie]

When I get my G9, I'll do some more comparative tests - I'll have a high end P&S of higher MP than my DSLR, from the same manufacturer, using the same image processor (Digic III). Should be interesting...