Steve'sDigicams

Anatoli · Oct 21, 2006, 5:38 AM

These days most of us prefer to buy a camera with at least 10 megapixels. We hardly know anything about the other feathers of a camera but we need pixels, pixels and pixels !?

But indeed, how many pixels do we need ? Most of us are not going to print pictures bigger then A4. So, for example, would 6 megapixels Olympus or Pentax be more then enough for us and we do not need to wait for the new Olympus E400 or Pentax 10D and take part in the megapixel race ?

Thanks.

Nagasaki · Oct 21, 2006, 7:23 AM

6Mp is more than enough for A4. Sensor and lens quality are more important than MP. One advantage of more MP though is the ability to crop the picture and still retain enough pixels for a quality print.

Ken

Anatoli · Oct 21, 2006, 4:55 PM

Ken, so if I am noy going to crop my pictures, I will not see ant differance in quality between 6 and 10 megapixel cameras in case they both have exactly the same lens and sensors ? Thanks !

kenbalbari · Oct 21, 2006, 5:40 PM

The difference between 6 and 10MP will be noticeable at that size.

You are talking about 67% more resolution there, and yes you will be able to see the difference if you compare shots. The difference from 6 to 8 or 8 to 10 is less obvious. It's there if you look, but more difficult to discern a 25-33% difference in resolution.

BillDrew · Oct 21, 2006, 8:46 PM

The difference in resolution goes as the square root of the ratio of pixel count, e.g., sqrt(10/6)=1.29 or a 29% increase in linear resolution. That means if the largest print you could make with a 6Mp camera was 8x10", with all else equal (it never is) you could make a 10.3x12.9" print with a 10Mp camera.

Nice to have, but not reallythat much.

Bob Nichol · Oct 21, 2006, 9:07 PM

Peter iNova spells out how many megapixels you need: http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/Frames.html

al1012 · Oct 21, 2006, 10:04 PM

The Megapixel Myth

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm .

[align=left]THE MYTH [/align] [align=left]The megapixel myth was started by camera makers and swallowed hook, line and sinker by camera measurebators. Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality.
[/align]
[align=left]One needs about a doubling of linear resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as a quadrupling of megapixels. A simple doubling of megapixels, even if all else remained the same, is very subtle. The factors that matter, like color and sharpening algorithms, are far more significant.[/align] [align=left]The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something's goodness can be judged.[/align] [align=left]Unfortunately, it's all a myth because the number of megapixels (MP) a camera has has very little to do with how the image looks. Even worse, plenty of lower MP cameras can make better images than poorer cameras with more MP.[/align]

Caboose · Oct 21, 2006, 11:05 PM

I agree for the most part with al1012. Not all pixel are created equal either. A 5mp cheap off brand bargan basement camera is not going to have as good of image quality as 5mp Canon, Nikon, Sony or any of the major brands. If the biggest print your going to make is 8x10, 3mp will do the job quite nicely.Of courseyou can't hardly buy a camera these days with only 3mp. My advice would be to stay with the major brands, I like Canon, but others like Nikon are equally as good. It won't make to much difference if you get 8mp or 10mp, your still going to get very good 8x10 prints. If you're really worried about it just reach a little deeper into your pocket and pull out about $24,000 and get yourself a 22mpHasselblad H2D.

pagerboy · Oct 22, 2006, 11:30 AM

I would definitely get at least 6MP, I have 3.2 and while it takes cool pics I would like more to crop.

PeterP · Oct 22, 2006, 12:18 PM

After a point the more photosites you cram into a given area the worse the image quality gets. More crowding means more cross talk between the sites.

So sure more may be better but only if the sensor size itself keeps growing as well.

BTW Caboose the latest M/F backs are at 39mp and the sensors are about 49mm * 36mm roughly double the size of a full frame dslr like the Canons 1Ds and 5D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Oct 21, 2006, 5:38 AM	#1
Anatoli Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 17	These days most of us prefer to buy a camera with at least 10 megapixels. We hardly know anything about the other feathers of a camera but we need pixels, pixels and pixels !? But indeed, how many pixels do we need ? Most of us are not going to print pictures bigger then A4. So, for example, would 6 megapixels Olympus or Pentax be more then enough for us and we do not need to wait for the new Olympus E400 or Pentax 10D and take part in the megapixel race ? Thanks.

Oct 21, 2006, 7:23 AM	#2
Nagasaki Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 897	6Mp is more than enough for A4. Sensor and lens quality are more important than MP. One advantage of more MP though is the ability to crop the picture and still retain enough pixels for a quality print. Ken

Oct 21, 2006, 4:55 PM	#3
Anatoli Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 17	Ken, so if I am noy going to crop my pictures, I will not see ant differance in quality between 6 and 10 megapixel cameras in case they both have exactly the same lens and sensors ? Thanks !

Oct 21, 2006, 5:40 PM	#4
kenbalbari Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 822	The difference between 6 and 10MP will be noticeable at that size. You are talking about 67% more resolution there, and yes you will be able to see the difference if you compare shots. The difference from 6 to 8 or 8 to 10 is less obvious. It's there if you look, but more difficult to discern a 25-33% difference in resolution.

Oct 21, 2006, 8:46 PM	#5
BillDrew Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hay River Township, WI Posts: 2,512	The difference in resolution goes as the square root of the ratio of pixel count, e.g., sqrt(10/6)=1.29 or a 29% increase in linear resolution. That means if the largest print you could make with a 6Mp camera was 8x10", with all else equal (it never is) you could make a 10.3x12.9" print with a 10Mp camera. Nice to have, but not reallythat much.

Oct 21, 2006, 9:07 PM	#6
Bob Nichol Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Eastern Ontario Canada Posts: 823	Peter iNova spells out how many megapixels you need: http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/Frames.html

Oct 21, 2006, 10:04 PM	#7
al1012 Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 31	The Megapixel Myth http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm . [align=left]THE MYTH [/align] [align=left]The megapixel myth was started by camera makers and swallowed hook, line and sinker by camera measurebators. Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. [/align] [align=left]*One needs about a doubling* of linear resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as a quadrupling of megapixels.** A simple doubling of megapixels, even if all else remained the same, is very subtle. The factors that matter, like color and sharpening algorithms, are far more significant.[/align] [align=left]The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something's goodness can be judged.[/align] [align=left]Unfortunately, it's all a myth because the number of megapixels (MP) a camera has has very little to do with how the image looks. Even worse, plenty of lower MP cameras can make better images than poorer cameras with more MP.[/align]

Oct 21, 2006, 11:05 PM	#8
Caboose Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 625	I agree for the most part with al1012. Not all pixel are created equal either. A 5mp cheap off brand bargan basement camera is not going to have as good of image quality as 5mp Canon, Nikon, Sony or any of the major brands. If the biggest print your going to make is 8x10, 3mp will do the job quite nicely.Of courseyou can't hardly buy a camera these days with only 3mp. My advice would be to stay with the major brands, I like Canon, but others like Nikon are equally as good. It won't make to much difference if you get 8mp or 10mp, your still going to get very good 8x10 prints. If you're really worried about it just reach a little deeper into your pocket and pull out about $24,000 and get yourself a 22mpHasselblad H2D.

Oct 22, 2006, 11:30 AM	#9
pagerboy Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 483	I would definitely get at least 6MP, I have 3.2 and while it takes cool pics I would like more to crop.

Oct 22, 2006, 12:18 PM	#10
PeterP Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,397	After a point the more photosites you cram into a given area the worse the image quality gets. More crowding means more cross talk between the sites. So sure more may be better but only if the sensor size itself keeps growing as well. BTW Caboose the latest M/F backs are at 39mp and the sensors are about 49mm * 36mm roughly double the size of a full frame dslr like the Canons 1Ds and 5D.