Why am I so Anal about How Many Pixels I Have

[iowa_jim]

And we've seen how increasing the megapixel output can decrease the IQ. But don't forget about the enhanced benefit of a higher pixel count for cropping photos.

[hkmp50]

Well I have to agree, I have a dated Minolta dslr with only about 6MP and was thinking about buying a Hasselblad H4D-60 (with of course 60 MP). O,K well not really as there is no way I could afford the $42,000 PRICE TAG, But even if I could qould it not be better for me to invest that kind of money and go somewhere I could capture some photographs that would improve my content and give me some varied composures that would be more effective than having the best camera and take the same old shots of the flowers in my back yard?? Great origional point and well taken Frank

[rjseeney]

Originally Posted by iowa_jim

And we've seen how increasing the megapixel output can decrease the IQ.

This statement isn't nearly as true as commonly believed, especially in the DSLR camera's. Take Nikon for example. No one can argue (successfully at least) that the current 12 and 16 MP cameras have much better performance at high iso's than the older 6 (and 10) megapixel cameras. The newest 16 mp models especially push the envelope forward, and are a step up from the previous 12mp generation. To say that IQ is decreased by these advances in MP is in fact just plain wrong. This is true throughout most (if not all brands). For the most part, you can shoot pretty successfully without much worry at 1600 and even 3200, whereas on the older cameras you'd not want to shoot above 400 or 800. Now at base ISO's, these advances are less noticeable (although Dynamic range does advance slightly), and if you do most of your shooting at base ISO's, there isn't much need to upgrade. Even compact cameras are doing better (although many have backed off the higher mp counts) at 10mp than they used to do at the lower mp. The statement that more megapixels decrease quality is assuming all things are equal, which they aren't. Current megapixel gains are being coupled with sensor and technological advances, allowing you to maintain quality. That's not to say there isn't a limit or that we aren't approaching it. However, I think current mp advances are being held back not by increased noise/decreased quality at higher numbers, but by the sensors ability to outresolve current lenses, especially consumer lenses.

That being said, as has been pointed out, the additional resolution and strides forward in sensor technology don't always yield better (at least noticeably for the average user at normal print/viewing sizes). The most important thing to upgrade is always going to be the photographer, not the camera. Even the lowest end, entry level DSLR's are more camera than most people need. JimC's golf analogy is a good one, and I'm living proof. 15 years ago, I was a single digit handicap...I've upgraded clubs twice since then, and now that I'm only playing a couple of times a year, I haven't broken 80 in quite a few years.

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day Benji

While I agree with your sentiments regarding "pixels" - I am happy with 8 - 10mpx for my stuff [also published in various aussie mags], I am unsure about actual lens sharpness ...

I get the feeling that ALL my sigma lenses for the 1-yr old Kx are NOT as sharp as the lens on my 6yr old Panny FZ30 ... and it disturbs me that I have spent $$ on a camera + lens system that is not delivering any improvement to image sharpness

I am intrigued that the KX sensor is 9x larger than the FZ30, yet the image sharpness has not improved

Feedback welcome
Regards, Phil

[lisalonewolf]

JIM, I love your story....Love your wifes response to your practicing on the range.
So, this means I need about five cameras? one for macro, one for landscape, one for portrait, one for artsy stuff, one for 'snapshots', one for close up. Of course there is always all that other stuff that goes with each camera, so I will need a cart to carry it all with. Oh, do want the medium format too. So, six cameras.

In all serious, I have taken shots with several of my cameras(yes have them all) and each does shoot differently...some better than the others. The 'newer and more pixels' do a better job at macro and closeup than the older ones do. They also have setting which work a wider range of areas which ARE handy...example is color setting...vibrant, low, natual is really helpful when shooting a VERY colorful fuschia or red rhododendrum...I turn it down to low color or the color just blasts out the photo. White balance and ISO has changed as well. So it isn't Only the MP, but, When I take a 10mp and 14mp of the same shot and blow it up to 10x8 then 11x13 of one area of the whole shot, there is a bigger difference in clarity.