Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 23, 2011, 9:15 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Streets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Euless, Tx.
Posts: 933
Default Pixel Madness?

Why is there such a great push for image size? Will 20 plus MP become the norm for P&S cameras? I have a 10mp Sony A200 and use the "small,fine" setting for all my work. To be honest, I find it hard to see the difference between images made at the "large, fine" and "small, fine" settings other than upload time. Look at all the great photos shown on this forum that are less than 1MP in size. I'm beginning to think that the ongoing increase in image size is more marketing based than it is for technical or esthetic reasons. My A200 will become obsolete at the same time it becomes inoperable.
__________________
Sony A57 with 18-55 kit lens, Sony A200 and Sony H70
50mm f3.5 Minolta Maxxum macro
24mm f2.8 Minolta Maxxum
100-300mm Minolta Maxxum APO Zoom
70-300 Sony apo G SSM Zoom
Streets is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 23, 2011, 9:26 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

It sure is marketing and with most P&S cameras the quality isn't improved with larger pixel counts and a lot of the time it is reduced model to model. A good 6mp would be just about right for most peoples printing needs.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2011, 4:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I think it's not just marketing hype, though that's a big part of it.

In order to record Full HD Video, you need a horizontal resolution of 1920, plus you need to downsample to get there. In order to have a 2:1 downsample, you need a horizontal resolution of 3840, which, with a 3:2 aspect ratio in a dSLR, means an image sensor with a total resolution of 9.4MP, and more means an even better downsample ratio for an even higher quality video image.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 3:34 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,487
Default

The 10th poster down from this link has a very keen knowledge of the megapixel mania...very informing...it also seems the more megapixels is required for better video quality so when it is shown on a HDTV it is downsized making the picture even better when viewed so video aspects have something to do with it...the new Fuji HS20 is coming out with 16Mp and MOS Sensor!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...6776717&page=3
LTZ470 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 3:41 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

G'day Streets

Good Q mate - I agree with your perspective 100%
I am also of the 'old-school' too - if I want to make movies, I'll get a movie camera ... as I want to make damn-good photographs, I'll use a damn good still camera

To my mind, there are several things here to consider as well
For those in the magazine publishing business, they need 300DPI imaging, so a full-page image needs to have a long side of 11" x 300DPI = 3300 pixels ... which comes out as about 8 or 9megapixels
For those of us who are not in the publishing business, the above really does not apply. A good print [say for an 8" x 12" print] for display on the wall only needs 150DPI, so that 'we' might only need 5-6 megapixels

If you are only printing as 4 x 6" prints, then 2 or 3 mpx will do okay: if you are only looking at your images on the computer screen, then only 1mpx is needed [a screen of 1280 x 960pixels = 1.3mpx]

So - to my mind, I also question the industry direction of more & more pixels, with the associated increasing issues of electrical noise, rather than putting the design energies into useful features like better lenses, speedy focussing, good accurate metering etc

Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2011, 5:56 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Actually, magazines generally want 1,200 dpi, but will settle for 600.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2011, 6:53 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
antony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Streets View Post
Look at all the great photos shown on this forum that are less than 1MP in size.
Most people resized the photos for web-friendly.

The resolution of display will improve. A good example the ultra high resolution Retina Display used in iPhone 4. Such 326 pixels per inch resolution (or even higher) may become the standard in the future.

Like computer storage size and speed, memory cards will get bigger in storage size, faster transfer speed. Keeps increasing megapixels is just part of getting better.
__________________
AntBlog701 (blog) | SillyDog701 (website)
antony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2011, 7:55 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by antony View Post
The resolution of display will improve. A good example the ultra high resolution Retina Display used in iPhone 4. Such 326 pixels per inch resolution (or even higher) may become the standard in the future.
People look at their smartphones from a distance of about a foot. They look at their computer monitors at a distance of about 2-3 feet. There's no real need for higher resolution displays that aren't also bigger.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2011, 6:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 516
Default



first one is with a Sony Mavica FD75 (FD stands for floppy disk) 1 mp
second one is with a Sony Dsc 717 5mp
Third one is with a Sony Dsc H1 5 mp
Fourth is with a Sony Dsc H50 9.1 mp
fifth is with a Kodak Z981 14.2 mp
lisalonewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2011, 6:18 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 516
Default

I did say, but lost the text somehow, that depending on how much one enlarges their photos (even on wallpaper) the clarity is changed from one to the other. When first I started I thought there was nothing better than the Mavica...except film...now, however I can zoom in on this last flower to capture the tiniest parts of pistol and stamen their reproductive parts, and enlarge them even more. Still they would be very much clear without the pixels running amok.
lisalonewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:35 AM.