Comments on: Megapixel Mania

By: Jeanette

Jeanette — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:42:16 +0000

Quality over quantity is good to remember here. When we got our first digital camera I think it was a 3MP version. We did a lot of research into it and found that it would let us print 8×10 photos without any pixelation. At that time I also learned that more MP only helped to have a larger image.

Now we have a 5 or 6MP SLR. The extra MP are useful to me so I can crop out a lot of the photos but still have enough to print page sized photos. But the SLR’s lenses are what makes it amazing. I compared it to my friend’s 7MP compact camera and it was like comparing a black and white TV to an HD LCD TV.

By: Charlie Roberts

Charlie Roberts — Wed, 18 May 2011 08:41:49 +0000

@Bob Diamond: I totally agree that so many people are misinformed about the over-hyped megapixel; subsequently buying into “myth”.

Six years ago it was more relevant because most new cameras only came with a few megapixels. However, most people don’t realize that once you go over 8 megapixels the only thing you’re changing is the size of the photo—and most camera buyers are not using it to make posters. I would say buying a camera with manual control settings and a large optical zoom.

By: Bob Diamond

Bob Diamond — Sun, 01 May 2011 06:41:13 +0000

I think people should be educated more to dispel this megapixel “myth”. This blog, and many others, needs to be read by more consumers who get into the megapixel hype. Personally, I don’t even use my old camera’s highest resolution of 8-megapixels. Unless I want to create a huge banner, most of my shooting are done at 5-megapixels.

Picture composition and basic knowledge of camera settings are more important than pixel count. You’d be surprised at how many people don’t know how to use the flash and ISO settings properly, specially for bright (eg. sunlit) backgrounds.

Bob
Bob Diamond Real Estate

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:07:54 +0000

Think they would send a rover to Mars today with a 1 megapixel camera, regardless of how big the sensor? I doubt it.

By: Photo Mentor » Blog Archive » Link Roundup 01-31-2010

Photo Mentor » Blog Archive » Link Roundup 01-31-2010 — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:35:03 +0000

[...] Megapixel Mania The Discerning Photographer [...]

By: Link Roundup 01-31-2010

Link Roundup 01-31-2010 — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:59:55 +0000

[...] Megapixel Mania The Discerning Photographer [...]

By: orlund

orlund — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:48:23 +0000

I completely agree with that. Megapixel are only a small part of it.

I would love to see (and try) the technology they used for that. CCD and lenses!

Too bad there 1 megapixal camera costs hundreds of times more that all my camera equipment put together

By: DiscerningPhotog

DiscerningPhotog — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:40:44 +0000

Oh, now my head’s going to hurt…the CCDs on the Mars rover cameras are huge. My point (or at least what I wanted to convey) is that the general public’s slavish attention to megapixels leads to more confusion than clarity…

By: orlund

orlund — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:23:53 +0000

To me that does not completely make sense, from what I understand:

resolution = Megapixelsnot resolution = pixal size. A bigger pixcal doesn’t give you more resolution. Bigger pixals on a CCD would give you a higher quality image because it would more accurately pick up light. Meaning less noise.

If you wanted your one megapixel to have higher resolution you would either have to stitch several photos together or do some other type of enlargment.

It makes sense that that the image quality is better. That is one reason why DSLRs have much larger sensors that compacts. It is also the reason a 4 magapixel image is noisier than a 3 magapixel image if the manufacture built both cameras from the same size (and technology) sensor.

It is very true that increasing Megapixals in not the answer to everything, it is only the answer to a few things.

Does that make sense?