Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:03 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:28 pm
Posts: 4
I'm completely new to photography and I just found out something which has alomost shocked me :shock:
According to many people camereas with lower nr of MP are making better quality pictures than the ones with higher nr of MP.
Is it true and why?
As I wrote in my previous post, I'm planning to buy Cannon G10 (14.7 MP).But many people are saying that new Canon G11 (around 10MP) will be better. Can someone explain and advise?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Well, megapixels don't really matter. I see so many people nowadays with 12 MP compacts, and they think they their pictures are as good as my DSLR which is 10x as expensive. I tend to set my DSLR to 3 megapixels and show them my pics are still better.

No, megapixels are only part of the equation. A good sensor and good lens can make all the difference. A compact can have 12 MP, but because of the poor lens in front of it, everything will be blurry. You will nicely capture the blur though, but that's not what you want ;)

I assume the G11 has a better lens in front of it, and maybe an updated sensor, which will explain the benefit in imagequality. It's often best to just look at images taken with the camera. If they look good to you, then go ahead and buy it. Just don't stare yourself blind on megapixel counts alone. :)

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 404
Location: Bristol, UK
Its not just the lens in front of the compact sensor its also the size of the sensor. A compact 12mp camera may be comparible to a 12mp DSLR but when you want to blow the images up then you will start seeing a difference in the two.

I do agree with Citruspers though, in that its not all about the MP!

_________________
Lee Diggle
My Astronomy Blog | My Photography Gallery


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:07 pm
Posts: 799
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Digz wrote:
...

I do agree with Citruspers though, in that its not all about the MP!


+2.

_________________
Olympus e-620 / 14-42mm / 40-150mm
Metz 48 AF-1
Kata 3-N-1 20, LowePro Orion Mini, LowePro Nova 2
My Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:38 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Philadelphia, PA
it is the size and quality of the sensor that matter.

_________________
RadiantLite - Cameras and Lenses Comparison Reviews, buying guide, photo taking techniques and other tips
My Portfolio - Some photos from my work


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Holland
Justine.C wrote:
I'm completely new to photography and I just found out something which has alomost shocked me :shock:
According to many people camereas with lower nr of MP are making better quality pictures than the ones with higher nr of MP.
Is it true and why?
As I wrote in my previous post, I'm planning to buy Cannon G10 (14.7 MP).But many people are saying that new Canon G11 (around 10MP) will be better. Can someone explain and advise?


I don't know the science behind this in every detail but it comes down to this:

Everybody is talking about THE sensor, but that isn't exactly right.
The chip in your camera, contains multiple sensors. Eatch "pixel" is a sensor.
Now when you compare two camera to eatch other, and one has got 10mp and the other 15mp, these two camera both have the same size of chip. So in order to fit more sensors (pixels) onto the same surface, every sensor has to be al bit smaller.
And bigger sensor catches more light.

_________________
www.pimvandevelde.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 7997
Location: UK
Short answer is a yes and no at the same time. Too many variables. And exactly how do you measure "Better"? There are so many variables you can pick a scenario to suit your argument either way.

In other words: once you get good enough, more isn't important, but doesn't mean it is pointless either. Comparisons only really apply like with like, which is harder to achieve than first appears.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:35 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:35 pm
Posts: 1983
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Hi Justine.C,

I'm with popo on this one. Certainly "better" has to be defined somewhat.

One important thing that has to be taken into consideration as well, is how you are viewing the images. A 24" monitor can't even display more than 3 of the megapixels. When viewing 12MP on a monitor, the whole picture, an algorithm is showing an approximate copy of the real 12MP image, for example.

On the other hand, if you compare a 3MP image with a 12 MP image on a 60X40" printout, yet another algorithm is showing an approximate copy of the image blown up.

Other dimensions are color and handling of highlight and shadow. And lens..and...

It's really quite difficult to make a true "unbiased" comparison between two different cameras.

Cheers :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:08 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Cairo , Egypt
Well, It's not 100% correct but generally yes. because it's all about the size of the individual pixel.

e.g. if it's raining and there is two guys standing in the rain. the first one is holding a glass and the second is holding a big bucket.
after 5 minutes you'll find that the bucket has collected much more water than the glass.
the same principle works for pixels. a big pixel collects more light than the small pixel. in this case more light is considered more information and more information means that the in-camera processor won't need to do too much amplification in order to produce the final image. and the less amplification the less noise you get in the final image.

Another thing is dynamic range.
Dynamic range is defined as "the ratio between the smallest and largest possible values of a changeable quantity". so in case of an empty glass and a full glass, there is a lower ratio between them if compared with the ratio between an empty bucket and a full bucket.
So a bigger pixel gives you greater dynamic range.

Now, this is theoretically correct to a point. which is that the sensor technology does not change.
So, in reality another variables change in the equation. e.g. sensor technology, gapes between each individual pixel, in-camera processing technology.

so , if we take these cameras as an example: the canon 5d and the canon 5d mark 2.

the first has a resolution of 12 million pixels.
the second has a resolution of 21 million pixels.

and both sensors are of the same size, which means that the individual pixel is smaller in the high pixel-dense sensor.

At first, we think that the first is going to have better image quality. in terms of image noise at least. but then we find that this is not the case.

Check this and compare for yourself:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon ... oise.shtml

For my unexperienced eyes, I see that the 5d mark 2 has less visible noise.(at least when we exclude things like sharpness)

Some of the reasons for the mark 2 having comparable (if not better) noise performance are the improved sensor architecture, the micro lenses improved design, better on-chip(sensor) noise reduction and better processing and noise reduction algorithms.

But, most of the time this is not the case. We are taking about two professional cameras here (some might argue with that).
So in the case of two compact cameras there really will not be a huge breakthrough when it comes to the sensor design and in-camera processing technology. So the rule of "less pixels equals less noise" applies perfectly.

In conclusion, unless there is a major improvement in other things like mentioned above, the answer is yes. the less the number of pixels the better image quality you get(in terms of noise performance and dynamic range).

Hope that was helpful.

forgive me if I sounded like a huge nerd :).

_________________
A. Refaat
Canon 40D | 17-85mm IS USM | Fujifilm finepix S5800
My Flickr

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group