Megapixel myth - Can you demystify PLEASE?

[clk550lover]

Hello ,

I know "The megapixel myth" is SO overwhelming (like "BIGGER is always BETTER" myth) that most people tend to overlook the basic differences. I know that this is a gimmick is used by salespeople and manufacturers to you feel as if your current camera is inadequate and needs to be replaced even if the new cameras each year are only slightly better.

Can you list 5 -10 bullet points (for layman to understand) why this is a gimmick and NOT to fall into this trap?

How will you justify why buying a Canon 50D(15 MP) / Nikon D90 ( < 15MP) will NOT make sense over earlier less MP cameras AND why buy D90 and NOT 50D?

Thanks

[Medley]

I shot for many many years with an 8mp Canon Digital Rebel XT. It shot images that (at maximum resolution) measured 3456x2304 pixels. An 8x10, at print resolution, measures 3000x2400 pixels. If I shot Raw, and bumped the resolution up just one notch in my Raw converter (which rarely produced a visible difference), I got quality 11x14 inch prints.

But honestly, how many 11x14 prints are you planning to do?

As to the second part, I'm not going to tell you to buy the D90 over the 50D. What I WILL tell you is that mp should not factor much into that decision. Nikon and Canon both have quality products. The most outstanding difference between them (from a shooter's point of view) is the placement of the various switches and dials.

The camera is a tool, and you want that tool to be as natural an extension of yourself as possible. So it stands to reason that the camera that's most comfortable in your hands, the one where the switches seem intuitive, is the one you should go with. Ideally, I'd recommend finding a place that rents cameras, and renting each one for a day of shooting. By the end of the second day, you'll know which one is right for you.

- Joe U.

[havana_joe]

I print 8x10 with my *6* MP Nikon D40, and they look awesome. I have a friend whose wedding pictures, including the framed 8x10 on his desk, were photographed by a pro photographer using a 4 MP camera (not sure which one, he was married in '04), and they look great. My two cents!

[readingr]

Megapixels now comes into the case of mine is bigger than yours category. As Joe says, you do not need uber number of pixels to get quality prints.

what is the biggest print you intend to make because above about 25" you tend to stand further away to see the print so the dots can and in some cases need to be bigger otherwise your wasting ink. Take a look at a big canvas with a painting on it and you tend to find that at a distance it looks sharp but close up its big blobs of paint not delicate lines.

If your showing it on an electronic system then it has to downsize the pixels to fit on the screen as the camera captures too many take a 19" screen you only need a maximum of 2850 pixels at 150 ppi.

So forget the pixel argument and look at the functions you need and the layout of all the buttons and menus to choose the camera.

Roger R.

[Franglais]

I always judge the results by making a print, not by pixel peeping

- The biiggest print I can make is A3+ (13x19 inches)
- I started out with a 6Mpix DSLR (Nikon D70). I was very satisfied with the A3+ prints
- I moved up to 10Mpix (Nikon D200 & Nikon D60). I can just barely see a difference compared with the 6Mpix camera
- I now have a 12Mpix camera (Nikon D300) I can see no difference on A3+ between 10Mpix and 12Mpix
- Anything more than 10Mpix is enough for my needs

However there is the factor of noise at high ISO's (1600 ISO and above). Noise is when an individual pixel gives an incorrect result. It occurs randomly but increasingly frequently as you increase the ISO (amplifying the signal):

There are two phenomena which conterbalance one another:

- More pixels = individual pixel errors are less noticable
- More pixels = smaller pixels with less surface to capture light = lower sensitivity to light = more amplification needed = more noise

Canon have gone for more Mpix and Nikon have gone for bigger pixels. As far as I can make out from reading tests and feedback, it looks like

- Nikon wins if you want to be able to shoot at high ISO and print no bigger than A3+
- Canon wins if you usually use low ISO, you print bigger than A3+, you have only excellent optics and excellent technique .

[photophorous]

Although you can make nice prints with a 6 MP camera, there's really no reason to get anything less than 10 MP these days. I doubt you will see any difference in image quality between the Nikon D90 and Canon 50D.

Good advice so far, I just want to add one point: sensor size matters more than pixel count. Most DSLRs have a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film. It's often referred to as a "cropped" sensor or APS-C sized sensor. All of the current 10+ MP DSLRs with a cropped sensor are capable of making very nice 13x19 inch prints, and decent prints at slightly larger sizes. Their performance at higher ISOs varies some and is generally best with the newest and most expensive Nikon and Canon bodies. However, the differences are not that big. If you want to see a big difference in high ISO noise levels, or if you want to make very high quality prints bigger than 13x19 inches, you will need a camera with a larger "full frame" (same size as 35mm film) sensor. A 12MP full frame camera will make a nicer 16x24 print than a 15MP cropped sensor camera. But, most people never print that big.

Paul

[havana_joe]

Although you can make nice prints with a 6 MP camera, there's really no reason to get anything less than 10 MP these days.
Paul

I will agree to disagree Paul. Sure there are reasons. I like the smaller file size with a 6 MP camera. I like the lower cost of the body, and I like having bigger pixels. I would not upgrade my D40 to another DX body, I'd only upgrade to a full-frame.

[readingr]

Good point about the sensor size, Keep forgetting I use a full frame 12Mb Canon 5D and that prints nicely at 22 x 15 with pin sharp results.

I guess the lens has now become the more important consideration rather than the sensor for taking sharp photos.

Of course if your talking medium format then you do need 30+Mp

Roger R.

[clk550lover]

Hello All,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am inpressed by the wealth of knowledge on this forum. I feel .............so sad that I know NOTHING :mad2: but hopefully, will learn from all you EXPERTS. :smile5:

I do not think I will go above 13x19 inches (even if I shoot safari photos).

"So forget the pixel argument and look at the functions you need and the layout of all the buttons and menus to choose the camera." I AGREE and will follow your advice. :smilewinkgrin:

I am seriously considering of buying Canon Rebel xSi 12.2 MP or the Rebel Ti115 MP or 50D 15 MP body ONLY and then choose some nice Canon/Sigma/Tamron lenses. Best Buy has NICE FINANCING DEAL on these cameras.

Thanks again...................

[Franglais]

...
I am seriously considering of buying Canon Rebel xSi 12.2 MP or the Rebel Ti115 MP or 50D 15 MP body ONLY and then choose some nice Canon/Sigma/Tamron lenses. Best Buy has NICE FINANCING DEAL on these cameras.
...

Be careful which lens you choose. Check the reviews on this site and others (example : photozone.de) to know what is a "nice" lens.

Digital sensors are very demanding on lenses. The smaller the pixels the better the lens has to be. When I switched from my 6Mpix D70 to my 10Mpix D200 I retested all my lenses. Many of the consumer lenses I had bought for film cameras weren't good enough. And sometimes this sort of lens appears in the packages put together by dealers..

[clk550lover]

Hello Franglais,

MANY thanks for the link (www.photozone.de) you gave me. This site has really some good information & based on this and a few other sites, I am going to select DSLR and Lense(s).
:thumbsup:

Again .............MANY MANY THANKS

[Loupey]

...How will you justify why buying a Canon 50D(15 MP) / Nikon D90 ( < 15MP) will NOT make sense over earlier less MP cameras AND why buy D90 and NOT 50D?

I think it is one thing to ask how to justify among the 50D/40D/30D or the XSi/XS/XTi but comparing across brands is completely different as you must factor in other important aspects and not simply the number of pixels.

Like everything in photography, it's a compromise and it depends on how/what you shoot. There is some truth that more MP can open up more possibilities. For example, if you tend to shoot wildlife and you can't always buy longer and longer lenses, a higher MP camera will allow you to crop a bit more while retaining resolution and allow you to use your existing lenses. I'm not talking about extremely tight crops to try to print extremely large prints. But for images for personal use or to share on the internet or email, this is often sufficient.

I too have used low MP cameras to print/sell fairly large enlargements (up to 11x14). But these images tended to be those which were not cropped or minimally so. Even then, when I go back to those images, I know I could have done better with current gear. So I still upgrade fairly regularly as an insurance policy for those once-in-a-lifetime-shots when I say to myself, "phew, I'm glad I got that one with this camera" even if they weren't with pro bodies.

As for differences between adjacent bodies (like a 12MP to a 15MP or a 15MP to an 18MP), yeah it would be very difficult to see any difference in the final product. But of course you'd be able to see a difference between a 6MP camera and a 12MP one or a 10MP to a 15MP if you print large or (significantly more with "and") crop high. So again it depends on you - how you shoot, what you shoot, and how you show it.