Megapixel Madness
Sorry for not writing for a couple of days, I've been in my bed with what feels like a combination of the Ebola virus, Bird Flu and Pneumonia. Or, as you unsympathetic females like to call it, a Cold.
Whilst I was lying in misery, with only a headache and a hearty cough to keep me company inbetween unpleasant trips to the lavatory, I watched a program in which a bald guy helps out useless shoppers by getting them a better deal. Quite good, as it showed how much of a discount you can actually get sometimes if you push hard enough. In this case, he was helping a man buy a digital camera.
But what irritated me was his comment "the more megapixels, the greater the quality". This frankly is not true. It's not untrue, either, but it is only a small part of the story.
The more megapixels, the bigger the image. But what is of frankly more importance, is the lens and the size of the sensor. Photography is about light. If you have a tiny lens half an inch across, you will not get as much light in as if you have a lens 2 inches across. This is pretty obvious. What most people don't realise, however, is that the size of the sensor is incredibly important as well. If you have, say, 10 megapixels and you cram them all onto a sensor half the size of a postage stamp, you will simply not get such a good picture as if you stick the same number of pixels on a 35mm sensor (as found in VERY expensive digital SLR's). This close together you get a lot of interference and a grainy image. It might be a huge image, but the overally quality will not be as good, especially at higher ISO levels.
You often see tiny cameras advertised with 8 or 10 megapixels. The average consumer thinks these are great, beacuse they've got lots of megapixels. But they have tiny lenses, and tiny sensors, and won't actually be that good. You are probably better off with a 5 megapixel camera in most cases.
Example: I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ-10 that I recently retired. This is a 4MP "prosumer" camera. In other words, it has a decent lens on it. The sensor is not that big, but it is bigger than the one on the 5MP Konica Minolota X10 I bought to carry around in a pocket. The Konica has more megapixels, but guess which produces the better pictures?
Another example: My mobile phone has a 3MP camera built in. My first digital camera (a Casio something or other bought about 7 or 8 years ago) was a 2MP camera. Guess which takes the better pictures? Correct, the ancient (in technology terms) Casio. Although the phone camera is actually surpisingly good, considering. Good enough to not bother much with the little Konica anymore, anyway (that camera was a complete waste of money it's so bad).
Oddly enough, the Casio actually took very good pictures. This is because it had a reasonable-sized sensor. Back in the dark ages of digital photography, sensors had not yet shrunk to the degree that they had today, with the result that you got some pretty good shots from it. The only problem was they were quite small.
I bet you any money that the shots produced by the 6MP Nikon D40 digital SLR will be far better than any compact 10MP camera you can buy. It will also handle better and have no shutter lag (i.e. press the button, it takes the picture with no delay at all).
I am now the proud owner of a Canon EOS 400D, which is stunning. It is 10MP, but has a sufficiently large sensor that it can cope with this. Paying the extra money over the 350D with it's 8MP had nothing to do with the 2 extra megapixels, but more to do with the larger LCD and the sensor cleaner. £500 is a lot to spend, but in my eyes it was worth it. I truly treasure my record of our lives, especially Joe & Jess, and £500 is a small amount to pay for having lots of great pictures of them.
Don't be fooled by the marketing-hype. Bigger numbers do not mean better pictures.
Whilst I was lying in misery, with only a headache and a hearty cough to keep me company inbetween unpleasant trips to the lavatory, I watched a program in which a bald guy helps out useless shoppers by getting them a better deal. Quite good, as it showed how much of a discount you can actually get sometimes if you push hard enough. In this case, he was helping a man buy a digital camera.
But what irritated me was his comment "the more megapixels, the greater the quality". This frankly is not true. It's not untrue, either, but it is only a small part of the story.
The more megapixels, the bigger the image. But what is of frankly more importance, is the lens and the size of the sensor. Photography is about light. If you have a tiny lens half an inch across, you will not get as much light in as if you have a lens 2 inches across. This is pretty obvious. What most people don't realise, however, is that the size of the sensor is incredibly important as well. If you have, say, 10 megapixels and you cram them all onto a sensor half the size of a postage stamp, you will simply not get such a good picture as if you stick the same number of pixels on a 35mm sensor (as found in VERY expensive digital SLR's). This close together you get a lot of interference and a grainy image. It might be a huge image, but the overally quality will not be as good, especially at higher ISO levels.
You often see tiny cameras advertised with 8 or 10 megapixels. The average consumer thinks these are great, beacuse they've got lots of megapixels. But they have tiny lenses, and tiny sensors, and won't actually be that good. You are probably better off with a 5 megapixel camera in most cases.
Example: I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ-10 that I recently retired. This is a 4MP "prosumer" camera. In other words, it has a decent lens on it. The sensor is not that big, but it is bigger than the one on the 5MP Konica Minolota X10 I bought to carry around in a pocket. The Konica has more megapixels, but guess which produces the better pictures?
Another example: My mobile phone has a 3MP camera built in. My first digital camera (a Casio something or other bought about 7 or 8 years ago) was a 2MP camera. Guess which takes the better pictures? Correct, the ancient (in technology terms) Casio. Although the phone camera is actually surpisingly good, considering. Good enough to not bother much with the little Konica anymore, anyway (that camera was a complete waste of money it's so bad).
Oddly enough, the Casio actually took very good pictures. This is because it had a reasonable-sized sensor. Back in the dark ages of digital photography, sensors had not yet shrunk to the degree that they had today, with the result that you got some pretty good shots from it. The only problem was they were quite small.
I bet you any money that the shots produced by the 6MP Nikon D40 digital SLR will be far better than any compact 10MP camera you can buy. It will also handle better and have no shutter lag (i.e. press the button, it takes the picture with no delay at all).
I am now the proud owner of a Canon EOS 400D, which is stunning. It is 10MP, but has a sufficiently large sensor that it can cope with this. Paying the extra money over the 350D with it's 8MP had nothing to do with the 2 extra megapixels, but more to do with the larger LCD and the sensor cleaner. £500 is a lot to spend, but in my eyes it was worth it. I truly treasure my record of our lives, especially Joe & Jess, and £500 is a small amount to pay for having lots of great pictures of them.
Don't be fooled by the marketing-hype. Bigger numbers do not mean better pictures.
posted by Nej at
12:58 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home