|
Post by Eric Patdu on Apr 1, 2009 16:16:05 GMT
(NOTE: This question was posted to help newbies like me learn more about photography)This has always been a debate I read on threads whenever a new camera with a higher MP comes out. Does MP really matter? Here's my opinion on it. (I would have to remind you though that I am no pro and that I use point and shoots.
I would always go for a higher MP. From my limited experience on point and shoots, higher MPs always yields more details... and that is from JPG outputs. Considering DSLRs produces RAW files, I assume that higher MP means more details after processing. I've read though that the 40D (10.1MP) produces better image than the 50D (15.1MP) based on the review at DPReview. But I am assuming that they are comparing JPG outputs so the problem is more of the camera's processing. Is this correct? Would like to hear your opinions on this one.
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Apr 1, 2009 17:48:05 GMT
I want more MP so I can crop and stil have something to show for online. More MP also means higher definition photos on prints larger than 8"x12". I forecast in about, say 5-10 years... we will see 300MP photos. From what I understand from DPR's review the ISO performance of the 50D is not as good as the 40D on a ISO to ISO comparison. Other than that... it is a competent camera.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Regpala on Apr 1, 2009 20:40:19 GMT
Not an expert too, but here's some info. I gathered. As long as the pixel size is 5 microns or bigger, it should be fine. And provided the lens outresolves the sensor. Another design challenge is the AA filter infront of the sensor. If designers can gather enough photons and direct it to the right pixel location properly, that'll be awesome. And for the sensor to not introduce noise if there's not enough signal (photons), that'll be great too. In other words, it's not really about pixel density, but the technology available to do it right, is not quite there yet. Yes, I tried to generalize the issue. ;D (But if you're going to force me, I'd say there are instances that a lower resolution sensor can provide more "details" than a higher density sensor. There are other factors involved, other than MP.)
|
|
|
Post by Edu Lorenzo Jr on Apr 2, 2009 3:20:12 GMT
My 2cents.
A friend of mine works for a billboard company and he swears on his life that even at 5mp, you can create one of those huge billboards. And then of course he followed up with "but of course more megapixels are better in more ways than one"
More megapixels of course would equate to more details and more room to store information on a photo.
But there is also this talk once about a camera that was released with the ability to take 10mp pictures but it's sensors could not handle it thus resulting in a not so good combo.
So from that, yes I agree with Teddy that mp is not the one-all solution for better pics.
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Apr 2, 2009 3:45:50 GMT
Viewing distance of billboards tend to be a few hundred meters away vs photos in a gallery that tend to be a few inches away.
Also another reason why your 12MP camera phone with plastic or el cheapo lens will never outdo your 6yo DSLR with Nikkor gold ring lens.
|
|
|
Post by Jun Gregorio on Apr 2, 2009 5:07:34 GMT
As the debate heats up. Another newbie scratches his head.
I also do not subscribe to more is better notion. I'll hop on the Teddy bandwagon to agree that technology will dictate the quality.
All I can think of about this subject is this analogy. If a painter has an 8x10 canvas. Would a liter of paint be enough or will his painting be so much better by having a barrel of paint?
I think HD video on DSLR are the only benefactor for having larger MP's.
my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Romy Ocon on Apr 2, 2009 7:54:50 GMT
Personally, I'd like an MP count of 8 - 10 MP on an APS-C sensor (1.6 CF). This translates to around 21 - 25 MP on a full frame. Such pixel density on an xxD body can easily print 20"x30" to 24"x36". Any improvement in sensor development (like gapless microlenses) and signal processing should be channeled to better high ISO performance, faster fps, bigger bit depth (16 bit instead of 12-14 bits) and better AF. We don't need any higher pixel density.
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Kintanar on Apr 4, 2009 0:54:03 GMT
I agree with Ka Master. 8-10 Mp is really enough, as far MP's go. The trick is to get as little air between the camera and the subject! An 8 MP camera at say, 5 meters from a subject, will come up with a more detailed photo from say 10 meters away, using the same lens.
As long as we're on the subject, though more pixels is ideal, I would rather work on high ISO noise performance AND dynamic range. :-)
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Apr 4, 2009 7:20:44 GMT
Over time current pixel densities (how many pixels per square centimeter) found in P&S cameras will look better on cropped bodies and best on full frame bodies via future in-camera image processors.
To expound on Bobby K's mention of the focusing distance of subject I've experienced light refraction at noon when I was at Candaba. The image I saw in the view finder shimmered making manual focus close to impossible. This is not isolated to photographers but also affects digiscopers as well.
My #1 request for any future body is autofocus (even at center) at an aperture of f/11. Second is better ISO noise and distant last are the residual marketeable upgrades.
|
|
|
Post by JP Cariño on Apr 4, 2009 7:44:14 GMT
10MP is enough for me. would like to see higher ISO performance and a decent 5fps and uncrippled AF on a body
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie Dominguez on Apr 4, 2009 8:44:48 GMT
On JPEG and RAW images this article may shed some myths www.michaelfurtman.com/jpeg_myths.htmOn higher MPs , some says that the sensor density and pixel size plays a significant factor on noise and light hgathering and that higher MPs normally means more noise. Larger individual sensor pixels means less noise sensor. I agree with Mastah Romy that 8- 10Mps are ideal and I add this is at the present moment. A 6MP camera can produce excellent print at 8x10 or 10x11 with good noise reduction programs and PP. A good article I read few years ago mentions of a photography club where the there was a member who was consistently/regularly winning their club contests but he was only using a PS with 4MP while the more "geared" members some with even L lenses exalts their lenses Composition and timing (the decisive moment to borrow this phrase from a master photographer) plays the best part and PP is the kicker now and even during the days of film. As to noise there are many noise reduction programs from the freeware versions to the relatively costly ones. Read also that most US publications accepts photos taken with the cameras with minimum of 8MP. Higher MPs means you can have huge print sizes without much picture degradation. Hope this is useful
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Apr 4, 2009 9:41:31 GMT
A perfect example of what I have mentioned is the difference between the Panasonic LX2 vs LX3. Other than a better zoom lens the LX3's ISO noise is better than the LX2's @ the same MP. This is attributed to advances of the last three years applied to a very similar pixel density sensor.
So if MP or pixel densities remain static and image processors & related technologies improved over time would yield better IQ.
I've noticed that the trickle up effect happens most prominently in the camera industry. In the automotive industry it tends to be from top to bottom. Same with Intel Core processors (Xeons, desktop, mobile to Atoms) and Nokia phones.
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie Dominguez on May 22, 2009 14:27:13 GMT
to Eric, if your PS is a canon, there is possibility of capturing raw
|
|
|
Post by Eric Patdu on May 22, 2009 16:48:54 GMT
to Eric, if your PS is a canon, there is possibility of capturing raw Yup! I've played around with CHDK early last year but my RAW files always have a greenish cast. Having zero knowledge in post-processing, I gave up shooting RAW because I can't even duplicate or come near the colors of the JPEG files. ;D Plus, a good news to 40D users, there is already a CHDK version under development that will allow the 40D to shoot in movie mode. ;D Although, this is still under development and the hack is not yet available for download.
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie Dominguez on May 23, 2009 9:22:03 GMT
to Plus, a good news to 40D users, there is already a CHDK version under development that will allow the 40D to shoot in movie mode. ;D Although, this is still under development and the hack is not yet available for download. looks like dataghost will not release the 4OD hack, despite having it for sometime now. looks like he stopped the development --sayang
|
|