Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,097Gear list
Like?
Re: I made a mistake in listing cameras many of you don't know the category well
In reply to Kawika Nui, 6 months ago

Kawika Nui wrote:

phazelag wrote:

Kawika Nui wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

We don't know what each others experiences or considerations are, with the exception of a few people we may interact with frequently. And even those people we don't know very much, but we know enough to give them the benefit of the doubt based on previously displays of wisdom.

But it gets old seeing thread after thread of knowledgeable people being flamed for preferring more MP's once in a while. When I see someone asking about something like this, I ask them questions like;

How would that help you? What are the downsides to adding more MP's on a sensor? Will that sensor still perform well in low light? What technology improvements allow for that?

Not everyone needs a lecture and few will even absorb it in that fashion. So it would just be great to see people trying ask some clarifying questions that help lead both sides to a better understanding of each others point of view.

-- hide signature --

Addressing your main points:
1- There is no need for higher resolution: what makes for a "higher resolution"? The 8MP sensor on my Sony F828 was high in 2003. How many of these cameras do you say most people are buying that have 8MP? And why 8MP? Why not 5MP? Why would you prefer to have a 5MP camera?

2- Higher resolution equals more noise: not really but let us use this argument further. Are you trying to suggest that higher pixel density is something to avoid? Then, how exactly are 12MP Panasonic sensors better in that regard than 36MP FF sensors or 16-20MP APSc sensors?

Has anyone suggested that they are better? And are you suggesting that a 12mp Panasonic sensor (1/2.3in?) has lower pixel density than a 16mp APS-C sensor?

Conversely, if 36MP on FF is too many on the sensor, a 9MP m43 sensor is too much... Trying going back to 1/2.3" sensors. And is 4MP on the tiny HTC sensor too many?

No I have not said that,

Sorry, I was referring to your question, in the context of high pixel density as something to avoid: "how exactly are 12MP Panasonic sensors better in that regard than 36MP FF sensors or 16-20MP APSc sensors?"

12mp Panasonic sensor (1/2.3in) = 1.52 µm, 43.52 MP cm²

16mp APS-C sensor = 4.77 µm, 4.39 MP cm²

Still not sure what your point was/is.

I didn't ask that, I think it got changed in color or it was confused. I would never compare a small sensor with a big sensor. I will go back and try to figure that out. Oh that was Einstein asking that not me.  I see he was making point about pixel density that unless I am reading wrong makes sense to me.  Much more room on a larger sensor. I may have confused him by referencing the smaller sensors.

but if you were someone who was in the Market for a Fuji X-20, Olympus XZ-2, or Stylus 1 type or in the SuperZoom Bridge Camera market

Actually, I am

you would have more appreciation for my comments. In almost all of those cases of high end enthusiast cameras with small sensors it is pretty universally excepted that the 10-12MP range produces image quality higher than the same size sensor with 16MP.

On this, I am in total agreement. One reason why Panasonic went from the disastrous 14mp FZ100 to the excellent 12mp FZ150.

Actually it was so true that Canon dropped the G10 15mp camera back down to 10MP on the G11 after enthusiast outcry. So I think maybe I generalized too much and these comments would have read better in the Compacts and Micro Four thirds forums. In the M43 forums last year I asked about moving up to 20MP and got lectured be a slew of guys who see no value in moving up from 16. And yes 16 is working fine for me, but the extra 4 would be nice for some wildlife shots in good light so I can crop.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly. If you can get more detail (resolution) without degradation due to noise, detail is better. That said, I found that my K-r (12mp) got cleaner images than my K-5 (16mp). Absolutely flawless; at least some of this has to be due to larger pixels (5.49 µm) since the K-5 sensor is one of the most highly-rated APS-C sensors. But you couldn't do much enlargement with the K-r images without starting to see pixels. (With the K-5, you started to see noise, although you got a larger image before that happened.)

And I was lectured by multiple people about how real photographers can't crop to zoom and how it ruins the image.

Amazing that anyone could be serious in saying that... For many photographic situations, unless you can afford mega-thousands of $$ for a super tele lens (and the stamina to lug it around), you need to be able to crop to zoom. Massively.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Sigma DP3 Merrill Ricoh GR Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 RX100 III +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow