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

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
ludwik123
Regular MemberPosts: 297Gear list
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

I blame Sony for the megapixel madness.

My HX50 has 20 squashed in a tiny sensor.  When I pixel peep.

I see mush and artifacts.  When I downsize to 8 mega most of the mush and artifacts dissappear.   Almost all the image detail remains. So why make 20 megapixel tiny BSI CMOS sensors?

It's just a sales and marketing gimmick.

But to survive, a company has to sell!

 ludwik123's gear list:ludwik123's gear list
Olympus C-765 UZ Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Fujifilm FinePix F80EXR Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus SZ-16 iHS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: The main point of this.
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

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.

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? 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?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MediaArchivist
Senior MemberPosts: 1,243Gear list
Like?
Not me!
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

I'll take all the MP I can get/afford! I have enjoyed going from 5 to 11 to 24 MP (and I look forward to 36 or 54 MP within the next year). I have also felt the cost— in time to unload the photos onto my computer, hard drive space, CPU to work with the large RAW files, etc. It has been my choice and the compromises (to me) have been well worth it. I think the benefits of the extra resolution are reflected in the eventual output of my work, whether on screen or prints of any size.

If you don't think your workflow and output would benefit from a larger pixel count, you are probably correct. You know what compromises you are willing to make, and you know your workflow better than anyone else. But to suggest that your priorities and workflow choices are, by fiat, correct for everyone else is a little short sighted.

-- hide signature --

Want a roXplosion!?

 MediaArchivist's gear list:MediaArchivist's gear list
Sony SLT-A99 Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF Sony 24mm F2 SSM Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lightpath48
Senior MemberPosts: 2,393Gear list
Like?
Re: The main point of this.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 10 months ago

+1 to your preceding post.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon D3300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,393Gear list
Like?
Give me more megapixels
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

because it flat out looks better!

Imaging Resource

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Oly Canikon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,021
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to Pantyhose Bandit, 10 months ago

Pantyhose Bandit wrote:


The difference between megapixels is so tiddly that it's not worth the time of day.

10 megapixels is better than 8 megapixels? I'm going to call baloney on that one. What is the actual difference? On a 2:3 ratio camera, 8 megapixels is 3456 x 2304 pixels. 10 megapixels is 3888 x 2592. This is a whole 344 pixels wider and a while 298 pixels taller.

And 12 is a tiny bit better than 10 and 14 is a tiny bit better than 12. But 24 is a lot better than 8. What happened? Your logic breaks down, that's what happened.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,774Gear list
Like?
Re: The main point of this.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 10 months ago

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.

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? 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?

I must not have made my point very well as I agree with you. I think there is a variety of reasons I would like to have more megapixels. I am just tired of people getting lectures for suggesting more is better. If you havent seen what I am talking about, do a search of dp review with megapixels in the subject and look at the firestorms that ensue.

As far as the Panasonics I am not saying they are better than full frames. But in the same class or category, say for example superzoom bridge cameras it does pan out the most of the time the lower 12mp and more expensive models have begter image quality than the 16mp versions.

I am not saying I would not prefer more, i am saying that lots of understand that more megapixels doesnt always equal better images, but when we are discussing new cameras and mention that it would be nice to have more, a slew of people start telling posters how ignorant they are about megapixels.

This happened very recently and they guy who was being lectured for his desire for more megapixels is one of the best photographers I have seen post a gallery on here. And he makes his living doing nothing but photography. But someone who thinks they are an engineer was lecturing him about megapixels.

Thats what I am talking about.
--
www.scottzinda.com
http://instagram.com/phazelag
http://motivationmachine.net/

 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,774Gear list
Like?
Re: Give me more megapixels
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 10 months ago

because it flat out looks better!

Imaging Resource

Yes many times it does, but in some cameras especially with small sensors there seems to be an inverse effect. But I am for more when it make sense, and sometimes it does.
--
www.scottzinda.com
http://instagram.com/phazelag
http://motivationmachine.net/

 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NowHearThis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,328Gear list
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

Simply use "for me" at the beginning or end of your sentence and that help to defeat the argument.

For example:  For me, the 24MP sensor on my NEX 7 really helped capture extra detail that my 18MP T2i just didn't resolve well enough.

Or you can just ignore them.

-- hide signature --

NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NowHearThis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,328Gear list
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to ludwik123, 10 months ago

ludwik123 wrote:

I blame Sony for the megapixel madness.

My HX50 has 20 squashed in a tiny sensor. When I pixel peep.

I see mush and artifacts. When I downsize to 8 mega most of the mush and artifacts dissappear. Almost all the image detail remains. So why make 20 megapixel tiny BSI CMOS sensors?

Sadly, it's because people still equate numbers to some sort of goodness factor.  Assume for a minute that you're not a car expert, if you see 2 spec sheets about 2 cars and one of them has 20% more horsepower and torque, you'll automatically assume that the car with the more power is going to be faster.  (Or at least many people would)  People tend to do the same things with cameras.  They can't see all the factors that make a good image, they can however see a number on a piece of paper and think: "oh, 20 is more than 16, that's got to be better" without even looking at a single image out of the camera to see if it's true or not.

It's just a sales and marketing gimmick.

Partially, it's also peoples fault for not researching carefully enough too.  Marketing and sales have their jobs to do, consumers who want better products need to do their own research and comparisons.

But to survive, a company has to sell!

-- hide signature --

NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 8,393Gear list
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to MoreorLess, 10 months ago

MoreorLess wrote:

Pantyhose Bandit wrote:

Megapixels are largely a scam anyway. I wrote an article about that which had 1500 views in one day.

Briefly - they're a stupid but very effective marketing ploy designed to make people buy the next camera.

The difference between megapixels is so tiddly that it's not worth the time of day.

10 megapixels is better than 8 megapixels? I'm going to call baloney on that one. What is the actual difference? On a 2:3 ratio camera, 8 megapixels is 3456 x 2304 pixels. 10 megapixels is 3888 x 2592. This is a whole 344 pixels wider and a while 298 pixels taller. Whoopie! Bring out the dancing girls!

http://www.britphoto.us/2013/11/the-great-digital-scam.html

As I said, I wrote about the great megapixel scam ages ago. I opted out of extra megapixels when cameras reached 8 megapixels. I just don't need more. I have printed 16x24 competition prints from 8 megapixels with no problem.

99.9% of my photos stay on my computer. Bigger images are just a waste of storage space. It's the same for everybody.

I'v printed 16 x 24 from an 8 MP compact and whilst yes it looked okish from a long distance away un close it clearly had some quite serious flaws and allowed for net to no processing.

Even shooting with a 18 MP Canon ASPC sensor I found prints that size had less than perfect resolution and a limated threshold for editing before noise damaged them.

The reality is I'd say that for most people resolution is something you either don't need much of at all or can always do with more of. If your not printing at all then really high ISO performance is all you should care about, either that or future 4K/8k digital display. If you are printing though you don't actually need to go very large at all before resolution becomes an issue.

Of course that's not just MP's but with similar sensor tech more megapixels will generally outperform uprezed megapixels. If you've got something like Sigma's foveon sensors then they can clearly beat say 24 MP ASPC rivals of course even at 15 MP.

No, they can't.  24MP produces 6000X4000 vs 4700X3100, minus the crunchy Sigma artifacts.  And the sigma cameras are hardly "rivals."

Personally I think a lot of people underestimate just how much large printing goes on these days. The time of everyone getting 6x4 prints done is clearly over but printing large today is easy and cheaper than its ever been before.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kawika Nui
Regular MemberPosts: 368
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to MoreorLess, 10 months ago

MoreorLess wrote:

Pantyhose Bandit wrote:

Megapixels are largely a scam anyway. I wrote an article about that which had 1500 views in one day.

Briefly - they're a stupid but very effective marketing ploy designed to make people buy the next camera.

The difference between megapixels is so tiddly that it's not worth the time of day.

10 megapixels is better than 8 megapixels? I'm going to call baloney on that one. What is the actual difference? On a 2:3 ratio camera, 8 megapixels is 3456 x 2304 pixels. 10 megapixels is 3888 x 2592. This is a whole 344 pixels wider and a while 298 pixels taller. Whoopie! Bring out the dancing girls!

http://www.britphoto.us/2013/11/the-great-digital-scam.html

As I said, I wrote about the great megapixel scam ages ago. I opted out of extra megapixels when cameras reached 8 megapixels. I just don't need more. I have printed 16x24 competition prints from 8 megapixels with no problem.

99.9% of my photos stay on my computer. Bigger images are just a waste of storage space. It's the same for everybody.

I'v printed 16 x 24 from an 8 MP compact and whilst yes it looked okish from a long distance away un close it clearly had some quite serious flaws and allowed for net to no processing.

Even shooting with a 18 MP Canon ASPC sensor I found prints that size had less than perfect resolution and a limated threshold for editing before noise damaged them.

I agree with your remarks but don't understand this.  What does editing have to do with noise degradation?  When you say editing, do you mean with a program like Photoshop?

The reality is I'd say that for most people resolution is something you either don't need much of at all or can always do with more of. If your not printing at all then really high ISO performance is all you should care about, either that or future 4K/8k digital display. If you are printing though you don't actually need to go very large at all before resolution becomes an issue.

Of course that's not just MP's but with similar sensor tech more megapixels will generally outperform uprezed megapixels. If you've got something like Sigma's foveon sensors then they can clearly beat say 24 MP ASPC rivals of course even at 15 MP.

Personally I think a lot of people underestimate just how much large printing goes on these days. The time of everyone getting 6x4 prints done is clearly over but printing large today is easy and cheaper than its ever been before.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,774Gear list
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to NowHearThis, 10 months ago

Simply use "for me" at the beginning or end of your sentence and that help to defeat the argument.

For example:  For me, the 24MP sensor on my NEX 7 really helped capture extra detail that my 18MP T2i just didn't resolve well enough.

Or you can just ignore them.

-- hide signature --

NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

I knoe what your saying, but even people who do that and are very cleat and specific about their own needs get blasted.

But you're correct i should just ignore it, it just gets old and every once a year I put the word megapixel in the title of thread and its like smacking a horneta nest.
--
www.scottzinda.com
http://instagram.com/phazelag
http://motivationmachine.net/

 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kawika Nui
Regular MemberPosts: 368
Like?
Re: The main point of this.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 10 months ago

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?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sportyaccordy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,480Gear list
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

phazelag wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I dont see how bragging about choosing devices with less megapixels (which is essentially what you did in the first post) is any better than being a MP douchebag. You are the same but on the other side of the coin.

I guess you could see it as bragging. But many will see it as I do, we know the difference and our choice in cameras should confirm it to the megpixel police (that was the point of listing them, its not like I buy expensive cameras considering whats available), but they never care to look at that, they just jump right in with their scripture about diffraction and noise like we have never considered that, just because we mention it would be nice for example for a Megapixel boost when a company brings out a new camera with an older sensor. It would have been nicer to see a newer more modern sensor with even less noise than the old one, but also a few more MP's to work with in good light.

www.scottzinda.com
http://instagram.com/phazelag
http://motivationmachine.net/

Ummm, thats exactly what they do.

You can always turn the MPs down, and still get the benefit of the added resolution. Which makes the bragging about your camera's lower native resolution that little bit sillier. A 24 MP camera can prob be turned down to 6MP but still have the IQ of 24MP. A 6 MP camera is 6 MP with all the negatives of that.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pantyhose Bandit
Contributing MemberPosts: 750Gear list
Like?
Re: Most of us are choosing less Megapixels but still hounded by MegaPixel Police!
In reply to Oly Canikon, 10 months ago

Oly Canikon wrote:

Pantyhose Bandit wrote:

The difference between megapixels is so tiddly that it's not worth the time of day.

10 megapixels is better than 8 megapixels? I'm going to call baloney on that one. What is the actual difference? On a 2:3 ratio camera, 8 megapixels is 3456 x 2304 pixels. 10 megapixels is 3888 x 2592. This is a whole 344 pixels wider and a while 298 pixels taller.

And 12 is a tiny bit better than 10 and 14 is a tiny bit better than 12. But 24 is a lot better than 8. What happened? Your logic breaks down, that's what happened.

No. The logic is still good. Where is your 3k x 2k monitor?

Even at 300dpi, 8mp still produces a phenomenal 8x10. 300dpi is baloney anyway. 100 is fine.

As for the people that stick their noses right up against an 8x10 print trying to find a fault - they're going to find fault with water or air too. I don't particularly care for people that go looking for flaws.

I use 8mp and don't really see any cause to go bigger.

 Pantyhose Bandit's gear list:Pantyhose Bandit's gear list
Leica S2 Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH Brother MFC-J6910dw Echo One File Juicer Vertu Ti +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,774Gear list
Like?
I agree, some of you are taking this the wrong way.
In reply to sportyaccordy, 10 months ago

sportyaccordy wrote:

phazelag wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I dont see how bragging about choosing devices with less megapixels (which is essentially what you did in the first post) is any better than being a MP douchebag. You are the same but on the other side of the coin.

I guess you could see it as bragging. But many will see it as I do, we know the difference and our choice in cameras should confirm it to the megpixel police (that was the point of listing them, its not like I buy expensive cameras considering whats available), but they never care to look at that, they just jump right in with their scripture about diffraction and noise like we have never considered that, just because we mention it would be nice for example for a Megapixel boost when a company brings out a new camera with an older sensor. It would have been nicer to see a newer more modern sensor with even less noise than the old one, but also a few more MP's to work with in good light.

www.scottzinda.com
http://instagram.com/phazelag
http://motivationmachine.net/

Ummm, thats exactly what they do.

You can always turn the MPs down, and still get the benefit of the added resolution. Which makes the bragging about your camera's lower native resolution that little bit sillier. A 24 MP camera can prob be turned down to 6MP but still have the IQ of 24MP. A 6 MP camera is 6 MP with all the negatives of that.

I totally agree!

You guys are taking that all wrong.  I like mega pixels just a much as the next guy.  I am saying I get tired of being lecture for it.  And my point in listing those cameras is to point out to those ciritcs that many of us are not choosing more megapixels for the sake of megapixels.  I am guessing you are not in the market for the categories of camera I listed, because those are each one of the best in their class and among super zooms and bridge cameras it just so happens to be that less is more.  The Canon SX50, Panasonic FZ200 and Fuji XS-1 all have superior image quality to their 16mp counterparts.  My point is that some of us know that less can be more but we shouldn't be lectured because sometimes we think more is more and want more.

 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,774Gear list
Like?
I made a mistake in listing cameras many of you don't know the category well
In reply to Kawika Nui, 10 months ago

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, 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 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.

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.

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

-- hide signature --
 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phazelag
Senior MemberPosts: 2,774Gear list
Like?
I made a few mistakes. I will own it and clarify.
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

1. I said "most" when I should have said "many" of us. My bad.

2. I listed off cameras making assumptions that you would know the qualities of those cameras in their categories. (I am not against MegaPixels.) I want more! But I was listing those cameras because they are well known examples in the forums that cover them that they universally have better image quality than most of their higher Mega Pixel counterparts with the same size sensors.

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.

So my point was I am tired of mega pixel police telling us more is not better, when in some cases it is, but also many of us already understand that yes in some cases less is better and the Sales of cameras the Canon G series, Olympus XZ series and Stylus 1, The Fuji X-10 and X-20, and the Panasonic LX series, the LF1, and the FZ200's all have proven pretty overwhelmingly that many if not most of us in those forums know that more is not always better.   That was and is still part of my point.

The people who have bought those cameras had options with many more megapixels and opted for less because they were educated.  But they are still lectured when they talk about wanting more and they shouldn't be.

www.scottzinda.com

http://instagram.com/phazelag
http://motivationmachine.net/

 phazelag's gear list:phazelag's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kawika Nui
Regular MemberPosts: 368
Like?
Re: I made a mistake in listing cameras many of you don't know the category well
In reply to phazelag, 10 months ago

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.

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 --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads