Why more pixel is a must for cameras big and small

Cameras big and small are packed with ever more pixels. Some of them with high quality one, some just a number, with not as much quality increase than in the quantity increase. DSLR makers try hard to pack more pixel in the sensor, big and small. Each time I carry my camera and I run into someone did not see my camera before or forgot that s/he saw it before, the question asked: "How many mega pixels?" They do not care what is the F number of my fancy lens I spent so much on.

So, more mega pixels will be the king in people's mind for anytime I can see into the future (I am nearsighted, BTW). For me, 5~10 is more than enough for 99% of the time. If I can do 5 mp and ISO 6400 cleanly, I will not buy a camera for a long long long time (oops should not let camera makes know this). Even 3-AF is good enough. Even 3fps is good enough ...

Sony will pack 8 mega pixels in their new cell phone (link below). It's quite likely that that phone will sale millions of units (at least a number much larger than ANY one DSLR model).

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINL1727468020080617?rpc=44

This is why more pixel is a must for cameras big and small. Hype and peer pressure (my friend has xxx, my friend can do xxx, so I have to xxx) is the ultimate driving force in the market place. Manufactures fan it like kids fanning a camp fire.

What can we do with the extra pixels we do not want?

I don't know what women call it...breast envy?
--
Regards,

Steve

kuaimen said:

Each time I carry my camera
and I run into someone did not see my camera before or forgot that
s/he saw it before, the question asked: "How many mega pixels?" They
do not care what is the F number of my fancy lens I spent so much on.

Click to expand...

I simply refuse to give a direct answer to that question. You must control the conversation. Unless we change the common misinformation we WILL see more pixels packed into small sensors and a continued degradation of image quality.

I can't find a compact camera that I can be satisfied with due to the pixel race. Fuji used to have excellent low pixel count models but they have now followed the pixel race.

kuaimen said:

This is why more pixel is a must for cameras big and small. Hype and
peer pressure (my friend has xxx, my friend can do xxx, so I have to
xxx) is the ultimate driving force in the market place.

Click to expand...

Instead of succumbing to such traps, ask to see if their pictures are better than yours. A little education can go a long way and tell them that serious photographers use lower pixel cameras.

There are some spineless individuals who can't take a stand on the issue because they are ignorant and refuse to get informed. They only refer to XYZ friend who they claim is an expert who said more pixels is a good thing. I avoid association with such people. There is a saying, "To soar with eagles, quit hanging out with turkeys."

kuaimen said:

Manufactures fan it like kids fanning a camp fire.

Click to expand...

Marketing departments are touting more pixels. They are not the techical people who undersand IQ, rather they are the annoying department that puts continued pressure on the R&D department to find a way to cram in more pixels.

Best regards,

--
Trevor

The other common question I get asked is...."How much is the zoom??", it sometimes just catches me off-guard to see how the knowledge we take for granted, is just not as widespread amongst the non-hobbyists/professsionals.

Depending on who I'm speaking with, I'll sometimes explain that its an SLR and hence doesn't have a fixed zoom like a P&S, but sometimes I'll just succumb and say 10X or 3X based what I have on my camera at that time.
--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma

And lots of people want to check the size of their #### against the size of your ####. Most of the time they have no idea what that spec really means other than if their's is bigger then they feel better.

I have a computer in my office waiting room that just continually displays photos of houses I have designed. The monitor is a 32" flat screen TV I got cheap off woot. Not a week goes by that someone doesn't say, "That must some really fast processor to load a picture that big so fast". The computer is an plain old Pentium running about 100 mhz.

The proof is in the photo!

--
If you think that makes sense, then you must have read someone else's post!

no more mega pixels in a bayer formation, i would like to see a 30MP faveon sensor (equals the output size of current E-series cameras) as this would provide a huge leap in quality and the lenses wont need to resolve 30MP only 10MP.

print sizes could be enlarged to that of a 30MP file with ease, larger files with care.

and then we DSLR users wont have to worry about the P&S users who only look at MP for the camera quality.

its a great idea, but i doubt it will happen. at least not until the APS-C sensors have 30MP.

--
if you can imagine the picture, then do all you can to make it

Folks these are all good points/humors thanks. Yeah large numbers have magic powers ... but smaller things can do wonders if built right!

If Olympus produces E600 with 5MP but with ISOxxxx as clean as 5D, all other aspects as advanced as e520, charges as much as E520, would people buy it?

I have no doubt Pana can do that sensor NOW! Maybe even Kodak can do it, too.

I know I would buy it over E520 in a heartbeat.

The general public (me included) take photos for computer screen display, seldom print or print mostly at size 4x6, very very occasionally at 8x10.

If Olympus produces E350 with clean ISO and HD video, that'll be the end of my camera upgrade ordeal for a long long time. Well, maybe that's why Olympus does not do it ...

I really don't care what a clueless third party thinks about the pixel count of your camera, or your inferiority complex.

I don't want Olympus or any other camera maker to get into a pi* ing contest about who has the most pixels. Anyone who doesn't treat their DSLR camera like a glorified P&S is going to care more about pixels quality than pixel count, and the fact is that more pixels equal smaller pixels, and smaller pixels equal less sensitivity and more noise.

kuaimen wrote:
Each time I carry my camera

kuaimen said:

and I run into someone did not see my camera before or forgot that
s/he saw it before, the question asked: "How many mega pixels?"

Click to expand...

I just last week had this conversation with a friend (I was using my E-500 with the 7-14 attached):

-Wow, looks Professional, how many megapixels?
-8MP, and that's more then enough.
-How can such a big camera have only 8MP?
-Well, it's more then enough, pixels aren't the only important thing.
-Yes but my Canon has 12MP and it fits in my shirt pocket!

• You see, the sensor on the E-500 is much bigger, the pixels are less packed so the picture quality is better...

-My small Canon still has 12MP, that's 1-1/2 as much as yours.
-There are a lot of factors to consider such as .......
-You do agree that my Canon has 50% more resolution?
-You see, there are a few .....
-Well, I'll just say it's stupid to carry around such a big camera for only 8MP!

-You know what, you're right, what's your Canon model? I need to look it up and trade mine for it...

End of conversation )

--------
Equipment in profile.



I take a great picture, they ask me about my expensive cameras.
I cook a great meal, no one asks me about my expensive pans.

The only advantage of more pixels with the same IQ is that you can crop without a lot of IQ-loss.
Theoretically you can crop instead of telezoom.

If lenses can resolve for instance 20-30 Mp, then you can crop until 8 Mp without IQ-loss.

Best regards,
Erik Meijs

He he he ... exactly.

My friends do not rub it so firmly into my face, since they somehow (still) believe I am not as stupid as (just?) carrying a big camera with merely 8MP - they think there must be something else there. They have more faith in me than my 8MP (just).

Rappasol said:

I just last week had this conversation with a friend (I was using
my E-500 with the 7-14 attached):

-Wow, looks Professional, how many megapixels?
-8MP, and that's more then enough.
-How can such a big camera have only 8MP?
-Well, it's more then enough, pixels aren't the only important thing.
-Yes but my Canon has 12MP and it fits in my shirt pocket!

• You see, the sensor on the E-500 is much bigger, the pixels are

less packed so the picture quality is better...
-My small Canon still has 12MP, that's 1-1/2 as much as yours.
-There are a lot of factors to consider such as .......
-You do agree that my Canon has 50% more resolution?
-You see, there are a few .....
-Well, I'll just say it's stupid to carry around such a big camera
for only 8MP!
-You know what, you're right, what's your Canon model? I need to look
it up and trade mine for it...

End of conversation )

--------
Equipment in profile.



I take a great picture, they ask me about my expensive cameras.
I cook a great meal, no one asks me about my expensive pans.

Click to expand...

kuaimen said:

What can we do with the extra pixels we do not want?

Click to expand...

If you get enough, you can bin them.

2x2 is the first and most obvious, but once you start getting into the 3x3 or more, you can start doing really interesting things with these "super pixels" perhaps even have different exposure/sensitivities on pairs, to get back the DR you lost due to small pixels. Then run in super high resolution mode for the occasional landscape or whatever.

could be neat... though the bigger the sensor (again) the better, since the diffraction limit will allow more pixels, thus more binning.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510
http://joesiv.smugmug.com

Binning sounds like a good idea. Can we do that now? If not, would camera makers produce that kind of cameras?

Joesiv said:

kuaimen said:

What can we do with the extra pixels we do not want?

Click to expand...

If you get enough, you can bin them.

2x2 is the first and most obvious, but once you start getting into
the 3x3 or more, you can start doing really interesting things with
these "super pixels" perhaps even have different
exposure/sensitivities on pairs, to get back the DR you lost due to
small pixels. Then run in super high resolution mode for the
occasional landscape or whatever.

could be neat... though the bigger the sensor (again) the better,
since the diffraction limit will allow more pixels, thus more binning.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510
http://joesiv.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

My friends shut up real quick after they realize my 4mp body trounces their 12mp P&S when I show them my photos.

--
My photos:
http://gallery.yujiangtham.com

kuaimen said:

Binning sounds like a good idea. Can we do that now? If not, would
camera makers produce that kind of cameras?

Click to expand...

You can do it in software. Just reduce resolution with a proper algorithm. I haven't seen any evidence that binning in hardware is any more effective than doing it in software (and logically it shouldn't be either).

Exactly the all too common:

Mine is (are) bigger than yours.

kevin wilkins said:

no more mega pixels in a bayer formation, i would like to see a 30MP
faveon sensor (equals the output size of current E-series cameras) as
this would provide a huge leap in quality and the lenses wont need to
resolve 30MP only 10MP.

Click to expand...

You seem confused.

--
--
mumbo jumbo

Torsten Hoff said:

Anyone who doesn't treat their
DSLR camera like a glorified P&S is going to care more about pixels
quality than pixel count, and the fact is that more pixels equal
smaller pixels, and smaller pixels equal less sensitivity and more
noise.

Click to expand...

That is true unless there is a technical improvement in the pixel. Until they manage a photosite that converts every photon into usable signal there should be headroom to improve the pixel. Then there is trying different arrangements of colour filters, differing patterns, etc.

The "marketing problem" is that improvements in all of this can't be converted into something that is a bigger number (because bigger number = better) than the competition's product or last year's model.

What could be done is to come up with an objective way of assessing image quality and turning that into a number. You could develop a method for determining the camera body IQ and the lens IQ separately and the combined IQ for the system. (Then extend for flash systems etc.)

Could be a good PhD project for someone studying optics and human vision, perhaps?

Last time I had the 50/2 on my e-510 and told someone with great (hidden) satisfaction, that I don't have any zoom, that it's a fixed focal lens. You should see the look on his face
If he had a p&s with him, he would give it to me..

--

'It's not staying in the same place that's the problem, it's not letting your mind wander' (Terry Pratchett)

kuaimen said:

The general public (me included) take photos for computer screen
display, seldom print or print mostly at size 4x6, very very
occasionally at 8x10.

Click to expand...

I take photos to print and hang on the wall - A4 and A3 size. Up until the E-410 arrived at my door I was making some quite nice prints with my old E-10. I've even got a nice A4 sized sinset taken with a long since dead C2020 still on the wall. Why go to the E-410 ? The main reason is interchangeable lenses. Prints from the E-410 seem to have a bit more "pop" than prints from my E-10 but I reckon that I can put that down to PP. There's some photos from each camera at http://www.flickr.com/photos/m99markf They're not the greatest photos on earth by a long shot but I reckon that they show that the megapixel race is vastly overrated.

Ooroo
Mark F...