What the 'I want more pixels' brigade don't consider!

Started Feb 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 12,066
Re: What the 'I want more pixels' brigade don't consider!

Simon Devlin wrote:

One aspect I didn't consider was that more pixels proportionally induces camera shake and reduces the effectiveness of Shake Reduction 'SR' for Pentax. Perhaps not as much for the 645's large medium format sensor but certainly for APS-C size sensors.

As already pointed out, the actual motion isn't affected by pixel couunt so for a given image size the effect of pixel count on motion blur is neutral.  Of course, turning that argument around it is true that if you do get blur you wipe out any advantage on the higher pixel count.  But to get the best out of any camera you need to use a tripod; that fact just becomes more important as pixel count goes up it's not that pixel count makes things worse, it's that you need to be careful to get what it offers.

I think your thread title What the 'I want more pixels' brigade don't consider! is unnecassarily pejorative.  I doubt if there are many serious photographers who are attracted by pixel count as such: it might be an attractive marketing metric for the uninformed but there aren't many on this forum.

As others have explained, for a given image size pixel count can't have an adverse effect on IQ, either resolution or noise (not yet, at least - a day will surely come when the limit is reached).  Depending on lens used and some other factors it can have a beneficial effect, so from an imaging point of view it's a no-lose option.

There are costs in file size and processing speed which can legitimately be counted against increasing pixel count but they have nothing to do with quality.

-- hide signature --

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow