"Less Megapixels = Better Color"...

...Do you agree with that?

I went to one of my local camera stores and there is a gentleman that has been working there for many years and he seems to know his stuff.  He is in his late 60's early 70's I would say.

The guy was talking to a customer and I was kind of paying attention to the type of conversation they were having.  The customer asked "Should I get a camera with a lot of megapixels and what's the difference?"

To make it really short, then the sales person asked the customer "do you want a lot of resolution or better image quality?  The higher the megapixels the more resolution you will get with lots of detail.  The less resolution the better the Image quality will be with better richer color".

I thought it was really funny how this person said that to the customer straight out and after that he started the conversation about how today the camera industry is marketing their cameras with more resolution then ever before and how they make this sound like it is the best thing ever.  The sales person DIDN'T SAY to the customer no don't buy a camera with a lot of megapixels, he just said the above and let the customer decide.

Having said that, I personally, have seen this kind of drastic change during the last couple of years.  My very first digital camera was the Nikon D200, then I tried a D60, then I jumped to the D7000 (worst camera I have ever had), then jumped to a Fuji S5 Pro then got a X10, then got a XE1, then a Sony A77II APS-C, then the XT1, then the Nikon D500 and returned it, then the D4, then the Pentax K1 and now the Fuji X-H1.  Please note that I sold some of these bodies at the same and some at a higher price than what I paid for to fund the next camera so I haven't lost anything or much.

Based on what that dude at the store said, I was kind of laughing inside when I heard him say that because I tend to agree with that statement and in my personal case based on my personal color palette/taste I have enjoyed the cameras with lower resolution much more than more modern ones.  The only camera that I have liked so far with a higher amount of resolution has been the pentax K1 but for some strange reasons my favorite ones have been the S5 Pro and the X10.  Yeah, the resolution were not the best at all, but the colors out of those suckers are just so darn nice. Maybe that was a result of having less but BIGGER pixels?

I know I will get blasted here for saying this, but I'm not 100% happy with the newer Fuji cameras.  Not in all situations but a lot of the times the images look too darn cartoonish looking and the type of detail is not as pleasant as older cameras.  Things are just becoming too darn sharp with too much detail IMHO.

Don't get me wrong guys, some of the images I have got with the 24MP Fuji have blown me away and I really like that and I'm not saying the cameras we have now are bad, but sometimes some images look just plain unpleasant with a fake cartoonish feel to them.  I have tried setting my camera to jpeg and select the lower 12MP option but is not the same thing hahahaha! 

Batdude wrote:

...Do you agree with that?

I went to one of my local camera stores and there is a gentleman that has been working there for many years and he seems to know his stuff. He is in his late 60's early 70's I would say.

The guy was talking to a customer and I was kind of paying attention to the type of conversation they were having. The customer asked "Should I get a camera with a lot of megapixels and what's the difference?"

To make it really short, then the sales person asked the customer "do you want a lot of resolution or better image quality? The higher the megapixels the more resolution you will get with lots of detail. The less resolution the better the Image quality will be with better richer color".

The key is size of the pixels.  On the same area - take an APS-C sensor for example - the more MP the smaller the pixel.  Bigger pixels collect more light.  They produce more tonal gradation and hence richer colors.

Now if you put that higher number of MP on a FF sensor - the pixels will be bigger, e.g. 24 MP APS-C sensor has significantly smaller pixels than a 24 MP FF sensor.  For example on an APSC 24 MP equates to a pixel with linear dimensions of approximately 3.9 micro meters while on a FF sensor the pixel size will be 6 micro meters.  I put 24 MP on a 44x33 medium format camera such as the GFX the pixel size would be 7 1/3 micrometer.  Bigger pixels, deeper wells, more light capturing ability, higher DR and greater tonal and color richness.  So bigger pixels the greater the tonal gradation so richer tones and richer colors.  Nothing has changed.  People went to medium format film cameras over 35 mm cameras for better image quality and to 4x5 cameras over medium format as they wanted more image quality, richer tones and colors.

This old codger is right - nothing really new under the sun.  The world nor photography didn't change with digital sensors.

Batdude wrote:

...Do you agree with that?

I went to one of my local camera stores and there is a gentleman that has been working there for many years and he seems to know his stuff. He is in his late 60's early 70's I would say.

The guy was talking to a customer and I was kind of paying attention to the type of conversation they were having. The customer asked "Should I get a camera with a lot of megapixels and what's the difference?"

To make it really short, then the sales person asked the customer "do you want a lot of resolution or better image quality? The higher the megapixels the more resolution you will get with lots of detail. The less resolution the better the Image quality will be with better richer color".

I thought it was really funny how this person said that to the customer straight out and after that he started the conversation about how today the camera industry is marketing their cameras with more resolution then ever before and how they make this sound like it is the best thing ever. The sales person DIDN'T SAY to the customer no don't buy a camera with a lot of megapixels, he just said the above and let the customer decide.

Having said that, I personally, have seen this kind of drastic change during the last couple of years. My very first digital camera was the Nikon D200, then I tried a D60, then I jumped to the D7000 (worst camera I have ever had), then jumped to a Fuji S5 Pro then got a X10, then got a XE1, then a Sony A77II APS-C, then the XT1, then the Nikon D500 and returned it, then the D4, then the Pentax K1 and now the Fuji X-H1. Please note that I sold some of these bodies at the same and some at a higher price than what I paid for to fund the next camera so I haven't lost anything or much.

Based on what that dude at the store said, I was kind of laughing inside when I heard him say that because I tend to agree with that statement and in my personal case based on my personal color palette/taste I have enjoyed the cameras with lower resolution much more than more modern ones. The only camera that I have liked so far with a higher amount of resolution has been the pentax K1 but for some strange reasons my favorite ones have been the S5 Pro and the X10. Yeah, the resolution were not the best at all, but the colors out of those suckers are just so darn nice. Maybe that was a result of having less but BIGGER pixels?

I know I will get blasted here for saying this, but I'm not 100% happy with the newer Fuji cameras. Not in all situations but a lot of the times the images look too darn cartoonish looking and the type of detail is not as pleasant as older cameras. Things are just becoming too darn sharp with too much detail IMHO.

Don't get me wrong guys, some of the images I have got with the 24MP Fuji have blown me away and I really like that and I'm not saying the cameras we have now are bad, but sometimes some images look just plain unpleasant with a fake cartoonish feel to them. I have tried setting my camera to jpeg and select the lower 12MP option but is not the same thing hahahaha!

I've read DXO and other technical tests that other posters refer to, that show in theory modern high MP sensors are better in various ways, but I do have a very subjective impression that the JPEGs and Raws from the x-trans mark 1 cameras were more pleasing than those from subsequent versions of the x-trans. Certainly I remain to this day constantly impressed by the rich color and tonality from my X-E1 files, whereas I find I have to work a bit harder to get my X-T1 and X-H1 raws to where I want them to be in terms of color. Incredibly subjective of course, and there's no denying that in terms of resolution and high ISO noise performance, X-Trans has improved, but in terms of color science, I'm not so sure.

Don't think so. That's just mythology.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Batdude wrote:

...Do you agree with that?

I went to one of my local camera stores and there is a gentleman that has been working there for many years and he seems to know his stuff. He is in his late 60's early 70's I would say.

The guy was talking to a customer and I was kind of paying attention to the type of conversation they were having. The customer asked "Should I get a camera with a lot of megapixels and what's the difference?"

To make it really short, then the sales person asked the customer "do you want a lot of resolution or better image quality? The higher the megapixels the more resolution you will get with lots of detail. The less resolution the better the Image quality will be with better richer color".

The key is size of the pixels. On the same area - take an APS-C sensor for example - the more MP the smaller the pixel. Bigger pixels collect more light. They produce more tonal gradation and hence richer colors.

But can we back that up with any data? IE, it sounds good, but do larger pixels actually have the ability to each express a wider range of values? I don't know if that's true today.

My take on it is that smaller and more dense pixels can reproduce more color gradation. A single pixel is only going to have it's one value, so if you have two of them - only two - you will have a very limited color range. But if you have to billion, you can express better gradation along the plane of the sensor.

Now if you put that higher number of MP on a FF sensor - the pixels will be bigger, e.g. 24 MP APS-C sensor has significantly smaller pixels than a 24 MP FF sensor. For example on an APSC 24 MP equates to a pixel with linear dimensions of approximately 3.9 micro meters while on a FF sensor the pixel size will be 6 micro meters. I put 24 MP on a 44x33 medium format camera such as the GFX the pixel size would be 7 1/3 micrometer. Bigger pixels, deeper wells, more light capturing ability, higher DR and greater tonal and color richness. So bigger pixels the greater the tonal gradation so richer tones and richer colors. Nothing has changed. People went to medium format film cameras over 35 mm cameras for better image quality and to 4x5 cameras over medium format as they wanted more image quality, richer tones and colors.

This old codger is right - nothing really new under the sun. The world nor photography didn't change with digital sensors.

... very subjective in my opinion.

For example I don't like the oversaturated colors that I've been seeing the last ten years or so. But that's a matter of personal preference of course.

I say rubbish.

lexvo wrote:

... very subjective in my opinion.

For example I don't like the oversaturated colors that I've been seeing the last ten years or so. But that's a matter of personal preference of course.

This comment surprises me. You must have not lived the Velvia 50 film era (1990-2005) where garish color and heavy filter use dominated established landscape photography.

On the other hand, some early DSLR cameras really had lackluster color output straight out of the camera. Nowadays if you do not like too much saturation, just dial in a different film simulation.

Batdude wrote: ...

Based on what that dude at the store said, I was kind of laughing inside when I heard him say that because I tend to agree with that statement and in my personal case based on my personal color palette/taste I have enjoyed the cameras with lower resolution much more than more modern ones. The only camera that I have liked so far with a higher amount of resolution has been the pentax K1 but for some strange reasons my favorite ones have been the S5 Pro and the X10. Yeah, the resolution were not the best at all, but the colors out of those suckers are just so darn nice. Maybe that was a result of having less but BIGGER pixels?

Sorry for sidetracking, but in what mode -6 or 12 MP - do you find the X-10 renders colors best? Any further suggestions on settings for this camera would be much appreciated (e.g. jpeg vs. RAW, film sim).

Thanks Dan

oscarvdvelde wrote:

lexvo wrote:

... very subjective in my opinion.

For example I don't like the oversaturated colors that I've been seeing the last ten years or so. But that's a matter of personal preference of course.

This comment surprises me. You must have not lived the Velvia 50 film era (1990-2005) where garish color and heavy filter use dominated established landscape photography.

On the other hand, some early DSLR cameras really had lackluster color output straight out of the camera. Nowadays if you do not like too much saturation, just dial in a different film simulation.

Actually I used Velvia 50 a lot and I liked it. But sometimes in combination with a polar or other filter I felt saturation was too much.

By the way I was not referring at camera output but oversaturated colors made in post processing. Some people find these "good colors". But again it is all personal taste of course

Very true. I always preferred Provia 100 over Velvia 50 because the colors were more natural. But in the digital age I find I'm shooting the Velvia film simulation on my XT1 more and more and find the colors there similar to Provia 100 slide film.  And am not a fan of the HRD landscape shots with all that deep color saturation, seems unnatural.  Ditto with B&W shots that have been fiddled with too much in post. I do prefer the Fuji colors over Leica and Nikon and Canon though.

I need to have another look at the pics from my 0.3MP cellphone cam 

Canadianguy wrote:

Generally, the CFA on older cameras were stronger than the ones today because consumers value hi-iso more than better colour these days. Weaker CFA let in more light to the sensor for better hi-iso ratings.

I don't quite agree with you. Consumers are LED to believe that low noise at hi iso settings are more important than color reproduction. Reviewers on sites like DPR, don't really care about parameters which are hard to measure, such as 'color reproduction' under a variety of conditions.

Noise is probably the one parameter that is most easy to measure and that's one of the reasons why (first and foremost) DPR have grossely mislead its readers to belive that noise is the one and only parameter that determine how good a camera is.

Yes, the CFA in front of the sensor have become 'weaker' by the years. That's the reason why i use Pentax K200D (very sensitive CFA  in front of a CCD sensor) and the Canon 5d (first version) for 95% of my photography.

Canadianguy wrote:

Batdude wrote:

...Do you agree with that?

I went to one of my local camera stores and there is a gentleman that has been working there for many years and he seems to know his stuff. He is in his late 60's early 70's I would say.

The guy was talking to a customer and I was kind of paying attention to the type of conversation they were having. The customer asked "Should I get a camera with a lot of megapixels and what's the difference?"

To make it really short, then the sales person asked the customer "do you want a lot of resolution or better image quality? The higher the megapixels the more resolution you will get with lots of detail. The less resolution the better the Image quality will be with better richer color".

I thought it was really funny how this person said that to the customer straight out and after that he started the conversation about how today the camera industry is marketing their cameras with more resolution then ever before and how they make this sound like it is the best thing ever. The sales person DIDN'T SAY to the customer no don't buy a camera with a lot of megapixels, he just said the above and let the customer decide.

Having said that, I personally, have seen this kind of drastic change during the last couple of years. My very first digital camera was the Nikon D200, then I tried a D60, then I jumped to the D7000 (worst camera I have ever had), then jumped to a Fuji S5 Pro then got a X10, then got a XE1, then a Sony A77II APS-C, then the XT1, then the Nikon D500 and returned it, then the D4, then the Pentax K1 and now the Fuji X-H1. Please note that I sold some of these bodies at the same and some at a higher price than what I paid for to fund the next camera so I haven't lost anything or much.

Based on what that dude at the store said, I was kind of laughing inside when I heard him say that because I tend to agree with that statement and in my personal case based on my personal color palette/taste I have enjoyed the cameras with lower resolution much more than more modern ones. The only camera that I have liked so far with a higher amount of resolution has been the pentax K1 but for some strange reasons my favorite ones have been the S5 Pro and the X10. Yeah, the resolution were not the best at all, but the colors out of those suckers are just so darn nice. Maybe that was a result of having less but BIGGER pixels?

I know I will get blasted here for saying this, but I'm not 100% happy with the newer Fuji cameras. Not in all situations but a lot of the times the images look too darn cartoonish looking and the type of detail is not as pleasant as older cameras. Things are just becoming too darn sharp with too much detail IMHO.

Don't get me wrong guys, some of the images I have got with the 24MP Fuji have blown me away and I really like that and I'm not saying the cameras we have now are bad, but sometimes some images look just plain unpleasant with a fake cartoonish feel to them. I have tried setting my camera to jpeg and select the lower 12MP option but is not the same thing hahahaha!

Hello - is this an X-System forum or not?

All the talk of X-Trans vs. Bayer CFA on this forum should have educated everyone here that digital sensors don't see in Colour!

The Colour Array Filter (CFA) that sits in front of the sensor filters out Blue / Green and Red light to the sensor - software than has to use Demosaicing Algorithms or make an interpolation (fancy word for guess) of what the actual colour was.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm

So unless your camera uses a Foveon sensor or has sensor pixel shift modes - the colour coming out of it is determined by the CFA and Demosaicing Algorithms in the camera or in your computer if shooting Raw.

Generally, the CFA on older cameras were stronger than the ones today because consumers value hi-iso more than better colour these days. Weaker CFA let in more light to the sensor for better hi-iso ratings.

... and weaker CFA means also more color-blind camera, or?

I have asked also often myself what the heck made those shots from my Canon 5D (first generation) so beautiful and special ? and I must admit, my newer Fujis have hard time to reproduce those colors, hues which I could get from the 5D without any hassle.

Was it the CFA, were they those BIG (not deep! pixels? I don't know, but it was a special look also Michael Reichmann praised in one of his articles as "medium format look".

I think there must have been something on it, not just rubbish.

"Cartoonish"?  You're doing it wrong....

Batdude wrote:

...Do you agree with that?

I went to one of my local camera stores and there is a gentleman that has been working there for many years and he seems to know his stuff. He is in his late 60's early 70's I would say.

The guy was talking to a customer and I was kind of paying attention to the type of conversation they were having. The customer asked "Should I get a camera with a lot of megapixels and what's the difference?"

To make it really short, then the sales person asked the customer "do you want a lot of resolution or better image quality? The higher the megapixels the more resolution you will get with lots of detail. The less resolution the better the Image quality will be with better richer color".

I thought it was really funny how this person said that to the customer straight out and after that he started the conversation about how today the camera industry is marketing their cameras with more resolution then ever before and how they make this sound like it is the best thing ever. The sales person DIDN'T SAY to the customer no don't buy a camera with a lot of megapixels, he just said the above and let the customer decide.

Having said that, I personally, have seen this kind of drastic change during the last couple of years. My very first digital camera was the Nikon D200, then I tried a D60, then I jumped to the D7000 (worst camera I have ever had), then jumped to a Fuji S5 Pro then got a X10, then got a XE1, then a Sony A77II APS-C, then the XT1, then the Nikon D500 and returned it, then the D4, then the Pentax K1 and now the Fuji X-H1. Please note that I sold some of these bodies at the same and some at a higher price than what I paid for to fund the next camera so I haven't lost anything or much.

Based on what that dude at the store said, I was kind of laughing inside when I heard him say that because I tend to agree with that statement and in my personal case based on my personal color palette/taste I have enjoyed the cameras with lower resolution much more than more modern ones. The only camera that I have liked so far with a higher amount of resolution has been the pentax K1 but for some strange reasons my favorite ones have been the S5 Pro and the X10. Yeah, the resolution were not the best at all, but the colors out of those suckers are just so darn nice. Maybe that was a result of having less but BIGGER pixels?

I know I will get blasted here for saying this, but I'm not 100% happy with the newer Fuji cameras. Not in all situations but a lot of the times the images look too darn cartoonish looking and the type of detail is not as pleasant as older cameras. Things are just becoming too darn sharp with too much detail IMHO.

Don't get me wrong guys, some of the images I have got with the 24MP Fuji have blown me away and I really like that and I'm not saying the cameras we have now are bad, but sometimes some images look just plain unpleasant with a fake cartoonish feel to them. I have tried setting my camera to jpeg and select the lower 12MP option but is not the same thing hahahaha!

Absurd. GFX 50S.

stevo23 wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Batdude wrote:

...Do you agree with that?

I went to one of my local camera stores and there is a gentleman that has been working there for many years and he seems to know his stuff. He is in his late 60's early 70's I would say.

The guy was talking to a customer and I was kind of paying attention to the type of conversation they were having. The customer asked "Should I get a camera with a lot of megapixels and what's the difference?"

To make it really short, then the sales person asked the customer "do you want a lot of resolution or better image quality? The higher the megapixels the more resolution you will get with lots of detail. The less resolution the better the Image quality will be with better richer color".

The key is size of the pixels. On the same area - take an APS-C sensor for example - the more MP the smaller the pixel. Bigger pixels collect more light. They produce more tonal gradation and hence richer colors.

But can we back that up with any data? IE, it sounds good, but do larger pixels actually have the ability to each express a wider range of values? I don't know if that's true today.

My take on it is that smaller and more dense pixels can reproduce more color gradation. A single pixel is only going to have it's one value, so if you have two of them - only two - you will have a very limited color range. But if you have to billion, you can express better gradation along the plane of the sensor.

Now if you put that higher number of MP on a FF sensor - the pixels will be bigger, e.g. 24 MP APS-C sensor has significantly smaller pixels than a 24 MP FF sensor. For example on an APSC 24 MP equates to a pixel with linear dimensions of approximately 3.9 micro meters while on a FF sensor the pixel size will be 6 micro meters. I put 24 MP on a 44x33 medium format camera such as the GFX the pixel size would be 7 1/3 micrometer. Bigger pixels, deeper wells, more light capturing ability, higher DR and greater tonal and color richness. So bigger pixels the greater the tonal gradation so richer tones and richer colors. Nothing has changed. People went to medium format film cameras over 35 mm cameras for better image quality and to 4x5 cameras over medium format as they wanted more image quality, richer tones and colors.

This old codger is right - nothing really new under the sun. The world nor photography didn't change with digital sensors.

Deeper wells will capture more photos and support deeper bit depth in the ADC have more dynamic range and less noise. Hence more tones. A 14 bit ADC will produce more tones than a 12 bit ADC and a 16 bit will produce even more.

http://reedhoffmann.com/size-matter-especially-with-pixels.

Sure you could make an argument that one could integrate pixels - down sample - but that would be after the conversion from raw to RGB (with the exception of maybe the Foveon Q sensor) hence would not be as efficient as a pixel 4X the size and a pixel capturing 4X the number of photons. Sure there is a limit - but today we are at the point that all top end cameras have more than enough MP. Go on line and look at some of the images coming out of the 40 and 50 MP Phase One backs which have a bit depth of 16 bits to capture more tonal gradations. The more photons/the higher the dynamic range/the more bits per tone which translates to tonal gradation.

There have been arguments that 5 micron pixels are optimal.

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#sensorconstant

The interesting thing is that is where we are today in the 36 -42 MP FF cameras.

However, going back to say the Phase One vs. a X-T2 producing the same filed of view image.  We see a light source on the Phase One is spread over a much larger area on the sensor than the T2 since the sensor is bigger. Hence a 24 MP back on the Phase One would actually produce not only more photons per pixel (bigger pixels) but would also produce the same resolution less impact from lens issues and diffraction.