limits of image quality for a point-and-shoot?

[RazzerG]

Is there any point to go above 12 megapix on a point and shoot? Trying to decide between two cameras, one has 12.1 but offers 10x ultra wide zoom and the other offers 14.1 but only 4x zoom. I figure it's irrelevant unless I am going to blow the pics up to poster size.

 

[JamesRL]

It would include the size of the sensor, the version of the sensor, the processing engine, the lens and other factors.

The gap between 12 and 14 MP is pretty small, truth be told, and most people would not be able to tell the difference.

This shot came from a 6 MP bridge camera, with a fairly large sensor(for its type), and a decent lens. I'd put it up against many 12 or 14 MP point and shoot cameras.

 

[RazzerG]

thanks James, all else is equal except the lens. It's just a point and shoot camera, so nothing too fancy. I figured I would go for a greater zoom range than the pixel count.

 

[RazzerG]

and very nice pic too btw! Thanks for sharing!

 

[prl105]

For your P&S camera at 12mp to 14mp you are right at the end of the lens capability. Almost certainly you will perceive a better resolution on the 12mp than the 14mp, depending on the quality and performance of the lens in front of the sensor.

The major manufacturers realised a while ago that the increases in the sensor mp will show up lens imperfections particularly images are enlarged.
This is why the very best optics are required for the higher mp sensors.
Hope this makes sense.
--
PRL

 

[RazzerG]

That makes complete sense - thanks! I also don't expect to be printing images of more than 8x10, so probably would downgrade the resolution on the camera anyway to keep the file size reasonable. Appreciate the feedback very much, helps to reconfirm my decision!

 

[bluewater1]

Why downsize resolution in the camera? Always use all you've got. If you need to lower the file size later for email purposes or whatever, it's a simple matter. If it turns out you have a great shot and you want to blow it up to a big print, you're screwed if you shot it at small resolution.

 

[PaulRivers]

I figure it's irrelevant unless I am going to blow the pics up to poster size.

Actually, it's irrelevant even if you are going to blow your pics up to poster size. In fact sometimes 14mp's gives you worse real resolution than 12mp.

Cameras have been subject to diminishing returns since they reached 5-6mp, and now at 10, 12, 14, etc, there's almost no difference, and sometimes cramming more megapixels in hurts image quality.

Things like the lens, processing, and sensor size all make a bigger difference than the difference in megapixel count (which as mentioned, the larger mp number is sometimes worse).

 

[graybalanced]

That makes complete sense - thanks! I also don't expect to be printing images of more than 8x10

Technically, if you want to print an 8x10 at 360dpi (a high dpi only needed if shooting at the lowest ISO and very best optics on glossy paper, otherwise 240-300 is fine), it's
8*360=2880
10*360=3000
2880*3000=8,640,000 pixels = 8 megapixels is all you need at 360 dpi

300 dpi = 7.2 megapixels
240 dpi = 4.6 megapixels

8 megapixels is a possible sweet spot, you have enough to print your 8x10 at 300+ dpi and you get a couple extra megapixels so you have the option to crop quite a bit when needed and still achieve 300 dpi.

Of course no one sells only 8 megapixels now, so really, any camera will do, now you pick the camera based on sharpness of optics and low light capability. Because 12 megapixels isn't going to look like 12 megapixels if you have motion blur or high noise.

 

[RazzerG]

That makes complete sense - thanks! I also don't expect to be printing images of more than 8x10

Technically, if you want to print an 8x10 at 360dpi (a high dpi only needed if shooting at the lowest ISO and very best optics on glossy paper, otherwise 240-300 is fine), it's
8*360=2880
10*360=3000
2880*3000=8,640,000 pixels = 8 megapixels is all you need at 360 dpi

300 dpi = 7.2 megapixels
240 dpi = 4.6 megapixels

8 megapixels is a possible sweet spot, you have enough to print your 8x10 at 300+ dpi and you get a couple extra megapixels so you have the option to crop quite a bit when needed and still achieve 300 dpi.

Of course no one sells only 8 megapixels now, so really, any camera will do, now you pick the camera based on sharpness of optics and low light capability. Because 12 megapixels isn't going to look like 12 megapixels if you have motion blur or high noise.

Great info! Thanks for posting!

 

[AlexG47]

IF you are watching 32" HDTV with perfect quality (Olympic Games), is sharpness not enough for you? It is just 2 Mp

My guess Ben have made fantastic pictures By Sony HX9V
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=40363327

 

[graybalanced]

IF you are watching 32" HDTV with perfect quality (Olympic Games), is sharpness not enough for you? It is just 2 Mp

A couple of things, you are talking about resolution, not sharpness (two different things) and he talked about 8x10 prints which require around 8 megapixels, not HDTV.

 

[AlexG47]

I have 27" monitor and invited more than 10 friends to estimate sharpness (I know it is not equivalent of resolution). All of them said: "Perfectly sharp". The comfortable distance is close to a monitor diagonal. Nobody is watching 2m x 6m painting with 30 cm distance (escept professional photographers.....). This is 6mp camera.

I adore Fuji s5 because it is capable to make HDR image with flash (400% up). Soon I will buy Sony NEX-7, but anyway for portraits (flash) I will use Fuji.

I'm sorry for my English,
Alex

 

[jrtrent]

8 megapixels is a possible sweet spot, you have enough to print your 8x10 at 300+ dpi and you get a couple extra megapixels so you have the option to crop quite a bit when needed and still achieve 300 dpi.

Of course no one sells only 8 megapixels now, so really, any camera will do, now you pick the camera based on sharpness of optics and low light capability. Because 12 megapixels isn't going to look like 12 megapixels if you have motion blur or high noise.

The Fujifilm EXR cameras with 16 mp sensors shoot at 8 mp in their specialized modes for dynamic range and low noise. Camera Labs said this in their review of the HS20EXR:

". . . the HS20 has the unique advantage of its EXR modes which reconfigure the sensor pixels to improve noise or dynamic range - albeit with a drop in resolution to 8 Megapixels. This is the compromise you have to decide upon. If you want the best quality images at the maximum resolution, the competition will beat the HS20, but if you're willing to effectively lose half of your total Megapixels, then the HS20 will comfortably out-perform its rivals on noise and dynamic range. And it's important to note you can't match this performance on other cameras by simply reducing their resolution, as Fujifilm is doing cleverer pixel-grouping on the HS20."

Where 8 mp is sufficient, the EXR models from Fujifilm may be worth checking out. I have an older 12 mp EXR model, and find shooting at 6mp to meet all my needs, but then, I don't print at all.