Commentary on The Megapixel Wars
08-25-2006, 09:54 AM
#1
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
Commentary on The Megapixel Wars
Dom and I were discussing this yesterday and coincidently, Michael Reichmann posted an article today that mirrors what we were talking about.
Full article and pics here: http://luminous-landscape.com/review...-quick06.shtml
It really is crazy how pathetic these point and shoot cameras are getting due to the insane pixel densities they are cramming onto a chip these days. Every release is getting worse thanks to the marketing departments deciding that you need more megapixels.
Now these 10MP point and shoot cams need noise reduction even at ISO 100!
How many people here have actually printed a shot larger than 8.5x11 from their P&S cams? I've seen 11x17 prints from an 8MP P&S cam and they look horrible. Smudges, blown out highlights, crushed shadows, and lack of detail do not make for a good print. A 13x19 print from a 10mp cam will only look worse.
More pixels doesn't necessarily mean you can print bigger. Bigger prints of an image that has lots of noise or lots of noise reduction artifacts will only magnify those defects.
5 or 6MP is plenty. Actually, 3MP is probably enough for most people. If someone made a 4 or 5MP P&S cam that had the same low noise as my SLR, I'd be all over it.
Dan's tip to consumers: Demand better pixels folks, not more pixels.
Originally Posted by Reichmann
Some Thoughts on Sensor Size and Noise
During the past roughly 7 years, as the digital capture side of photographic technology has taken hold and flourished, there has been a constant push by manufacturers and a pull by consumers for more megapixels. This is no bad thing, in and of itself. More pixels means more resolution, bigger prints sizes and a greater ability to crop.
In the DSLR environment this continues to be a worthwhile pursuit. People shooting with these cameras tend to be pros or advanced amateurs who need what higher pixel count has to offer. And, at about 10-12MP on APS sized sensors we are at a sort of balance point – enough resolution for most applications vs clean and low noise images at most ISO settings.
But high resolution (better to call them high pixel count) chips in digicams are another thing. The 10MP sensor in the Panasonic FZ-50 is 7.18 X 5.32mm in size, while the 10MP sensor in the 10MP Nikon D80, for example, is 23 X 15.8mm. Do the math. The Nikon's 10MP chip has 373 sq/mm of surface area while the one in the Panasonic has 38 sq/mm. This gives the Nikon's sensor nearly 10X the recording area for the same number of pixels.
So what do we get as a result when a digicam tries to match megapixel count with a DSLR? Noise, or possibly worse – noise reduction artifacts.
One has to ask – to whose benefit is it to have more megapixels in a digicam? I doubt that many consumers are actually asking for it. Photographers with digicams are unlikely to want to make 13X19" prints very often. Rather, the people who use digicams typically will make wallet sized prints, or at most the occasional 8X10" of their best shots. For this 5MP or 6MP cameras are sufficient, and produce much higher image quality in moderate to small prints.
It seems to me that the race to make digicams with pixel counts equivalent to current DSLRs is one being fueled by camera maker's marketing departments. Of course the naive consumer plays right into their hands. If camera A has 10MP and camera B has 10MP, then other factors aside they must be pretty similar – right? Certainly standing at the camera counter holding a 10MP DSLR in one hand and a 10MP super-zoom digicam in the other, the uninformed consumer won't understand that one has a sensor 10X the area of the other, and the salesman likely won't explain this or possibly even fully appreciate it himself.
Far be it from me to tell camera maker's how to run their business, but isn't it about time that this silliness stop? Cameras like the two digicams reviewed on this page have, in my opinion, pushed too far in terms of pixel count. Their 8MP predecessors, the FZ-30 and LX-1 where recognized as noisy cameras, and now we have upped the stakes to 10MP. Yes, Panasonic has provided its new Venus Engine III, which purports to produce lower noise images. But to my eye, all that it does is allow this new generation of cameras to provide a higher pixel count with comparable noise to before. In other words, no real net gain for the consumer except for the ability to make somewhat larger prints, which he or she are unlikely to do all that often.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to use the Venus III technology to make the current 8MP cameras less noisy? I think so. But then, that doesn't sound as sexy as being able to sell more megapixels, now does it?
During the past roughly 7 years, as the digital capture side of photographic technology has taken hold and flourished, there has been a constant push by manufacturers and a pull by consumers for more megapixels. This is no bad thing, in and of itself. More pixels means more resolution, bigger prints sizes and a greater ability to crop.
In the DSLR environment this continues to be a worthwhile pursuit. People shooting with these cameras tend to be pros or advanced amateurs who need what higher pixel count has to offer. And, at about 10-12MP on APS sized sensors we are at a sort of balance point – enough resolution for most applications vs clean and low noise images at most ISO settings.
But high resolution (better to call them high pixel count) chips in digicams are another thing. The 10MP sensor in the Panasonic FZ-50 is 7.18 X 5.32mm in size, while the 10MP sensor in the 10MP Nikon D80, for example, is 23 X 15.8mm. Do the math. The Nikon's 10MP chip has 373 sq/mm of surface area while the one in the Panasonic has 38 sq/mm. This gives the Nikon's sensor nearly 10X the recording area for the same number of pixels.
So what do we get as a result when a digicam tries to match megapixel count with a DSLR? Noise, or possibly worse – noise reduction artifacts.
One has to ask – to whose benefit is it to have more megapixels in a digicam? I doubt that many consumers are actually asking for it. Photographers with digicams are unlikely to want to make 13X19" prints very often. Rather, the people who use digicams typically will make wallet sized prints, or at most the occasional 8X10" of their best shots. For this 5MP or 6MP cameras are sufficient, and produce much higher image quality in moderate to small prints.
It seems to me that the race to make digicams with pixel counts equivalent to current DSLRs is one being fueled by camera maker's marketing departments. Of course the naive consumer plays right into their hands. If camera A has 10MP and camera B has 10MP, then other factors aside they must be pretty similar – right? Certainly standing at the camera counter holding a 10MP DSLR in one hand and a 10MP super-zoom digicam in the other, the uninformed consumer won't understand that one has a sensor 10X the area of the other, and the salesman likely won't explain this or possibly even fully appreciate it himself.
Far be it from me to tell camera maker's how to run their business, but isn't it about time that this silliness stop? Cameras like the two digicams reviewed on this page have, in my opinion, pushed too far in terms of pixel count. Their 8MP predecessors, the FZ-30 and LX-1 where recognized as noisy cameras, and now we have upped the stakes to 10MP. Yes, Panasonic has provided its new Venus Engine III, which purports to produce lower noise images. But to my eye, all that it does is allow this new generation of cameras to provide a higher pixel count with comparable noise to before. In other words, no real net gain for the consumer except for the ability to make somewhat larger prints, which he or she are unlikely to do all that often.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to use the Venus III technology to make the current 8MP cameras less noisy? I think so. But then, that doesn't sound as sexy as being able to sell more megapixels, now does it?
It really is crazy how pathetic these point and shoot cameras are getting due to the insane pixel densities they are cramming onto a chip these days. Every release is getting worse thanks to the marketing departments deciding that you need more megapixels.
Now these 10MP point and shoot cams need noise reduction even at ISO 100!
How many people here have actually printed a shot larger than 8.5x11 from their P&S cams? I've seen 11x17 prints from an 8MP P&S cam and they look horrible. Smudges, blown out highlights, crushed shadows, and lack of detail do not make for a good print. A 13x19 print from a 10mp cam will only look worse.
More pixels doesn't necessarily mean you can print bigger. Bigger prints of an image that has lots of noise or lots of noise reduction artifacts will only magnify those defects.
5 or 6MP is plenty. Actually, 3MP is probably enough for most people. If someone made a 4 or 5MP P&S cam that had the same low noise as my SLR, I'd be all over it.
Dan's tip to consumers: Demand better pixels folks, not more pixels.
08-25-2006, 10:18 AM
#3
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Bdog
Excellent article!
08-25-2006, 11:53 AM
#4
Big Block go VROOOM!
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Dan's tip to consumers: Demand better pixels folks, not more pixels.
Matter of fact, I bet if you came up with a small stylish image with that phrase, you could get a lot of photo web sites to run with it.
08-25-2006, 12:00 PM
#5
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Billiam
I seriously think your saying above should replace the blogging quote as your signature.
Matter of fact, I bet if you came up with a small stylish image with that phrase, you could get a lot of photo web sites to run with it.
Matter of fact, I bet if you came up with a small stylish image with that phrase, you could get a lot of photo web sites to run with it.
Good plan. Let me see what I can come up with. 
08-25-2006, 01:08 PM
#6
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article. But I'm not sure I agree with this necessarily:
Consumers may not be asking for it, but they sure do lap it up, and it seems like the biggest marketing point for digicams is MP's. People I know view MP's like HP in a car. When they see a camera they always want to know how many MP's it has. To them more equals better. It's the same with cars. How many HP, as if that's the defining criteria.
People who get into photography end up learning more about it and become more concerned with things like IQ, low noise, etc.
It would be nice to see manufacturers focus on improving dynamic range. Hopefully that's something that can be acheived. Low noise is already pretty much there for good DSLR's. The ability to change ISO on the fly is a huge advantage over the film days.
One has to ask – to whose benefit is it to have more megapixels in a digicam? I doubt that many consumers are actually asking for it. Photographers with digicams are unlikely to want to make 13X19" prints very often. Rather, the people who use digicams typically will make wallet sized prints, or at most the occasional 8X10" of their best shots. For this 5MP or 6MP cameras are sufficient, and produce much higher image quality in moderate to small prints.
People who get into photography end up learning more about it and become more concerned with things like IQ, low noise, etc.
It would be nice to see manufacturers focus on improving dynamic range. Hopefully that's something that can be acheived. Low noise is already pretty much there for good DSLR's. The ability to change ISO on the fly is a huge advantage over the film days.
08-25-2006, 01:22 PM
#7
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by waTSX
It would be nice to see manufacturers focus on improving dynamic range. Hopefully that's something that can be acheived. Low noise is already pretty much there for good DSLR's. The ability to change ISO on the fly is a huge advantage over the film days.
Shooting RAW gives you a little latitude over the original exposure, but there are sensors in the works that can give you +/- 8 stops of dynamic range.
Trending Topics
08-25-2006, 01:42 PM
#8
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
High dynamic range sensors may be one of the biggest advances in photography since the advent of the digital camera. In the not-too-distant future, it may be entirely possible to forget about exposure completely. You'd just compose the scene, focus, and capture the image. Later in post processing, you'd pick what the exposure will look like.
Shooting RAW gives you a little latitude over the original exposure, but there are sensors in the works that can give you +/- 8 stops of dynamic range.
Shooting RAW gives you a little latitude over the original exposure, but there are sensors in the works that can give you +/- 8 stops of dynamic range.
Not too distant future, what, 2-3 years?
The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something's goodness can be judged.
08-25-2006, 02:04 PM
#9
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
The HDR sensors are probably 5 years out.
There was a company that demonstrated an HDR security camera using the technology inside an office which had both the office and the outside environment (through the windows) simultaneously exposed correctly. There was probably 6 stops difference between the outdoors and indoors, but it worked beautifully. I think the sensor was only 320x240 so it will take a while to scale it up to something we'd like to use in a still camera. I'm sure there are probably many technological hurdles to leap such as color accuracy and the like.
In the mean time, we might be able to get a little more dynamic range out of conventional sensors to tide us over.
There was a company that demonstrated an HDR security camera using the technology inside an office which had both the office and the outside environment (through the windows) simultaneously exposed correctly. There was probably 6 stops difference between the outdoors and indoors, but it worked beautifully. I think the sensor was only 320x240 so it will take a while to scale it up to something we'd like to use in a still camera. I'm sure there are probably many technological hurdles to leap such as color accuracy and the like.
In the mean time, we might be able to get a little more dynamic range out of conventional sensors to tide us over.
08-25-2006, 03:51 PM
#10
Senior Moderator
check out the quality of the pictures in this gallery. EOS-1D Mark II. You know what I would love to see in the future? Point-and-shoots approaching this level. Do you think its possible Dan? Or am I dreaming?
08-25-2006, 04:15 PM
#11
Not Registered
Originally Posted by srika
check out the quality of the pictures in this gallery. EOS-1D Mark II. You know what I would love to see in the future? Point-and-shoots approaching this level. Do you think its possible Dan? Or am I dreaming?
08-25-2006, 05:09 PM
#12
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by srika
check out the quality of the pictures in this gallery. EOS-1D Mark II. You know what I would love to see in the future? Point-and-shoots approaching this level. Do you think its possible Dan? Or am I dreaming?
The 1D2 sensor has 2MP less than the high end P&S cams today, but it puts those pixels on a chip that has 14.5 times the surface area. There's no way any P&S can hope to compete with that.
I have seen great shots taken with P&S cams, but the photographer needs to know the limits of his camera. Work within those limits and you'll get good results. The problem is, these super-high megapixel P&S cams are making those limits very constrictive. Reduced dynamic range, sensors that out-resolve the glass attached to them, and poor ISO performance all make for a tool that's hard to use. You have a small range of conditions to get acceptable results.
Cameras with large sensors and lower pixel densities have a huge advantage when it comes to signal to noise ratio. Really, that's what it all boils down to: how many units of light are you getting for every unit of noise. In the case of a 10MP P&S, that ratio is pretty small. In a SLR or bigger, that ratio is acceptable, but shrinking quickly.
Camera companies certainly could improve the signal to noise ratio of their P&S cams and get fantastic results, but unfortunately the consumers have been told that more megapixels = better quality. So instead of someone correcting that myth, camera companies keep pumping up the megapixel count to gain an edge over their competitors.
The technology exists for making a great P&S cam today. Many models now include anti-shake mechanisms for that let you shoot without a tripod in low light. They have great movie modes and big screens for sharing with friends. They even have fantastic image processing units that do a great job of reducing noise. Unfortunately, these processing units are not so much reducing noise as they are counteracting the added noise by the increase in megapixel count. The results are smeary blotches and weird artifacts even at low ISO levels.
It's just going to take a brave company (or group of companies) to fight the megapixel war and go back to making cams that take good pictures. Once that happens, the camera you want will be on its way.
08-26-2006, 03:52 PM
#13
Community Architect
robb m.
robb m.
this is precisely why i bought the 1D over the Nikon D1x which had more mega pixels, but a smaller image sensor
08-26-2006, 04:45 PM
#14
Moderator Alumnus
Someone stole my small digicam (boo) which was the Ex-750. I'm thinking of getting another Ex-750, boycotting the later 8/10 megapixel models, which just seemed to add more noise
08-27-2006, 02:53 PM
#15
Senior Moderator
I keep telling my friends that this 'race' to up the MP in a digicam is ridiculous. I advise, all things being equal, to go for no more than 6MP for a mainstream P&S because resolution does not equate to 'quality'. No one I know will make prints larger than 4x6 so why bother with higher MP if it's going to have a lot of noise?
Of course, if you're willing to go with a DSLR ... different story. Thanks for the above links. Very informative and confirms my previous suspicions.
Of course, if you're willing to go with a DSLR ... different story. Thanks for the above links. Very informative and confirms my previous suspicions.
09-17-2006, 04:43 PM
#17
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
Review of 10MP Casio EX-Z1000
This is the first review I've seen for a 10MP point and shoot, and I hope this is not a sign of things to come:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioz1000/page3.asp
Look at how horrible the noise reduction is! ISO 3200 looks like they used a gausian blur with 20 pixel radius! Sure, they got rid of the noise, but they also blurred out all the detail along with it.
If I had to use this camera, I would only use ISO 50 & 100 and possibly ISO 200 in an emergency. ISO 400+ is completely useless IMO.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/casioz1000/page3.asp
Look at how horrible the noise reduction is! ISO 3200 looks like they used a gausian blur with 20 pixel radius! Sure, they got rid of the noise, but they also blurred out all the detail along with it.
If I had to use this camera, I would only use ISO 50 & 100 and possibly ISO 200 in an emergency. ISO 400+ is completely useless IMO.
09-17-2006, 04:52 PM
#18
Drifting
"Being 10 million pixels you can expect to get an acceptable 6x4-inch print from this, but that's about all. "
Yow, I mean, damn. Iso 400 they are toalking about too.
Yow, I mean, damn. Iso 400 they are toalking about too.
09-17-2006, 05:33 PM
#19
Photography Nerd
Thread Starter
Ironic isn't it? The big selling point for these high-megapixel cameras is their ability to make large prints. However, the sensors are so noisy that they can't make prints bigger than 4x6. 
09-17-2006, 05:58 PM
#20
Drifting
Well that not the problem, they simply didn't spend enough making the case look cool
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/16/m...he-casino-set/
I'm sure this takes pictures that are leaps and bounds better.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/16/m...he-casino-set/
I'm sure this takes pictures that are leaps and bounds better.
09-18-2006, 09:38 AM
#22
Community Architect
robb m.
robb m.
I can one up the Minox Stapler....
