Posted by CookiCrumble
The folk at www.6mpixel.org have come out with a pretty coherent argument against buying any camera over 6 megapixel. The reason? More megapixels don’t necessarily mean better image quality.you can read the full article here: http://6mpixel.org/en/?
Posted by BobaFett
i always made my pix even with digi cam in2 mp format, made maybe 5 times in 3 mp, over it its really not a must imo either
Posted by razec
I always use 2Mp in my camera when taking pics, 3mp if i wanted more details - i never use resolution higher than that.
Posted by Brightspark
the figure is more like 3MP (ie there is no need to have anything above that unless you're a pro photographer).
Posted by hanugro
Well, I think the limit is on the size of each pixel in photosensor. The smaller it is (due to bigger mp but same size sensor) will be noisier.
MP need depend on how big you want to enlarge your picture. I say for 4x6" (4R) 1.3mp is just adequate but 2mp is preferable. 3mp can goes up to around 8R if you are not critical. I only satisfied with my 6mp dSLR for 8R and never print larger than 4R from my camera phone. This is from my personal experience.
There is no doubt that there is need for 40mp+ but it should be taken with medium format with the photosensor size bigger than your average phone LCD.
I hope SE concentrate more on other aspect of pictures and stop at 5mp. Would rather they improve on noise, dynamic range, stronger flash, optical zoom, etc.
Posted by Brightspark
On 2008-01-02 03:12:36, hanugro wrote:
I hope SE concentrate more on other aspect of pictures and stop at 5mp. Would rather they improve on noise, dynamic range, stronger flash, optical zoom, etc.
i very much doubt that any of the brands will do that. it makes sense for them to focus more on increasing the number of megapixels whilst keeping a similar quality. afterall, the number of megapixels is quantifiable(obviously) whereas quality isn't. it's also far cheaper for them to increase the number of megapixels than it is to increase the quality significantly, and they can reap better sales as a result. it's a win-win situation for the brands. like i say, the number of megapixles is quantifiable, and numbers/quantities sell because they are concrete concepts that Average Joe can more easily understand when comparing various models.
if Average Joe goes down to the local mobile phone shop to buy a phone, which of the following is likely to get the sale, and which one of them is going to be easier for the salesperson to sell:
1) phone costing £245 with 12MP camera, bluetooth, CIF video, etc, but the camera is only of average quality (the salesperson merely needs to say "its good quality" because "good" can mean anything and he won't be lying)
2) phone costing £220 with 3MP camera, bluetooth, CIF video, etc, but the camera is of superb quality
?
[ This Message was edited by: Brightspark on 2008-01-02 02:43 ]
Posted by razec
On 2008-01-02 02:53:07, Brightspark wrote:
the figure is more like 3MP (ie there is no need to have anything above that unless you're a pro photographer).
indeed, DSLRs are the only cameras to be benefited with high pixel count. no wonder when we talk about camphones K850 has noisier image output than K800 although the former has a slightly larger sensor
Posted by hanugro
I think ppl will learn. When they try their new bigger mp cameraphone that turn out to produce more noise than their old smaller mp one. Now I hear less and less ppl asking when SE will make 7mp or 12mp camera phone. Guess more website (like the one in first post) will make ppl more aware of how digital/photosensor work.
Nikon's just release top of the line FF dSLR (photosensor size about half the size of K800 LCD) just 14mp. Canon's top of the line is around 18mp (it is due update this year so it is interesting to see whether they up the resolution again). Also Sony's own top of the line dSLR (inhereted from Minolta) is due release later this year (rumours say it is either 14, 16-18, 24mp)
I hope Sony's as co owner of SE (as opposed to Nokia which never produce camera) knows better. If I want to print a poster I would use dSLR. Just give me a decent 3-5mp that is usable (less noise) for indoor/shade then I will be happy.
[ This Message was edited by: hanugro on 2008-01-02 03:59 ]
Posted by AbuBasim
Two years ago David Pogue at New York Times posted about this topic on his blog: The Truth About Digital Cameras.
Posted by max_wedge
Preuming it's a high quality sensor then the bigger it is the more detail on the picture. Afterall why would hasselblad have a 39MP sensor? Their lenses (large format) need a large hi MP sensor in order to achiever the same result as film.
But for a digicam that will only ever print out 8x10 pics, then 6MP is way and enough. If that is your limit (8x10 or maybe A3), then you are better off with higher quality sensor rather than more MP's, to capture better colours, less noise etc.
Posted by Daedalus85
I've been saying this since 2MP camera phones hit the market, and just like they've said as well, more megapixels doesn't equal better quality. And the same thing will continue to happen down the line.
Posted by goldenface
I agree.
I would like to see the quality improved in the current 3.2 - 5.0MP cams that are on offer. People will eventually see through this ridiculous race to see who can build that 1st 20.0MP cam phone.
Posted by jmbillings
I agree- i've been pointing this out in posts for a year or so now as well.
The problem is that the average Joe in the street doesn't (and doesn't want to) bother learning about any of the technology they buy. It's a markting exec's wet dream out there when msot people think more pixels=better. Nothing will change
Posted by Twometre
What I can say is that this may depend on the form factor or the company manufacturing the cameras and the lenses I have always taken good pictures with my motorola v360. Tha is one of the reasons why I wouldnt get rid of it anytime soon.
The only difference I have observed which is a huge disadvantage is the size and the zooming of the picture. Take for instance if you use digital zoom, at most the picture quality is distorte andf that is why I only zoom once or dont zoom at all.
Posted by bambarah
We need bigger Image Sensors , not more MegaPixles
for example , I heard that next generation of the K850i would have 1/2.5" sensor , because when the sensor becoms bigger , the picture would be more detailed
and also the lens width is another factor
More MPs means larger printouts and larger monitor review
Posted by goldenface
Without using better sensors the quality of a 7.0MP cameraphone won't be that much different from a 3.2MP so in a way the customer is being short-changed by this megapixel race.
Lets hope they wake up and give us better hardware.
Posted by Twometre
All the things that are said here are those that once crossed my mind about these megapixels and at one point in time I wrote this: The camera satisfaction thread and I think that once this problem is solvec we will be able to find a phone that can be the answer to this thread
Posted by hanugro
On 2008-01-02 09:26:12, max_wedge wrote:
Preuming it's a high quality sensor then the bigger it is the more detail on the picture. Afterall why would hasselblad have a 39MP sensor? Their lenses (large format) need a large hi MP sensor in order to achiever the same result as film.
Agree to some degree Max. Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc have photosensor size around 4x5cm, same or bigger than K800 LCD. If someone ever allign many K850 5mp photosensor to match the size of the medium format photosensor then it may become (equal) few hundreds (100s) mp worth. Can it match 39mp medium format image quality? I bet my live it will not. Also those medium format can put high mp because they can without sacrificing IQ. Also because their lens resolution can preserve the detail. In fact in some dSLR community, many ppl questioning how many mp their lens can preserve detail. The idea is if you have a mediocre lens then the lens can't show more detail even if you increase mp.
Sensor technology will improve and it will be less noise with each generation. There may be days when we can get magnificent IQ with 12mp camera phone but we are not there yet. I just hope SE will get the balance right to get better IQ.
Posted by max_wedge
exactly. I think what those articles are getting at is that 6MP is about optimum for a compact digicam given current manufacturing ability. As techniques for sensor resolution (without noise) increase for small size sensors, that optimum 6MP will rise higher.
But for now, I think compact digicam makers need to focus on better quality sensors rather than higher megapixels. For example, if they want to keep making sensors smaller (for small form factor compact cameras) they should do it at the cost of megapixels and not at the cost of introducing more noise.
Posted by sadeghi85
On 2008-01-02 01:22:30, razec wrote:
I always use 2Mp in my camera when taking pics, 3mp if i wanted more details - i never use resolution higher than that.
No! always use maximum resolution. when you use lower resolution, the camera will take the picture at maximum resolution and then reduces it internally. so saving picture will be longer, and you can apply better downsample algorithm with softwares like photoshop. a 12MP camera still have smaller photodiodes than a 6MP(with same sensor size) so using 6MP setting on a 12MP camera will not bring better quality compared to using maximum resolution on a 6MP camera. so always use maximum resolution!
On 2008-01-02 02:53:07, Brightspark wrote:
the figure is more like 3MP (ie there is no need to have anything above that unless you're a pro photographer).
yeah. for digital compact cameras 6MP is enough, for camera phones 3MP(photodiodes bigger than 3µm).
On 2008-01-02 03:37:04, Brightspark wrote:
afterall, the number of megapixels is quantifiable(obviously) whereas quality isn't.
exactly! that's why Fujifilm discountinued F30/31(6MP) and F40(8MP) and joined the megapixel war with F50(12MP). just read Dpreviewe's Fujifilm forum about comparing F50 with F30/31.
it's also far cheaper for them to increase the number of megapixels than it is to increase the quality significantly
nope! increasing MPs means creating smaller photodiodes(since sensor size can't be bigger) and needs newer technology. but why they bother themselves? exactly for previous reason, MP war(the fact that the number of megapixels is quantifiable and most people will choose MP over IQ)
and they can reap better sales as a result
they sales better because most people don't know what makes IQ better.
it's a win-win situation for the brands
and lose-lose for consumers(but they don't know!).
On 2008-01-02 04:51:40, hanugro wrote:
I think ppl will learn. When they try their new bigger mp cameraphone that turn out to produce more noise than their old smaller mp one.
no! not all. an obvious example is Plankgatan.
Posted by Sator1973
What about lens size and quality? A lens in a phone will always be tiny compared to a "real" camera. I must say, my K800i makes great snapshots, but I don't expect much more, neither from a K850i. And for snapshots, 3MP will do fine. For real good pictures, I still need a DSLR, probably for the next couple of decades. Also, picture-quality in small camera's is very software dependant, and there's not much you can do to improve the picture afterwards without reducing quality. So for me the phone-megapixel race ended at 3.2 MP for now. If you want more than just a snapshot, buy a DSLR, or even a compact camera, and if 5MP is good for you, you can get one real cheap these days.
Posted by Ranjith
i only use 3MP with my 6MP DigiCam
and ive seen ppl these days buying 10 and 11 mp cams who dont even know what the features offer....they dont even know whats ISO!!
_________________
I Am A Dead Man....But Legends Live On.....
I
ESATO
T20,T65, P800(2x),K800,Z300, 
800, 850[ This Message was edited by: Ranjith on 2008-01-10 16:32 ]
Posted by CookiCrumble
On 2008-01-10 17:29:01, Ranjith wrote:
....they dont even know whats ISO!!
Actually i'll admit i don't even know what ISO stands for or for what it means?
Posted by Mizzle
On 2008-01-10 17:48:36, CookiCrumble wrote:
On 2008-01-10 17:29:01, Ranjith wrote:
....they dont even know whats ISO!!
Actually i'll admit i don't even know what ISO stands for or for what it means?
OK, in short. The lower the ISO is the darker, but less noisy the picture gets, and the higher the ISO is, the lighter the picture gets but also noticeably more noise.
More about it here
Posted by CookiCrumble
Thanks for that, and i'll learn more about it from the link you have provide.
Posted by sadeghi85
On 2008-01-10 17:29:01, Ranjith wrote:
i only use 3MP with my 6MP DigiCam
Apparently you didn't read my reply to razec, two posts above yours.
Posted by Mizzle
On 2008-01-10 17:52:54, CookiCrumble wrote:
Thanks for that, and i'll learn more about it from the link you have provide.
No problem
This shows it quite good, too
Posted by Prom1
Mizzle ... that is a GREAT picture comparison.
I think that ISO is truely based on sensor & lens quality ... more megapixels, traditionally may have helped.
However against this threads title & arguement from first link provided ... I think those pro's that work for National Geographic would NEED higher megapixels and would come up with a quite reasonable & useful need for higher megapixels. Also those sports photographers that provide images for Sports Illustrated - and Swimsuit Issues
lately I'd SWEAR if I moved my head sideways I could see stuble .... a few more years and I'd swear that I could 'virtually' move the thong aside .
PS sorry ladies - that may participate in this conversation.
Posted by sadeghi85
When you set ISO to high, camera will use some electronic circuits to amplify received light, so noise also will amplify. bigger photodiodes make less noise as they gather more light compared to smaller ones. because sensor size is limited in compact cameras/camphones, less MPs usually means better IQ. a nice example is Fujifilm F31fd(6MP, 1/1.6" see sample photos i hardly can see noise even at ISO800 !!!), unfortunately discontinued. you can find crazy prices for it on ebay.
those pro's that work for National Geographic use DSLRs, we're talking about compact cameras/camphones(sensor size is limited).
Posted by Ranjith
On 2008-01-10 18:46:09, sadeghi85 wrote:
On 2008-01-10 17:29:01, Ranjith wrote:
i only use 3MP with my 6MP DigiCam
Apparently you didn't read my reply to razec, two posts above yours.
great i never knew tht!!!!
tnx a lot man......
Posted by max_wedge
On 2008-01-10 21:11:37, sadeghi85 wrote:
those pro's that work for National Geographic use DSLRs, we're talking about compact cameras/camphones(sensor size is limited).
Exactly. All this argument really applies to are consunmer level compacts. Beyond that, in cameras with large (as in dimensions) sensor sizes, more megapixels is a huge advantage
Posted by C905
One thing which the manufactures can handle is to change the cheap CMOS sensor with a quality CCD sensor and that would make the quality much better: I compared my old w550 with a s700 and s700 had more than just alot better pictures (i know they don't havve the same camera module but still)
Posted by xnuo
one example of a cheap ass sensor is the one located on the P1.... even without the green tint, it doesnt even compare to the image quality of the k750, or the k790 for that matter....
Posted by QVGA
On 2008-01-10 17:29:01, Ranjith wrote:
i only use 3MP with my 6MP DigiCam
and ive seen ppl these days buying 10 and 11 mp cams who dont even know what the features offer....they dont even know whats ISO!!
_________________
I Am A Dead Man....But Legends Live On.....
I
ESATO
T20,T65, P800(2x),K800,Z300, 800, 850
[ This Message was edited by: Ranjith on 2008-01-10 16:32 ]
In a point and shoot phone, you DONT NEED to know what the features are, thats the point of P & S
Posted by daz87_uk
it's ok to say my phone's got 3mp camera, but in the issue of quality it's the lens that counts you dont think that a 5mm lens is gonna produce the quality that a normal camera can do. yes it looks superior from vga camera but it wont have the detail. it will blow up bigger but you zoom into that picture will break up straight away. thats why you see professional photographers with £1000 lenses because they are big so big that they dwarf the camera it self and also the bigger the sensor the more detail, a phone is gonna have a tiny sensor they are not designed for good photo's its more of a gimmick on phones to have high mp cameras they are good for a quick snap if your proper camera is not with you but not worth the time for holiday pictures...