Do people really need 10megapixels point-and-shoot cameras?

[DBL]

Originally posted by: jtvang125

Originally posted by: Aimster
yes

I want 10MP

I don't print anything, but on the computer it looks great.

But who has a monitor that can display 10MP in full size?

This should work pretty well.
30" LCD

Remember, most digital cameras only really have picture quality equal to 1/3 - 2/3 of the actual stated pixels due to interpolation.

 

[zephyrprime]

You are right. It would be much better at this point if the consumer focused on other issues like ISO sensitivity and image stabilization features. Going from 7->10 mp isn't really very useful for most people.

 

[LS20]

absolutely positively not. im even discounting the fact that pixel count doesnt determine picture quality (need to consider lens quality, processing, etc)... talking about the fact that people dont know how to take pictures period

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: vi_editThe problem though is that with a lot of P&S most people just set it at "auto" and the thing jacks up the ISO sensitivity so high at that point it's all just noisy pixeled crap. Again, I think that the high pixel ratings are really starting to really show the compromises made with the sensors and/or glass in the those tiny little compacts.

If you're getting noisy pixelated crap, it's because your iso rating isn't high enough.

The biggest reason little digital cameras often produce noisy images is because they are little. A bigger lense gathers more light and the little lenses on these really little cameras just don't gather enough light.

 

[Howard]

Just set the resolution lower in-camera, then. No big deal.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Cropping anyone?

Digital noise anyone?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: vi_editThe problem though is that with a lot of P&S most people just set it at "auto" and the thing jacks up the ISO sensitivity so high at that point it's all just noisy pixeled crap. Again, I think that the high pixel ratings are really starting to really show the compromises made with the sensors and/or glass in the those tiny little compacts.

If you're getting noisy pixelated crap, it's because your iso rating isn't high enough.

The biggest reason little digital cameras often produce noisy images is because they are little. A bigger lense gathers more light and the little lenses on these really little cameras just don't gather enough light.

No, you are getting noisy images BECAUSE the ISO is so high. The higher the ISO, the higher the noise. By "higher" I mean 100 --> 200 --> 400 ect. If the ISO was low, you'd simply have an underexposed or blurry image depending on f stop & shutter speeds.

If you set a lot of P&S's to auto they boost the ISO levels beyond the first or 2nd ISO setting (100 or higher on my SD800) it's approaching ugly levels. Anything above 200 and it's downright ugly. And it gets worse when you start cropping in.

 

[EGGO]

Why did they waste their money to buy 10MP when they could've easily overclocked their 7MP camera to 12MP?

 

[Miramonti]

Quality components > high megapixels.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: jtvang125

Originally posted by: Aimster
yes

I want 10MP

I don't print anything, but on the computer it looks great.

But who has a monitor that can display 10MP in full size?

This should work pretty well.
30" LCD

Remember, most digital cameras only really have picture quality equal to 1/3 - 2/3 of the actual stated pixels due to interpolation.

thats a 4MP screen

 

[Minjin]

Alright, I have a photography question since we've gathered all of you.

I have a 6mp camera that bought a little bit ago (W50). When I take pictures of stuff to sell online, I have been taking them at full resolution then resizing them on my computer to 800x600 so they fit most people's screens without scrolling. Am I doing this the right way for image quality? I rarely crop pictures as I normally take the time to properly frame them. Would I be better off setting it to a much lower resolution on the camera?

Here's an example pic. I thought I did a pretty good job without a light box:

Text

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'd be curious to know the actual pixel sizes on the sensor and the optical resolution of the camera's lens(es). It's conceivable (though maybe unlikely) that the optics in the lens could not resolve detail to a level that is smaller than the size of the pixels on the CCD. If that were the case, then the higher pixel count would only capture more of the fuzziness of the lenses -- but what's the point of that?

Additionally, if the pixel sizes are no smaller than those on, say, a 7MP chip, then the only way to capture additional detail is to magnify the image with the lens. Assuming no increase in magnification and no decreasae in pixel size, all you will acquire is a larger frame, not finer detail.

I don't really know very much about consumer or pro-sumer digital cameras, but I would be very surprised to find that the increasing chip resolutions are not due to a decreasing sizes of the individual pixels. That would seem too obvious of a marketing gimmick. I don't have much faith in the camera companies, but well... that would just be too much even for them.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Minjin
Alright, I have a photography question since we've gathered all of you.

I have a 6mp camera that bought a little bit ago (W50). When I take pictures of stuff to sell online, I have been taking them at full resolution then resizing them on my computer to 800x600 so they fit most people's screens without scrolling. Am I doing this the right way for image quality? I rarely crop pictures as I normally take the time to properly frame them. Would I be better off setting it to a much lower resolution on the camera?

Here's an example pic. I thought I did a pretty good job without a light box:

Text

You're better off properly framing the image with the full resolution and then re-sizing the whole image as opposed to cropping. EDIT: And cropping the image post-acquisition is essentially the same as acquiring the original image at a lower resolution.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Minjin
Alright, I have a photography question since we've gathered all of you.

I have a 6mp camera that bought a little bit ago (W50). When I take pictures of stuff to sell online, I have been taking them at full resolution then resizing them on my computer to 800x600 so they fit most people's screens without scrolling. Am I doing this the right way for image quality? I rarely crop pictures as I normally take the time to properly frame them. Would I be better off setting it to a much lower resolution on the camera?

Here's an example pic. I thought I did a pretty good job without a light box:

Text

That's pretty much what I do if I'm posting for web use. Take at full resolution, then just hit them with the resizer power tool for XP. It takes a full 7MP image that's around 4 meg and drops it down to a 1024x768 image that's around 100k. Obviously 800x600 would be even smaller in file size.

For 75k, that's pretty damn sharp Not many compression artifacts there at all. That's with the XP image resizer. Just right click on a picture and choose resize from the menu.

 

[tfinch2]

5 MP is fine. Camera manufacturers should worry more about quality glass, sensor size and sensitivity, better IS, and burst speeds for P&S cameras rather than more MPs.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

One of the most expensive cameras I sell (~$30K) has a 512 x 512 resolution. lol

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: DBL
This should work pretty well.
30" LCD

Remember, most digital cameras only really have picture quality equal to 1/3 - 2/3 of the actual stated pixels due to interpolation.

thats a 4MP screen

Sure but then a 10mp camera is not really a 10mp camera. Each "pixel" on an LCD can display millions of colors while each pixel (or photosite) in a digital camera can only display 1 color. So you aren't actually making a fair comparison by saying "that's a 4mp screen".

That 4mp screen should do a pretty good job of displaying all of the available "real" resolution that the average pic from a 10mp p&s is able to achieve.

 

[Minjin]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Minjin
Alright, I have a photography question since we've gathered all of you.

I have a 6mp camera that bought a little bit ago (W50). When I take pictures of stuff to sell online, I have been taking them at full resolution then resizing them on my computer to 800x600 so they fit most people's screens without scrolling. Am I doing this the right way for image quality? I rarely crop pictures as I normally take the time to properly frame them. Would I be better off setting it to a much lower resolution on the camera?

Here's an example pic. I thought I did a pretty good job without a light box:

Text

That's pretty much what I do if I'm posting for web use. Take at full resolution, then just hit them with the resizer power tool for XP. It takes a full 7MP image that's around 4 meg and drops it down to a 1024x768 image that's around 100k. Obviously 800x600 would be even smaller in file size.

For 75k, that's pretty damn sharp Not many compression artifacts there at all. That's with the XP image resizer. Just right click on a picture and choose resize from the menu.

Hmm...I've been using ACDSee but I've never played with all the compression options. I'd imagine it SHOULD be better than the XP one if its set right.

 

[LS20]

depends on whether the processing on the camera is superior to the processing on photoshop... you just have to compare them yourself

 

[Skotty]

I still use a 1MP camera, and I have to scale the pictures down for use on the web or in email. The only time I could use more is when taking long distance photos where I can't zoom in enough (like at an air show), but in that case I would rather just have a better optical zoom.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Garth
I'd be curious to know the actual pixel sizes on the sensor and the optical resolution of the camera's lens(es). It's conceivable (though maybe unlikely) that the optics in the lens could not resolve detail to a level that is smaller than the size of the pixels on the CCD. If that were the case, then the higher pixel count would only capture more of the fuzziness of the lenses -- but what's the point of that?

Additionally, if the pixel sizes are no smaller than those on, say, a 7MP chip, then the only way to capture additional detail is to magnify the image with the lens. Assuming no increase in magnification and no decreasae in pixel size, all you will acquire is a larger frame, not finer detail.

I don't really know very much about consumer or pro-sumer digital cameras, but I would be very surprised to find that the increasing chip resolutions are not due to a decreasing sizes of the individual pixels. That would seem too obvious of a marketing gimmick. I don't have much faith in the camera companies, but well... that would just be too much even for them.

These cameras can resolve to their stated resolution UNDER THE PROPER CONDITIONS regardless of the size of the lens. That what it really comes down to. Look at a site like dpreview where they take studio shots and you will see the 10mp of a good p&s compare pretty well (say 80-90% of the picture quality) to an equivalent DSLR.

However, in real world conditions, these high mp cameras fail to meet their theoretical potentials by greater and greater margins as they pump up the MPs.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Garth
I'd be curious to know the actual pixel sizes on the sensor and the optical resolution of the camera's lens(es). It's conceivable (though maybe unlikely) that the optics in the lens could not resolve detail to a level that is smaller than the size of the pixels on the CCD. If that were the case, then the higher pixel count would only capture more of the fuzziness of the lenses -- but what's the point of that?

Additionally, if the pixel sizes are no smaller than those on, say, a 7MP chip, then the only way to capture additional detail is to magnify the image with the lens. Assuming no increase in magnification and no decreasae in pixel size, all you will acquire is a larger frame, not finer detail.

I don't really know very much about consumer or pro-sumer digital cameras, but I would be very surprised to find that the increasing chip resolutions are not due to a decreasing sizes of the individual pixels. That would seem too obvious of a marketing gimmick. I don't have much faith in the camera companies, but well... that would just be too much even for them.

actually, the lens on most consumer sub-compact cameras is outresolved by a 10 MP sensor. 6 to 7 MP seems to be about all those lenses are good for.

the pixel sites on most 10 MP cameras are physically smaller than the pixel sites on most 6 MP cameras. that is because it is cheaper to shrink the sensor (through moore's law) than redesigning a lens. most ultra compact digicams use a 1/2.5" sensor, regardless of the resolution of the sensor. if the pixels sites themselves were larger, you'd have to use a different lens to get a similar field of view.

and of course, this MP race doesn't necessarily improve image quality. as i said, most lenses are outresolved by the 10 MP sensors. one of the downsides to the ever decreasing size of the pixel sites is that the signal to noise ratio from the sites is decreasing as well. that results in more noise. so, these chips don't capture much more information, and what information there is is increasingly drowned out by noise. try explaining that to little mary jane rottencrotch in best buy when she wants a camera to party with.

part of the reason fuji's super CCD (which features an almost DSLR like noise level) has so little noise is that they use a lower MP sensor that is 1/1.7" (or about 2x the size of a typical compact). that gives it a better signal to noise ratio than its compact competitors. DSLRs have low noise for the same reason (a 10 MP crop frame DSLR sensor has about 6x the physical area of a 1/2.5" sensor)

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: Garth
I'd be curious to know the actual pixel sizes on the sensor and the optical resolution of the camera's lens(es). It's conceivable (though maybe unlikely) that the optics in the lens could not resolve detail to a level that is smaller than the size of the pixels on the CCD. If that were the case, then the higher pixel count would only capture more of the fuzziness of the lenses -- but what's the point of that?

Additionally, if the pixel sizes are no smaller than those on, say, a 7MP chip, then the only way to capture additional detail is to magnify the image with the lens. Assuming no increase in magnification and no decreasae in pixel size, all you will acquire is a larger frame, not finer detail.

I don't really know very much about consumer or pro-sumer digital cameras, but I would be very surprised to find that the increasing chip resolutions are not due to a decreasing sizes of the individual pixels. That would seem too obvious of a marketing gimmick. I don't have much faith in the camera companies, but well... that would just be too much even for them.

sensors and lenses arent divisible into pixels and cant be described with resolution. a pixel unit is a pixel unit. youre confusing me

 

[soydios]

more megapixels on the same size sensor = more noise
6-8 megapixels is the sweet spot for point and shoot cameras, IMO
anything higher should only be in a DSLR, with its larger sensor

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: DBL
These cameras can resolve to their stated resolution UNDER THE PROPER CONDITIONS regardless of the size of the lens.

What are you talking about? How does the resolution change?