How many mega pixels do you need to achieve a quality image?

[DanMart25]

I have a Sony Cybershot DSC-W200, can I consider pictures from these as quality image.

 

[Krioni]

Quality rarely has much to do with megapixels.

I've seen some incredible pictures come from 4MP cameras (and probably some from even lower).

Quality has MUCH more to do with the person taking the shot and their understanding of photographic composition, lighting, etc.... and then sometimes just great luck.

 

[Deadtrees]

Based on what do you claim those are quality images?

I don't know much about Sony Cybershot DSC-W200 but I know it's a P&S camera that's got a tiny sensor.
No matter how good the camera is, the limitation is obvious. Tonal response, DR, resolution, and sharpness must be poor when compared to dslr cameras.
They may look fine on your monitor. They may look fine when printed in small size. However, once you print 'em a bit large, the limitation would show up dramatically. What it once was a quality image may no longer hold that quality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that your camera produces poor images no matter what. If you don't see limitations, it's all good. What I'm saying is that the idea of quality image differs from a person to a person.
I know a person who won't touch cameras below 20 mega pixels because of the print size issue. I knew a person who's a resolution/sharpness freak that he always carry a tripod and uses nothing but Sigma dslrs (He must be using something else nowadays). I know a person who's satisfied with his samsung cell phone camera and think it produces quality images. In the end, the idea of quality is just different.

 

[corkyg]

Quality is in the eye of the beholder, and that is linked to the purpose or use of the picture. The number of pixels in a digital image relates directly to the intended image size.

 

[ElFenix]

just in terms of detail a 6 mp camera with a quality lens can produce more detailed images than a 10 mp camera with a cruddy lens.

 

[OdiN]

http://www.ranetworks.net/photos/wedding1.jpg

Taken with a 6MP 10D. 50mm f/1.4 lens.

You can get quality shots with 4MP, etc.

However - what should be considered is the print size. You're not going to get a very good 16x20 print with a 4MP camera. You could probably pull it off with a 6MP with no/minimal cropping. 8MP would be more ideal, though still can be limited. But with typical viewing distance of 16x20, 8MP comes out fine with a good shot.

 

[Jawo]

Whats your definition of quality? What's the end use (web vs 16" x 20" print)? How close are you going to be looking at the printed image? I am not familiar with the camera, but after reading a few reviews it seems that Sony crammed too many pixels on a tiny sensor. 12MP the sensor will produce a large image, but the image quality might not be there (when compared to a similar camera or dSLR).

 

[bendixG15]

Originally posted by: DanMart25
I have a Sony Cybershot DSC-W200, can I consider pictures from these as quality image.

#1 - For family pictures with enlargements not over 8 x 10 , you have quality pictures.

#2 - For everybody else, there is no camera that will ever produce quality pictures that will satisfy all the critics with their golden eyes.

Just takes your pictures and enjoy them.
Don't worry about the critics, they will never be satisfied.
Five years ago, your camera was just a dream.

c h e e s e

 

[Alyx]

I must agree with a lot of the other folks. Depending on how large you want to print (over 8x10) 6MP is actually plenty. From there its all got to do with quality of glass and sensor size among a million other things. I'd look for reviews or sample shots from the camera you want to get or maybe go to the store and play with it to see if its what you want quality wise.

 

[soydios]

4MP would give you the quality needed to make a fairly large print. 6MP gives you some leeway with cropping. more resolution just lets you make bigger prints, or crop more to make the same size print as a lesser-resolution camera.
of course, the anti-aliasing filter does come into play for edge definition and acuity, and the lens is often the limiting factor in compacts or challenging lighting.

 

[Markbnj]

I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

Yeah, but that's a different issue. If the technology for a certain sensor size isn't up the task, then it doesn't make sense to use it. I think that's covered under my "all other things being equal" clause .

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

xsi has similar noise performance as a D40. and it has tons more detail (the D40 looks like a muddy mess in dpreview's noise tests, so does the D60 for that matter). if you have more resolution you can apply more noise reduction and still maintain more detail (unless, like the nikons, there is just mud to begin with).

 

[Stiganator]

Anything over 6MP is icing on the cake for most purposes. If you crop photos a lot, then more can be better, but lenses and people make good images. Plus there is a lot of shenanigans with 'megapixel' numbers, some deconstruct a pixel which is generally RBG and can triple their count by counting each color separately. Sensor size is the other big concern. Bigger sensor is almost always better. Most Point and Shoot cameras all have the same size sensor from 3MP to 12MP. So on the 12MP camera most pixels are lower quality. I've seen 6MP D40 image blown up to the size of a door with very minor image distortion.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Anything over 6MP is icing on the cake for most purposes. If you crop photos a lot, then more can be better, but lenses and people make good images. Plus there is a lot of shenanigans with 'megapixel' numbers, some deconstruct a pixel which is generally RBG and can triple their count by counting each color separately. Sensor size is the other big concern. Bigger sensor is almost always better. Most Point and Shoot cameras all have the same size sensor from 3MP to 12MP. So on the 12MP camera most pixels are lower quality. I've seen 6MP D40 image blown up to the size of a door with very minor image distortion.

Leaving fudged numbers aside, and assuming equivalent sensor quality and processing capability, more pixels should always be better. For a constant field of view more pixels means more samples taken of any given unit of area in that field. That means more accurate color reproduction and more detail.

That said, whether or not anyone will perceive the difference has everything to do with the subject. If you're shooting a sunset across the sea I would expect, say, the difference between 6 and 10 MP to be imperceptible at almost any enlargement factor. On the other hand, if you're shooting closeups of plant life in a garden, it will definitely be a factor. As you enlarge the image the 6 MP camera simply doesn't provide as much color information for each unit of area in the field of view.

I'm trying to be quantitative about something that is mostly qualitative, I know. But as a programmer the way I remove the qualitative considerations is to opt for more data. In any analog->digital conversion more data is almost always good to have if you can get it and process it.

I just bought a 12.1 MP Canon, so I will get to see whether I have put my money where my mouth is, or my foot .

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

xsi has similar noise performance as a D40. and it has tons more detail (the D40 looks like a muddy mess in dpreview's noise tests, so does the D60 for that matter). if you have more resolution you can apply more noise reduction and still maintain more detail (unless, like the nikons, there is just mud to begin with).

the D50 and D40 sensors were the best noise performers in Nikon's lineup a few years ago. and the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was known for good noise performance, but at least it was better than the D2X.

with my D50 I've found that I can get fantastically sharp shots at ISO1600, I just have to absolutely nail the exposure. this is because noise is most prevalent in shadow areas, so you have to expose to minimize those. once I get my tripod back I'll be doing a thorough evaluation of the high-ISO performance of my D50's sensor, and the wide-open vs. stopped-down performance of my lenses.

examples of what I'm talking about (RAW files noise reduced and sharpened in Lightroom, 60% quality full-resolution JPEG export, EXIF data included):
flash exposure on skull, good detail. no flash exposure on background.
available-light stage photography.
not exactly mud, especially from what is today a $300 camera. these aren't my best images, but they show that it just demands the best sharpness from your lenses, your shutter speed, your technique, and your light meter.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

xsi has similar noise performance as a D40. and it has tons more detail (the D40 looks like a muddy mess in dpreview's noise tests, so does the D60 for that matter). if you have more resolution you can apply more noise reduction and still maintain more detail (unless, like the nikons, there is just mud to begin with).

But with the tiny p&s sensors, granted they have become better, my SD200 looked good, but in bright light, I leaned more towards the older S400. Even my newer SD1000 doesn't seem quite as nice as the SD200. Although, it's mostly a moot point because it's pixel peeping.

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Yeah, but that's a different issue. If the technology for a certain sensor size isn't up the task, then it doesn't make sense to use it. I think that's covered under my "all other things being equal" clause .

point taken.

 

[ElFenix]

i need to stop thinking that dpreview can be relied upon.

 

[jpeyton]

I could take award winning, publication-ready professional photos with a 4-megapixel Nikon D2h, as long as it has quality glass attached to it.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

xsi has similar noise performance as a D40. and it has tons more detail (the D40 looks like a muddy mess in dpreview's noise tests, so does the D60 for that matter). if you have more resolution you can apply more noise reduction and still maintain more detail (unless, like the nikons, there is just mud to begin with).

the D50 and D40 sensors were the best noise performers in Nikon's lineup a few years ago. and the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was known for good noise performance, but at least it was better than the D2X.

with my D50 I've found that I can get fantastically sharp shots at ISO1600, I just have to absolutely nail the exposure. this is because noise is most prevalent in shadow areas, so you have to expose to minimize those. once I get my tripod back I'll be doing a thorough evaluation of the high-ISO performance of my D50's sensor, and the wide-open vs. stopped-down performance of my lenses.

examples of what I'm talking about (RAW files noise reduced and sharpened in Lightroom, 60% quality full-resolution JPEG export, EXIF data included):
flash exposure on skull, good detail. no flash exposure on background.
available-light stage photography.
not exactly mud, especially from what is today a $300 camera. these aren't my best images, but they show that it just demands the best sharpness from your lenses, your shutter speed, your technique, and your light meter.

Are you saying the D200/D80/D40x/D60 are worse than the D50 and D40? Does that have something to do with the D50 and D40 having fewer megapixels?

Also, I'd be greatly interested in that evaluation.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

xsi has similar noise performance as a D40. and it has tons more detail (the D40 looks like a muddy mess in dpreview's noise tests, so does the D60 for that matter). if you have more resolution you can apply more noise reduction and still maintain more detail (unless, like the nikons, there is just mud to begin with).

the D50 and D40 sensors were the best noise performers in Nikon's lineup a few years ago. and the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was known for good noise performance, but at least it was better than the D2X.

with my D50 I've found that I can get fantastically sharp shots at ISO1600, I just have to absolutely nail the exposure. this is because noise is most prevalent in shadow areas, so you have to expose to minimize those. once I get my tripod back I'll be doing a thorough evaluation of the high-ISO performance of my D50's sensor, and the wide-open vs. stopped-down performance of my lenses.

examples of what I'm talking about (RAW files noise reduced and sharpened in Lightroom, 60% quality full-resolution JPEG export, EXIF data included):
flash exposure on skull, good detail. no flash exposure on background.
available-light stage photography.
not exactly mud, especially from what is today a $300 camera. these aren't my best images, but they show that it just demands the best sharpness from your lenses, your shutter speed, your technique, and your light meter.

Are you saying the D200/D80/D40x/D60 are worse than the D50 and D40? Does that have something to do with the D50 and D40 having fewer megapixels?

Also, I'd be greatly interested in that evaluation.

Sadly I do not own a D200/D80/D40x/D60, only a D50, so I can't do a head-to-head comparison myself. But from what I can glean of the ridiculously small crops at DPReview, the D200 and D50 are equivalent.
A small bone that I have to pick with DPReview is that the noise tests are conducted on out-of-camera JPEGs, and thus don't take advantage of RAW converters which may use different noise-reduction algorithms. Furthermore, comparisons using no noise reduction would tell us how good the sensor is before software, while equivalent noise reduction would get rid of the high chroma noise Canon leaves in their JPEGs by default. Not to mention that the noise test they use is a very narrow look at the issue, but perhaps that's best for the lowest-common-denominator of the internet.

I do know that the D2X had very poor high-ISO performance, almost uncharacteristically so for a flagship camera. But then again, until the current crop of 12+ megapixel cropped-format DSLRs (D300, A700, A350, K20D, 450D) released in 2007/2008, the 2004-era D2X had the highest pixel density of any DSLR from any of the major manufacturers.
Thankfully the D2H is alright; it produces this quaint film-like grain at high ISO speeds. And of course the D3 kinda blows everyone out of the water at high-ISO. I hope Canon can retaliate with the 5DmkII or 1DmkIV, for competition's sake, because competition usually benefits the consumer.

Having fewer megapixels in a given sensor area results in larger photosites, which capture more photons and generate a greater analog signal, which is the best way to avoid noise. But that definitely is not the only mechanism at work; transistor-level materials and circuit design compromises have a huge impact as well, not to mention software image processing before the final image is written to the card.
For example, the D300/A700 sensor isn't that much more efficient than the D200 sensor, but Nikon's D300 really gets a leg up over the A700 in the software image processing, allowing it to produce surprisingly decent high-ISO results. But the D3's sensor was designed completely in-house by Nikon, and shows all their talents at noise reduction, combining a large photosite size (only the original 2001-era 4MP 1DmkI and 2003-era 4MP D2H use larger photosites out of the modern DSLRs), and hardware and software noise reduction strategies. The fact that the sensor is of the CMOS type is even more surprising, as CCD circuits are traditionally thought of as having lower noise because they are better understood, so Nikon has finally caught up to Canon in CMOS circuit design.

EDIT: yeesh, after reading all of the above, I realize that I focus a lot, perhaps too much, on low-light shooting. meh, goes with the territory of what I do.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I could take award winning, publication-ready professional photos with a 4-megapixel Nikon D2h, as long as it has quality glass attached to it.

One of the aspects of Quality lens is its ability to resolve resolution. In terms of resolution, shitty lens with more MP will outperform quality lens with less MP.
Anyway, 4MP is just way too low and the limitation is just too much to bear. Sure, it may look sweet on your monitor or when printed in small size, but what would you do when if want decent size print?

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Markbnj
I just ordered a new Canon, and I wouldn't have bought anything under 10 MP, personally, but I think you want to stay away from subjective notions of quality.

If a particular photographer is able to get good shots with a 6 MP camera, then having more data isn't going to be a bad thing. All other things being equal, i.e. talent, conditions, subject, optics, etc., I think a 10 MP camera will give you more to work with than a 6 MP camera. There are 4 million additional data samples taken of the light reflecting from the subject. That's good .

it isn't good if it's at the cost of noise.

xsi has similar noise performance as a D40. and it has tons more detail (the D40 looks like a muddy mess in dpreview's noise tests, so does the D60 for that matter). if you have more resolution you can apply more noise reduction and still maintain more detail (unless, like the nikons, there is just mud to begin with).

the D50 and D40 sensors were the best noise performers in Nikon's lineup a few years ago. and the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was known for good noise performance, but at least it was better than the D2X.

with my D50 I've found that I can get fantastically sharp shots at ISO1600, I just have to absolutely nail the exposure. this is because noise is most prevalent in shadow areas, so you have to expose to minimize those. once I get my tripod back I'll be doing a thorough evaluation of the high-ISO performance of my D50's sensor, and the wide-open vs. stopped-down performance of my lenses.

examples of what I'm talking about (RAW files noise reduced and sharpened in Lightroom, 60% quality full-resolution JPEG export, EXIF data included):
flash exposure on skull, good detail. no flash exposure on background.
available-light stage photography.
not exactly mud, especially from what is today a $300 camera. these aren't my best images, but they show that it just demands the best sharpness from your lenses, your shutter speed, your technique, and your light meter.

Are you saying the D200/D80/D40x/D60 are worse than the D50 and D40? Does that have something to do with the D50 and D40 having fewer megapixels?

Also, I'd be greatly interested in that evaluation.

Fewer megapixel doesn't always mean lower noise. Low noise is more about the size of indivisual photosites and image processing algorithms along with sensor design.
Clear example would be Nikon D2H. It's only 4MP but due to the crappy image processing with sensor design, its noise level is far worse than nowadays megapixel crammed cameras.

 

[Deadtrees]

Repost