The truth about digital cameras

dezzy · Post by **dezzy** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:17 am

Interesting for all you photography buffs out there . . . http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/ ... s-posts-2/

Do you really need a gazillion megapixels?

Post by **simon** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:53 pm

No you don't. It's an obsession fuelled by marketing people and ignorant consumers who think more = better.

DDtB · Post by **DDtB** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:00 pm

simon wrote:No you don't. It's an obsession fuelled by marketing people and ignorant consumers who think more = better.

Yup... he speaks the truth!

Gareth · Post by **Gareth** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:02 pm

simon wrote:No you don't. It's an obsession fuelled by marketing people and ignorant consumers who think more = better.

What you talkin about Willis!

Post by **simon** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:04 pm

Gareth wrote:What you talkin about Willis!

You!

james · Post by **james** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:56 pm

And the lenses make a big difference too, its not just the CCD resolution.

David Bryce · Post by **David Bryce** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:27 pm

in a hell of allot of compacts the quality is actually getting worse as they try to squeeze even more pixel's into tiny little sensors.

5-6 mega-pixels is more than enough for a compact camera.

and yes, as James said, very few compacts have 'proper' lenses so that combined with the ever increasing pixel count can have a detrimental effect as they struggle to resolve detail.

DDtB · Post by **DDtB** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:22 pm

I'm actually wearing that t-shirt today!..

Gareth · Post by **Gareth** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:41 pm

DDtB wrote:

I'm actually wearing that t-shirt today!..

poah · Post by **poah** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:20 pm

having more pixels means you can print bigger but that does not mean quality. having more mp on these small CCD's means smaller diodes, more aplification and more noise compared to less mp. this can be clearly seen comparing the D2X to the 20D. up to iso 400 there is not much difference in noise but 800 and above on the D2X is poor. I can make A3 prints from gig photos at ISO 1600 and they are still sharp and clear. the the man in the street mp means better but when you consider the majority of people don't print their pictures and only post on the web you don't need many mp at all.

the problem with digital compared to film is dynamic range colour and contrast. while good lenses do help digital (non FF) uses a smaller image circle so the contrast and resolution fall off at the edges of the poor lenses are not affected. At the moment the only way I would go for more MP would be the EOS 1dsmk2 with its FF sensor but that would require the best glass and my pocket even with some new freelance work can't go that deep

Post by **simon** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:02 am

poah wrote:having more pixels means you can print bigger

Yup and this is exactly why for most people it makes no difference beyond 3MP, as they're fine for a 6x4 print.