- This topic is empty.
The truth about digital photography, megapixels dont matter
-
Its not the first time I’ve seen articles like this and to a degree they are probably right……….eg. Difference between say a 12mega pixel camera and a 16 may not be worth the extra cost in aquiring the upgrade.
GCP wrote:
Difference between say a 12mega pixel camera and a 16 may not be worth the extra cost in aquiring the upgrade.
In terms of megapixels, quite possibly not. But more often than not, as you move up in megapxiels, you’re also buying additional quality/features (focus, exposure etc). Interesting article though!
It’s interesting – I also saw this article via ‘Lifehacker’ (http://www.lifehacker.com/software/shopping/why-your-new-cameras-megapixels-dont-matter-216422.php).
When I looked at the many comments posted on the original nytimes site, most were along the lines of “about time someone told the truth here”.
However, when I read the ones posted via Lifehacker, they were much more along the lines of “oversimplification, poor methodology, meaningless test”.I would sway towards the Lifehacker view.
I think it is ridiculous to just say “Megapixels don’t matter”, without any qualification. Sure they don’t matter if all you do is print 4 x 6 prints of your pet cat.
On the other hand, if you’re taking landscapes and producing large prints – they may begin to matter quite a lot, especially if you’re cropping.
However it is very true to say “Megapixels may not matter – and aren’t the only thing to take into account. Sometimes, they aren’t event he most important thing” .As always, the photographer is the most important link in the chain.
cc FrankC- Extra megapixels ar absolutely no use- until you need them.
Its probably useful advice for someone who, in the old days, would have had a christmas tree at each end, and a beach in the middle, of his annual roll of film.
I’d hate to think what he’d make of my 5×4 kit-jb7 wrote:
would have had a christmas tree at each end, and a beach in the middle, of his annual roll of film.
:lol: thats a good one :wink:
Hang on, I think I still have a few rolls of unprocessed film like that myself :oops:
the test is far from scientific and is probably flawed, but we generally do agree that image quality depends more on optics than megapixels
i wonder at how many people have ignored my advice over the years to buy average bodies and top optics and not the other way round :roll:
ciaran wrote:
In terms of megapixels, quite possibly not. But more often than not, as you move up in megapxiels, you’re also buying additional quality/features (focus, exposure etc). Interesting article though!
Yes….Ciaran I think you’ve just made a very valid point there. 1000 Megapixels wont compensate for a crap lens or an out of focus pic.
Where it’s important is in pro work with good lenses etc. There 16Mpx may well have a worthwhile edge over 12.
Where it doesn’t matter a damn is in consumer point and shoots. Most p’n’s yusers won’t even be using Photoshop or printing beyond 8×10 or even 6×4. For that, 4Mpx is entirely adequate, and any more will just hopelessly outresolve the tiddly little trying-to-overachieve-and-failing 12x zoom lenses they stick on these things.
My 4Mpx Fuji quite easily outresolves its lens, so the sense in sticking a noisier 10Mpx sensor into the same box is lost on me. But no doubt Joe Argos punter thinks he’s getting a sharper result than Joe Dixons, his neighbour, so that’s what matters ;)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
