The Megapixel Myth

[Photoadder]

Who would by a cell phone for the camera?

It was just an example so that people exiting of MP.

 

[Village Idiot]

[Scribbles Note] Do not start anymore technical discussion threads.

Actually, your note should say, "Don't bring up Ken Rockwell as a valid source of information."

Ken Rockwell is a joke.

MP do matter. If you have a 21mp image that's the exact same image as an 8mp image, you can downsize the larger image for incresed clarity, sharpness, and noise reduction as long as it's size will fit your needs

 

[ANDS!]

I'd trust what Ken Rockwell says over anything anyone in this forum (well most anyone, there are quite a few people in this thread whose opinion is gold) says.

The problem - and its STILL a problem I see - that people have is that they don't UNDERSTAND the base from which KR is arguing from. For the MAJORITY of shooters out there, megapixels do not matter. Five years ago or so they didn't matter, when the upper limit was what - 12MP? Today they don't matter when we are pushing 24MP. Why? Because the tech that we have that marries them all together has an "upper" limit. Most cameras already sit around that upper limit. People will toss around "Oh hahah. . .he's such an idiot - yea lets see him print that 2MP image on glossy 13X19 paper!!" Just how many 2MP DSLR's are out there right now? Not how many there WERE but how many are in the hands of ACTIVE shooters?

Go to print a photograph, that came from a 6-12MP camera, and generally you are going to be printing it at 8.5X11. Hell, I have a 13X19 print from a 6MP camera. It looks awesomesauce. THAT is the point - the technology we have is built around this limiting factor (whether it be in the print side, or capture side) - so that all dSLR's (perhaps not compacts with less sophisticated sensors) are capable of getting the job done print wise. Would MP be nice for more detailed crops - sure; but the counter to that is - get a better shot next time.

So, in summation members of the jury - megapixels matter - up to a point. And at this point, there is no camera being marketed today as a dSLR that has a megapixel limitation on it preventing it from taking advantage of print technology.

 

[bdavison]

The problem with Ken Rockwell is he totally misses valid points in a discussion just so he can come to HIS conclusion.

He's notorious for getting just enough information to sound credible, but leaving out important parts of the story.

MP do matter. If Ken Rockwell doesnt think so, he can feel free to go back to 640x480 pics anytime he wants. We can all laugh when he prints it 11x12 and it looks like crap.

Oh, wait....according to his logic, he can view it from the house next door to make it "look" ok. Sheesh.

 

[ANDS!]

What camera out there is capable of even shooting out 640x480 pictures as a MAXIMUM? Even when he wrote that, I believe 3MP was about the average you might see on P&S cameras and that is still enough to get satisfactory 4X6 and (depending on the up sampling algorithm used) even 8.5X11.

This:

For normal 4x6" (10x15cm) prints, even VGA (640 x 480 or 0.3MP) resolution is just fine. Digital cameras did this back in 1991!

In 1999 when digital cameras were only 1.2 or 2 MP, each megapixel mattered if you were making bigger prints.

Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.

- is the beginning of that essay. From the above flows the basics of his argument. You can refute what he is saying, but attributing comments to him that he hasn't said is dishonest.

 

[dcclark]

Speaking as a professional mathematician, I can demonstrate quite easily how megapixels affect print quality (dpi/ppi) much less than you may think.

The easiest to quote result is: to print a 24x36 inch poster at 300 DPI, you would need a 77 MP camera. Does anyone have that?

Another useful rule of thumb: doubling the number of megapixels only increases your print quality (DPI/PPI) by a factor of 1.4.

If you print a 2:3 ratio image at 8x12, it will have exactly the same resolution as the same image cropped and printed at 8x10 (assuming you only crop off the minimum necessary).

Finally, and most importantly: I have printed 16x20 and 16x24 posters from a 10 MP D40x, and even a 7 MP pocket cam. The images are great -- nobody cares that they're printed at 110 DPI, because they look great.

Edit: If you want to check those calculations yourself, use this formula:

DPI = SquareRoot( MP*1,000,000 / (w*h) )

where MP is megapixels ( say, 6 or 10 ) and (w*h) is width times height in inches.

 

[AshDav]

I wrote a guide to megapixels a while ago and pretty much came to the same conclusion.
You can see it here. Megapixels - What are they and how many do i need? | Photo Guides

6 megapixels is all you need. People just automatically think that the higher the number is, the better the camera.
Also, cheap high megapixel cameras have shocking CCDs as speckled and noisy as a broken kaleidoscope.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I wrote a guide to megapixels a while ago and pretty much came to the same conclusion.
You can see it here. Megapixels - What are they and how many do i need? | Photo Guides

6 megapixels is all you need. People just automatically think that the higher the number is, the better the camera.
Also, cheap high megapixel cameras have shocking CCDs as speckled and noisy as a broken kaleidoscope.

Some people do need more, you can't speak for everyone. My old camera was 6MP, I cropped a sports shot of a horse a lot, it is frozen perfectly, but I fear I cropped too much, it isnt as sharp as I would like it to be... Something higher than 6MP would have really helped me out...