x
This website is using cookies. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. More info. That's Fine
HPC:Factor Logo 
 
Latest Forum Activity

Digicam resolution, how much is enough?

wallythacker Page Icon Posted 2006-02-22 12:50 AM
#
Avatar image of wallythacker
H/PC Elder

Posts:
2,156
Location:
Barrie, Ontario
Status:
It's to be expected that digicam resolution has risen but are we chasing our tails again? I know a ceiling will be reached at some point, but what is enough versus overkill?

I notice a lot of new 8Mp (and higher) models appearing. At a normal viewing distance could the average person see the difference in an 8X10" print shot with an 8Mp digi versus a 4Mp digi?

First, I'm curious as to how many of us here have a printer that does 11X14 or larger? I don't, and unless said models appear on the market really cheap I've no plans to buy one.

Second, unless you make money with photography how many prints >8X10 are you likely to make in a lifetime?

And lastly, IIRC, "coffee table" (very high quality) books are printed at 150 lines per inch, which is considerably less than the 200 lines per inch I get from my 3.2 Mp Pentax when printing at 8X10".

I guess I see the high mexapixel digicams as a clever marketing ploy to pry more money from the pocket of the consumer, which I guess businesses are obligated to do but does any average point and click photographer really need 8+ megapixels?
 Top of the page
sophisticatedleaf Page Icon Posted 2006-02-22 1:16 AM
#
Avatar image of sophisticatedleaf
H/PC Elder

Posts:
2,294
Location:
Sunny California
Status:
4 is probably fine for most people's needs. If you want better, my friend found a 7.2mp for about $400. But I forgot the model.

It was really nice, but I still prefer my camera...
 Top of the page
wallythacker Page Icon Posted 2006-02-22 1:36 AM
#
Avatar image of wallythacker
H/PC Elder

Posts:
2,156
Location:
Barrie, Ontario
Status:
Me too, I really like the ergonomics and features on my3.2 Mp Optio MX. It's a wierd looking camera but really easy to use. No manual needed, everthing intuitive, great 8X10 prints. I can't see ditching it unless 8Mp cameras fall into the $150 range (which they will, sigh) which probably means different format/larger size flash cards.
 Top of the page
Snake Page Icon Posted 2006-02-22 1:38 AM
#
Avatar image of Snake
Factorite (Senior)

Posts:
97
Location:
USA
Status:
It seriously depends upon 2 factors:

a) what type of "digicam" you are buying
b) what you are going to do with it.

In current technology from 5 to 8MP is the "sweet spot" in terms of having "enough resolution". But things are much, much more complicated than that.

If you buy a digital SLR then I would easily recommend 6 to 8MP, or even higher.

If you buy a "consumer digicam", that is an all-in-one without interchangable lenses, I recommend 4 to 6MP.

Why the difference?

Sensor size.

This is what you have to learn yourself through research because, as usual, the industry does not wish to tell you the dirty laundry so you can buy the "biggest and newest", but not necessarily the "best". In all sensors the only way to increase resolution for the same sensor size (the most common method) is to make each pixel physically smaller. The most common sizes for consumer digicams is 1/1.8 and 1/2.5 - 1/2.7

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

The "dirty laundry" the industry wants to hide is that as resolution increases, but the sensor's overall dimension stays the same, noise in the image increases. This is because the smaller pixels on the higher resolution sensor collect less photons per exposure, as their physical surface area decreases. Therefore more electronic effects from amplification and leakage gets shown as the S/N ratio of the sensor goes down in response to receiving less "original signal" (the light hitting the sensor and making the cell charge change).

On consumer digicams the sensors are very small to begin with; the companies use these small sensors as their required imaging circle shrinks as well. This means that the entire camera, from the optics on back, shrinks in relation to the size of the sensor. This makes smaller cameras and lowers costs. But in the fight to get those higher-and-higher resolution numbers on the outside of the box, to sell the camera in the first place, they must increase resolution while keeping the sensor size the same. And we get the added noise effect.

To see this example pick any 2 cameras where the first model (4 to 5MP) was replaced by a second (8MP). The Nikon 5700 was replaced by the 8700, the Panasonic FZ20 was replaced by the FZ30, etc. In all examples of tests

http://www.dpreview.com/

you will find the resolution went up with the new models, but so did the noise level in the photographs - and actually making the very high ISO settings not as useful.

However if you want a consumer camera and wish to consistently make 8x10 prints then go with the 8MP. If you mostly want smaller than that 5 to 6MP will get, overall, lower noise.

You can always reduce the noise using Noise Ninja with the 8MP if you prefer.

SLR's avoid most of this problem because they must use a much larger sensor due to the fact that they have fitted lenses originally designed for a much larger format (than current common digital), 35mm. So the SLR's use an image sensor that is much larger than consumer digicams - APS-C - and thanks to that vastly increased size noise on a digital SLR is fantastically lower to begin with. So they have plenty of room to increase resolution while maintaining good pixel size, and therefore low noise.
 Top of the page
wallythacker Page Icon Posted 2006-02-23 4:10 AM
#
Avatar image of wallythacker
H/PC Elder

Posts:
2,156
Location:
Barrie, Ontario
Status:
What a wonderful explanation! I knew there must be a trdeoff when adding pixels to an already tiny sensor. Discrimination of noise will reduce.

My 3.2mp Pentax produces , IMO, terrific prints at 8X10 when viewed normally. And I don't produce many prints that size. If I want larger prints I still use my Contax/Ziess 35mms to print to 20x24. Beyond that I borrow my buddies Bronica for huge prints, but that's pretty rare.

So if/when I go hunting for a higher res digi I'll be looking at the noise issue carefully. I think I've settled for a nice 4.1 Mp Olympus for $120 and it will make a fine tote about unit. If I gets mashed, no major loss to me.
 Top of the page
chiark Page Icon Posted 2006-02-23 4:49 AM
#
Avatar image of chiark
H/PC Sensei

Posts:
1,330
Location:
North of England
Status:
Snake has summed it up brilliantly, not a lot to add really.

Two major issues with Digicams:
noise (related to pixel site size, which is a function of sensor size and pixel count)
if pixel count goes up but sensor size stays the same, the pixel sites are getting smaller meaning they capture less photons (units of light) for a given exposure. This means that the signal has to be amplified more, which means that the signal to noise ratio is going to be worse.

lens quality
Anything over, oh, about 2 or 3mp (arbitrary number) can be seriously limited by the lens quality. Poor optics will resolve less detail, lead to chromatic aberration ("purple fringing" in areas of high contrast) and generally suck .

Smaller sensors also seriously increase the depth of field (amount of stuff that's fully in focus) for a given aperture. Some see this as a good thing, I personally see it as a bad thing: I want to control the depth of field. F2.8 on a small lens for a small sensor gives a lot more DOF compared to the standard 35mm. If you're trying to pick a subject out in a photo, that's a bad thing.

It really depends on what you're using your camera for. personally, our family has two cameras: a D70 for when I want to take good photos, and a Canon Ixus to take everywhere that I don't want to take a camera bag to . The D70 is 6MP, which is enough, and the canon is 3MP which is enough for snapshots etc.

Edited by chiark 2006-02-23 4:50 AM
 Top of the page
ShadowMaster Page Icon Posted 2006-02-23 7:40 AM
#
Avatar image of ShadowMaster
H/PC Philosopher

Posts:
297
Location:
Chile
Status:
I have a humble Canon Powershot A510. It provides auto and manual control as well. The camera isn't one of those shrink_into_lighter_size cams but it's still small. Quality is very good even when it's just 3.2Mpx. I guess that is more than enough for me. I like to make some photos with DOF effect, panning, capturing quick action (like drops of water failing) or those cool photos when a subject stand still while everything in the background moves. The PS A510 perform very well with them so I've no complain
However quality also depends on the image logic integrated into the camera. My father once had a Microtek Take-It D1 (3.2Mpx) and the photo quality was awful. You was most likely to need a start map, a sun clock and some astrological instruments to calculate the best angle, time and season for your photos :/
 Top of the page
Jump to forum:
Seconds to generate: 0.156 - Cached queries : 61 - Executed queries : 12