Camera technology

douglassue

There are always questions about how sophisticated a camera one needs, e.g., say, on safari. Generally, folks on the K-T forum agree that it's really good to have a telephoto that goes out to 300 mm.

But, the question of how many megapixels one needs in a camera is something that always seems to be debated.

I'd like to say that the question recently got settled for my own use:

I was given a commercial photographic printer -- a 240 pound elephant used in a visual arts firm. I used it for awhile but the ink cartridges were killing me -- 12 carts, $79-$250 a cartridge, depending on size.

But I learned, with the commercial -- industrial printer, that my smallish 16 megapixel micro-four thirds camera actually produced 24 x 30 inch prints with fine very fine detail -- you could see all the hairs on a lion, etc. So, I was really pleased.

I asked my instructor about that, a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer and he said, sure, the argument for a lot of megapixels in todays cameras seems a bit moot.

Doug

Ken from Vegas

Megapixels are probably the most misunderstood statistic of camera performance. While most recent cameras have way more megapixels than the typical user will need, it's an easy number to quote. Physical sensor dimensions are probably more important than pixels. A larger sensor will give you (as a general rule) better low light performance and allow you to get shallower depth of field (if that's what you're seeking). On some of the latest DSLRs, the megapixel density is so high that the resolving power of the sensor is better than many lenses. I suspect this is true of some point and shoot cameras, as well.

It's a shame that megapixels are the statistic that get quoted so much. On cameras with small sensors (like a superzoom or a point and shoot) you could probably get better pictures (less noise in low light) if they reduced the number of pixels. Unfortunately, there isn't a simple number that shows that.

The only good thing about high pixed counts is the ability to crop the photo and still have enough resolution for a good print. Of course the purists would say that you should have gotten the framing right "in camera."

BKMD

For most people, megapixels is marketing BS, similar to the old days when people though a 15 transistor radio was better than a 12 transistor radio.

Unless you're making large prints, the maximum megapixel number in your camera or cell phone is way more than you need, especially if you're simply posting to a web site. The large file also consume a lot of unnecessary data, which can cost you if you have a limited 4G plan and aren't using wifi.

AlanS

BKMD wrote:

For most people, megapixels is marketing BS, similar to the old days when people though a 15 transistor radio was better than a 12 transistor radio.

Unless you're making large prints, the maximum megapixel number in your camera or cell phone is way more than you need, especially if you're simply posting to a web site. The large file also consume a lot of unnecessary data, which can cost you if you have a limited 4G plan and aren't using wifi.

People need to consider what they will do with their photos- high megapixel photos do nothing for you if all you will do is upload them to social media. I had a couple of magazine articles published for which I also shot all the photos. At the time all I had was a 12 mega pixel DSLR. When I asked about this, my editor reminded me that the magazine only prints in 300 dots per inch.

Speaking of transistor radios of old- When I was a kid we had a new SUPER 6 transistor radio in the guest room. It ran on batteries or AC plug. My brother and I wanted to take the radio outside but first had to open it to insert batteries. When we looked at the circuit we noticed all three leads of one transistor were connected to the same point, not to circuitry! While it technically had 6 transistors only 5 were used!

BSP51

douglassue

Amazing photos. Thanks for sharing!

Bryan

douglassue

Thank you!