Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Not sure if any one else has a view on this.
Over recent years as the DSLR pixel race developed between the manufacturers, it seems that a 'sweet' spot for picture quality came at around 12mp but was left behind as larger pixel numbers were produced. Often higher pixel counts on later cameras were not exhibiting as good a picture quality as previous lower pixel count models, [in some cases].
It seems that many cameras with around 12mp were producing super picture definition and quality. To name just a few, Nikon D90, Canon 450D, Pentax Kr, Olympus E-620, Etc.
I'm not that technically minded, but it would be interesting to hear peoples views on this.
Pete
Over a pint, before the D3X had been released, one of the Nikon people told me that 12MP was a sort of optimum figure for a DX sensor that gave a good balance between good sharpness and low noise. This was a reason for the "pause" in the pixel race. The D3X effectively has a pair of 12MP DX size sensors mounted side by side.
One of the basic engineering laws is that we don't get owt for nowt, especially when a technology reaches maturity. Optical design has reached that point with the current "pro" lenses. The Nikon Ultra Micro Nikkor lenses are considerably sharper than the regular Micro Nikkors but must be used for a single reproduction ratio, with a particular colour of light and at or near full aperture - hardly suitable for general photography.
12MP gives pix that are good enough for social photographers. Fashion photographers need more and so they use a larger format where the sensors have much the same pixel density as the 12MP on DX.
for me pixel count is only relevant when you shoot raw and the set up is spot on...to compare format and sensor size pixel counts is also for me pointless..it reminds me of the days when AP took shots of a boat on the Thames thru the compressed ariel moisture and then offered the magazine prints as a yardstick
I have quoted before on this site the quality of my old contax tvs when its files were printed at my local colour lab...they were superb despite its lack of pixels by todays count
The only realistic attempt I have made at a comparison is to view identical sections of the downloaded raw images from a friends D700 to my images of the same building on the same day in my D90 at the same settings on the same screen side by side...I have not yet bought a D700 so my conclusions are obvious.
better...yes
better at a £200 trade in and £1600 to find...NO
We have been "round the houses" a few times on this subject and we are never going to agree on it. Usually the discussion degenerates to a stage where it is producing much more smoke than light.
All I can do is repeat my view as it pertains to my own brand of amateur photography.
I take photographs for two primary purposes - to produce prints that are good enough (imho) to hang on a wall in my home and to produce prints that are good enough (ijho*) to compete in camera club competitions.
Generally, for those purposes, I am not looking to produce anything larger than an A3+ print from maybe a 50% crop of the original image area.
Within those limits I certainly do not need more than 12Mp. My personal preference would be to see enhancements of sensor technology that allowed a greater dynamic range to be captured and possibly two or three more EV of ISO before any digital noise became noticeable.
.
* "ijho" = "in judges' humble opinion!" 
.
Quote:
Over recent years as the DSLR pixel race developed between the manufacturers, it seems that a 'sweet' spot for picture quality came at around 12mp but was left behind as larger pixel numbers were produced. Often higher pixel counts on later cameras were not exhibiting as good a picture quality as previous lower pixel count models, [in some cases].
There's another thread on the pixel "race" just recently but it rapidly descended into bad language and personal abuse. This is a touchy subject.
I'd challenge your statement that "the sweet spot for picture quality came at around 12Mp but was left behind as larger pixel numbers were produced". The latest Sony 16Mp sensor, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for APS-C sensors, is way better than the old Sony 12Mp sensor in the Nikon D90 - not only in detail but in ISO and dynamic range too. The Canon 18Mp sensor in the 7D gets great reviews too. No manufacturer is going back to 12Mp sensors on APS-C cameras. In fact Sony's latest APS-C sensor is 24Mp and its output exhibits more detail than their old 16Mp sensor and equal dynamic range while not losing out on high ISO performance. So I guess it will become the new gold standard.
When you get into the world of DSLR cameras you have to understand that there are a lot of traditionalists around - people who have used 35mm film DSLRs for decades (and have stuck with the same camera all their lives). The rapid evolution of the digital DSLR is disconcerting - and potentially expensive. Every generation the AF gets better, the cpu speed gets better, the sensor sesitivity gets better, the DR gets better, the detail gets better, the fps gets better, the features get better, etc, etc. And it's always annoying when you buy something and then they bring out a new model. So, many people try to justify their choice by arguing that the new model is worse than the old model. Of course they're almost always wrong, but one area of digital cameras that is open to attack is the megapixel count.
When the sensel density is increased, for a particular sensor size, the noise level generated by the individual sensels rises - because each sensel captures fewer photons for any given ISO setting. So, the common argument goes, these sensors are more noisy. No, not when the image is resized to the size of the smaller pixel count sensor. There's little difference in noise. Some quote theoretical arguments about diffraction levels that show the optimum level for APS-C is 7Mp. Well, I think the empirical evidence is slightly against this.
The bottom line is that the limiting factor is the lens resolution and a good lens on an APS-C Bayer sensor will handle over 30Mp. Of course the compact cameras have already gone beyond this density. I guess DSLR cameras will also overshoot the limit, but we have a way to go yet. The traditionalists will eventually have to buy a new camera (when their old one is beyond economic repair - something that rarely happened with film cameras) and they'll have to buy a much higher megapixel count camera than the one they had. And it will be better than their old camera - but they will keep this very quiet.
It was just an observation of mine. Reading one remark from Olympus where they said they couldn't see any gain in picture quality going beyond 12mp, mind you thats 4 thirds and such will probably not apply to the APS-C cameras, although I'm sure Panasonic beg to differ. I have noticed though that quite a few cameras hovering around the 12mp mark have had very good noise levels and good definition.
You are quite right though, none are going back to 12mp, even though in some circumstances it might be beneficial, but it would be committing suicide if they did. Interesting subject and I cannot pretend to know all the science behind it.
Pete
Kodachrome I think you have the measure of it. Should you have some spare time you could always read this and the many others like it. To my eyes and experience plus understanding of optics, like most of the contributors to this thread I find 12mp is a sweet spot on the APS crop cameras, yes you can have more but its into the land of diminishing returns (the maths around diffraction is not new but we need to separate real resolution from pixel count). Even with 10mp I can see diffraction and its a thought at f11 and alive and well by f16. more pixels will bring that point closer.
And if you want high ISO the maths around error signals etc are not new either and there comes a time when bigger pixels are better. Again it is the maths, the point at which this occurs varies with technology and operating condition.
Manufacturers often want a number that says "Wow look this is bigger (or smaller) so better" its all part of the task to get you to spend your cash. So if you have a decent recent 12mp camera I would ask you to check if the newer 16 or 24Mp camera adds a lot. If not and you need a new camera then go for the newer camera. Some people get off on the hype and trot out arguments of no impact of more pixels, but if you know optics and electronics, it can be hard to sit back and watch these people put incomplete understanding forwards as a fact, when it is not.
Its not knocking the new, its asking people where is the value. That is a different equation. Its like buying cars by looking at top speed. It is a parameter, but as you get past 70mph you go past the legal limits etc and start heading into areas where its academic, you cannot use that aspect of performance. Now its good to have a car than can go faster than 70, but how fast???? School boys trade top speed and 0-60, drivers look to the other parameters as well.
And so it is with cameras. As you get more than 12mp I think it is the point to start looking at other parameters. And sometimes the manufacturers get it wrong
Wow Strawman
Very good way of putting it. I know one camera manufacturer [not Canon or Nikon] has said its not so much how many pixels you throw at the sensor, its how you process it.
Also, optics are being left behind in being able to handle these very high pixel counts.
Pete
Quote:
I know one camera manufacturer [not Canon or Nikon] has said its not so much how many pixels you throw at the sensor, its how you process it.
It's a combination of both.
Quote:
Also, optics are being left behind in being able to handle these very high pixel counts.
That's true in the case of compact cameras, some of which have pixel densities that equate to well over 100Mp on an APS-C sensor. It's not true in the case of current APS-C cameras - which are nowhere near outresolving their lenses, even at 24Mp. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and all the reviews of the new 24Mp sensor say that it delivers better detail than the 16Mp sensor. There's little point in quoting theory and mathematical equations when the empirical evidence says the extra pixels are delivering more detail without more noise or loss of DR.
I'm afraid the argument that the camera manufacturers are taking buyers for mugs who will buy anything because it has more megapixels is a little fatuous. Especially when it's applied to cameras that are competing in the semi-professional market. The manufacturers are upping the Mp count because it gives better pictures. The new Nikon D400 will have 24Mp and it's ridiculous to suggest that Nikon and Sony are just playing marketing games. Good DSLR lenses resolve a huge amount of detail and a 12Mp sensor is discarding a lot of it. That's OK if you don't need the detail (because of the size of your print) but there are many occasions when you DO want the detail - such as when you crop the image. And even if you don't need a large print a resized high MP picture still delivers better detail than a picture created by a lower Mp camera.
When the pixel count gets to a point that it's not improving the image quality the race will stop (as it seems to have done with the compacts) - but it's not there yet. There are some specialist applications where super-high ISO ability is required and the slight extra noise generated by extra pixels (read noise, etc) is significant so a lower pixel density is used, but we're talking very high ISO here - most people don't go above 3200.
Quote: , but we're talking very high ISO here - most people don't go above 3200.
Most of the time that is reasonable SW. I would certainly only feel any benefit from going above ISO 3200 in a few specialist conditions.
For example:
When trying to get a shot of a raptor, in poorish light, with a 500mm lens hand-held with a small enough aperture to get the whole bird in focus. 1/2000 at f/16 at ISO 12800 could be a very useful combination in those circumstances.
That's why, at present, I would value a bit more High ISO with a bit less noise, rather than even more pixels than my D3s currently provides.
Remember its not just high ISO its also long exposure performance and real dynamic range (as in what you can extract rather than the confusable test based on the sensor tone curve.)
Quote: It's not true in the case of current APS-C cameras - which are nowhere near outresolving their lenses, even at 24Mp.
Any proof? Not all achieve 12mp levels of resolution. And remember the best lenses from the top 3 are designed to fill full frame requirements so are already cropped. seriously if you want a lot of resolution go full frame, it is not for no reason the camera manufacturers kept the full frame cameras going.
Quote: Especially when it's applied to cameras that are competing in the semi-professional market. The manufacturers are upping the Mp count because it gives better pictures.
And you know this how? How can you say it is not for marketing reasons? Do Sony retail the A65 as a professional camera?
Just remember the high ISO test showed an answer that more pixels hurt (from ISO1600 up the A77 suffers compared to the pack and 1600 is quite usable). What if the standard lens test showed more pixels gave negligible benefit, or the diffraction test showed that there was no real detail gain. Plenty to answer before we decide there is an advantage for many photographers in having more pixels on APS - today. Its a moving target.
Quote: I know one camera manufacturer [not Canon or Nikon] has said its not so much how many pixels you throw at the sensor, its how you process it.
It's a combination of both.
Also, optics are being left behind in being able to handle these very high pixel counts.
That's true in the case of compact cameras, some of which have pixel densities that equate to well over 100Mp on an APS-C sensor. It's not true in the case of current APS-C cameras - which are nowhere near outresolving their lenses, even at 24Mp. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and all the reviews of the new 24Mp sensor say that it delivers better detail than the 16Mp sensor. There's little point in quoting theory and mathematical equations when the empirical evidence says the extra pixels are delivering more detail without more noise or loss of DR.
It is probably true to say that most lenses cannot handle the high MP counts, simply because issues such as purple fringing and edge softness become too apparent in large prints, especially when the lens is used wide open, or nearly so. The so called professional lenses can make use of the resolution, but most people who buy the so-called non pro bodies probably do not buy these lenses. And in addition if you are doing an A3+ sized print, you need very good technique, which may mean a very good tripod and head, which most owners of a D7000 probably do not own, though that is a guess, and use of techniques such as a cable release and mirror lock up.
As far as more detail and noise is concerned, you are conflating improvements in technology with differences in pixel size. There are not many sensors with different pixel pitch that can be compared directly, and as discussed before, there seems to be a small increase in noise (of the order of half a stop, impossible to quantify) from for example doubling the pixel count. And as some pointed out, at extreme ISO values the high density sensors go to pot, whereas lower density ones produce usable images.
Quote:
I'm afraid the argument that the camera manufacturers are taking buyers for mugs who will buy anything because it has more megapixels is a little fatuous. Especially when it's applied to cameras that are competing in the semi-professional market. The manufacturers are upping the Mp count because it gives better pictures. The new Nikon D400 will have 24Mp and it's ridiculous to suggest that Nikon and Sony are just playing marketing games. Good DSLR lenses resolve a huge amount of detail and a 12Mp sensor is discarding a lot of it. That's OK if you don't need the detail (because of the size of your print) but there are many occasions when you DO want the detail - such as when you crop the image. And even if you don't need a large print a resized high MP picture still delivers better detail than a picture created by a lower Mp camera.
When the pixel count gets to a point that it's not improving the image quality the race will stop (as it seems to have done with the compacts) - but it's not there yet. There are some specialist applications where super-high ISO ability is required and the slight extra noise generated by extra pixels (read noise, etc) is significant so a lower pixel density is used, but we're talking very high ISO here - most people don't go above 3200.
I am sure there is a large marketing element to the MP race, though like you I cannot prove my argument, and hence this is mere conjecture.
However, one point not mentioned is that most cameras use a Bayer sensor, which means that the actual resolution in each colour channel is much less than the nominal value i.e. a 12MP sensor might correlate to ~5MP per colour channel. So higher pixel counts might lead to better tonal gradations in certain circumstances, even though black and white resolution charts show no advantage. Just a guess with no proof.
Quote: Any proof? Not all achieve 12mp levels of resolution.
If you examine the DPR ratings of the progression from the Nikon D300s (12Mp Sony sensor) through the Nikon D7000 (16Mp Sony sensor) to the Sony A77 (24Mp), you'll find that the perceived image quality goes steadily up - in fact most of the ratings go steadily up. If you read the reviews you'll find many references to the incredible detail that the A77 pulls out (and you'll find that other reviewers also say this). And these are people who have actually tested the new 24Mp sensor Strawman which you haven't - they're not just relying on mathematical equations and old articles on LL for their views.
Quote: And in addition if you are doing an A3+ sized print, you need very good technique, which may mean a very good tripod and head, which most owners of a D7000 probably do not own, though that is a guess, and use of techniques such as a cable release and mirror lock up.
Agreed. But there's no reason why a D7000 owner shouldn't have good tripod - I bought a Benro graphite tripod and head from China recently for under £200 that's absolutely rock solid even with big heavy lenses on it. Of course the new SLTs don't have a mirror (so no need for lock up) and they also have the capability of using a purely electronic shutter so that even the slight shake from the mechanical shutter can be eliminated. I guess the new Nikon D400 will be a standard DSLR and it's entirely possible that the slight shake caused by the mirror movement will spoil its output.
When you get into what a pixel actually is with regard to a Bayer sensor it all gets incredibly complex. Is a 24Mp Bayer sensor really just a 6Mp sensor? Is the new Sigma SD1 APS-C camera really equivalent to a Bayer 46Mp sensor? Who knows. I prefer to just look at the empirical evidence i.e. the reviews and various image comparisons that people post on forums that all seem to show the new 24Mp sensor to give pretty amazing detail.
Steps
You seem to be pretty clued up on all things digital, could you do me a favour and explain in simple terms how these DoXMARK sensor scores correlate to picture quality.
Looking at their web site is confusing to me but then I don't pretend to know it all.
Cheers
Pete
I guess the number of people who notice lenses with CA and soft results are deluded? And have the rules of mathematics that govern lens design and performance changed? That LL article is as valid now as it has been for the length of time there has been life on earth and even longer. On detail read Thom Hogan from June last year. The laws of physics are there or are there a special set that apply to 24mp cameras 
Quote: I prefer to just look at the empirical evidence
Again I ask you to show me an A3 print where the 24mp image is clearly better than the image from a 16mp camera. And take some images with the A65 kit lens and show me it is a lot better (enough to justify the extra on the body).
As has been said many times at low ISO the results are good, but there is the question that many ask. How much resolution do you need for your work, how good do the lenses need to be, and is there a penalty at higher ISO and can you keep the camera/subject still enough to use the extra resolution. If your work does not need the extra resolution then it is a waste, better to have something else.
And cropping comes up, now normally it is to avoid the cost of lenses, i.e I can use my 70-300 zoom rather than buying say a 150-500 zoom or a 400mm prime. But the problem is if it is a low cost lens then with CA etc, it will be struggling to satisfy the 12mp sensor so going in in more detail shows up lens imperfection and focusing imperfection and stability/IS issues. And often you use them wide open for wildlife (if its not wildlife then just use your built in zoom feature known as legs and walk closer 
) OK, you stop it down to get more performance but that means raising the ISO and what does more pixels mean..... And you have lost the ability to trade resolution for noise performance. Its a circular type decent. So if you have an old 12mp camera, say an A700 or D90. Is it better to spend the money on a longer lens than buying a new camera body????
When you put a 10mm lens on your lens at the beach are you photographing the shore line or the individual grains of sand.......
All I am asking is people evaluate whether 24mp adds anything that the 12 or 16mp camera does not cover. Its a simple value question? More is not always good, sometimes less is more.
Having seen images from a 6mp camera projected onto a wall I often wonder what resolution do you need. And on reflection, when I went from 6mp to 10mp it was the improved noise performance I noticed, not resolution. And that was due to technology improvements. So how important is resolution. The human brain reads images in a certain way. you react to changes in luminance and colour, then contrast elements and then resolution.
The next camera I buy will have more than 12mp because that is how it is. What Iwill be looking for is more dynamic range and lower noise and features like wireless flash. The resolution box is already ticked.
Just looking for balance.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top