MegaPixel Myth

[ScottDesantis]

If one were judging the quality of a photograph how important are the amount of megapixels your camera has versus the skill of the photographer?
Are these new cameras with higher MP just a ploy by manufacturers to get you to replace your camera each year when in reality their is no change in the quality of photos these camera take?

[Biomech]

Well, it's a low importance compared to much else, but also a lot of importance as if you shoot RAW it takes up a shed load more room.

But it's worth noting that more MP can be a bad thing as you're trying to cram even more data into the same small space which can case image degredation. If you're shooting products for giant commercial use, you might want something large, otherwise, forget about them and look at others features, lens quality etc

[dlambert]

It's slightly more complicated than that, but you're correct in questioning the "more is better" idea. A comprehensive answer is going to be pretty lengthy, but some of the factors that weigh on image quality include the quality of your lenses, the pixel density of the sensor, sensor size, the camera's image processor, post-processing techniques used, lighting, and yes, the skill of the photographer.

It's also not quite true to say that newer cameras aren't improving on older ones, because some of the new sensors and image processors are doing amazing things with low-light performance, dynamic range, and so on.

[kirbinster]

Raw has nothing to do with number of mega pixels, only storage space on your memory card. For most there is a point of diminishing return from increased mega pixels. I rather have 10 than 6, but much above that is not a big issue unless you are making very large prints. More does give you more freedom to crop an image. Sensor size is an issue too. I rather have 12mp on an FX camera than 12 on a DX camera.

[SwissJon]

Hmm.. Interesting question..

Photographer skill is definitely the most important thing.. A rubbish photographer can't take a good photo with a 24MPix camera, a good photographer can take a good photo with a 5mpix camera on your iPhone, but give that photographer a 24mpix camera, the photo will more likely be better.

The thing about the new cameras is that the circle of confusion and other things like chromatic abberration start to become important.. The more mpix you squeeze into a sensor, the smaller the pixel. The smaller the pixels the bigger the relative optical problems, so the higher the quality of the lens you need in order to create prefect looking images when you blow the picture up to its largest size.


So essentially, yes, the camera firms are pushing their products onto you in order to make money from you. Are you able to take decent pictures with last years camera? Yes.. Are you able to take better pictures from this years camera? Yes, even more so if you splash out on a top of the range lens.. Would you as an amateur photographer notice the difference in your own photography? Probably not.

[Biomech]

Raw has nothing to do with number of mega pixels

More MP, more data, bigger the RAW file.
RAW and MP have a lot to do with each other.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by Biomech

More MP, more data, bigger the RAW file.
RAW and MP have a lot to do with each other.

RAW has nothing to do with the issue of image quality from a sensor versus megapixel. As megapixels go up file size goes up for both jpeg and raw, this is not an issue that relates to raw. The question was how does megapixels impact image quality not file size - they are two totally different issues.

[RichardTaylor]

Quote by ScottDesantis
"when in reality their is no change in the quality of photos these camera take?"
End quote.
That is cameras with more megapixels.

For some cameras, mostly DSLRs this statement is incorrect.

For cameras with very small sensors - this statement may be correct.

@ ScottDesantis
How do you define quality?
Technical or esthetic?

[Biomech]

RAW has nothing to do with the issue of image quality from a sensor versus megapixel

I never said it did, I pointed out that MP can be an issue if you shoot RAW, it is for me; my main camera is a 16MP up from my old 10.2MP. I didn't want the 16 and I've just had to go an buy another 2TB of space because the files are 50% bigger than before when I don't need them to be.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by ScottDesantis

If one were judging the quality of a photograph how important are the amount of megapixels your camera has versus the skill of the photographer?

Depends on what I'm judging for, and at what size.

Higher input resolution means you can achieve higher output size without having to "upscale" and interpolate data that isn't there. Think about an avatar image. It looks fine at a small size, but try to upscale that to something larger, and it starts to look like crap. Think of NTSC or PAL vs. 1080p 60Hz on your flatscreen. If you're planning on printing something out at poster sizes, you might want more than 6MP. If you're only printing out 8x10s, you might not see any difference between 6, 10 or 20 megapixels.

The skill of the photographer is paramount in thinking up a compelling image. All the technical excellence in the world can't make up for a boring image.

But photography is a technology-bounded art. You can paint without a brush and write without a computer, but a photographer needs a camera just to be a photographer. People will continually and constantly bleat "it's the photographer not the camera." But the best photographer in the world can't take a picture without any camera at all. The gear still matters.

Are these new cameras with higher MP just a ploy by manufacturers to get you to replace your camera each year when in reality their is no change in the quality of photos these camera take?

Not really. Canon in fact is lowering the MP count on their P&S cameras, having realized that they overstepped and were hurting image quality by cramming more/smaller pixels onto itsy bitsy sensors (the G10 had 14.7MP. The G11 & G12 have 10MP). The new race seems to be one of high-iso performance. And probably after that, we'll have a dynamic range race or whatever else is the argument du jour on what makes a good camera.

I would not say there's "no change" from generation to generation. But I would agree, it's not a cataclysmic order-changing series of "better" between generations, either, despite the unrealistic expectations/dreaming you see popping up on rumor sites. You shouldn't be upgrading every generation, unless you really have a ton of disposable income and are into the toys more than their function. But at some point, the improvements in technology and features are likely to make you want to upgrade the body. The sensor may not even play any role in that. Who do you know who upgrades their cellphone for better voice quality?

I will also say I have both a 21MP 5Dii and a 15MP 50D. Guess which one I shoot with more often? The advantage that the super-high resolution of the 5Dii gives me in images is discernible to me even at websize. To me, it's tonally smoother, and the additional downsizing makes it seem even sharper. YMMV. But there are still advantages to higher resolution and bigger sensors.