Megapixels?

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by cgammonsjr

now is being an OP a good thing or bad. what is an OP?

OP is "original poster" It's a good thing.

As far as whether more MPs (higher resolution) creates a better image, the answer lies in the sensor size. The sensor is the part of your camera that accepts light, and forms it into a picture. A sensor that's physically small, but operates at 12 mp, will give you a grainier picture than one that's 12 mp, but big. So if you're going to get a high res camera (10 mp or above), you're going to want one with a big sensor.

[GEli]

Originally Posted by cgammonsjr

so higher megapixels do not mean better quality. now I am somewhat confused. so if lower counts make better shots then why buy a more expensive model. or am I misunderstanding what was just explained?

It does and it doesn't. Greater MP count will allow you to print larger at better resolutions, but your high ISO performance will go down as the number of MPs on a set sensor size increase. It's a trade off, and where the best balance lays depends on how you shoot.

[LightChaser]

I guess one way to simplify it is this whole issue of megapixels vs. sensor size is this:

P&S cameras have tiny sensors roughly the size of that "Report Post" icon you see on every post on this thread. You don't want anything more than 8MP (maybe even 6MP) on a sensor like that.

Most DSLR have sensors roughly the size of your (cgammonsjr's) avatar. That's why you can get much better images with a 4MP DSLR than an 8MP P&S. It also means the MP limit for DSLRs is higher. I guess the top models at 16MP are already approaching the maximum pixel densities for a sensor this size.

Somebody mentioed getting a medium-format camera. The sensor on that thing is somewhere between the "Posting Rules" box below and the Google Ads somewhere in the middle of this page. A couple of years ago, there were 33MP sensors in the market - I don't know what's out now.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer again..

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by cgammonsjr

so higher megapixels do not mean better quality. now I am somewhat confused. so if lower counts make better shots then why buy a more expensive model. or am I misunderstanding what was just explained?

Higher pixel count is not the sole determinant of quality. Sensor size also impacts on quality. As does the quality of the lens. There is every reason to buy a more expensive model - especially if the sensor is larger in physical dimensions (not megapixels). That is one reason why the Canon 5D and Nikon D3 full frame sensor cameras are more expensive than crop sensor DSLRs, and they are more expensive than Point-and-Shoots that use smaller sensors yet again.

To put it simply - if you're thinking about quality and wanting quality images, there are more important things to think about than the pixel count. Probably the two most important factors are the quality of the lens, and the size of the sensor.

Higher pixel count does allow you to capture more detail, but if those pixels are crammed too closely together, the quality of the additional pixels that you capture suffers - particularly if you are shooting at higher ISO settings, and the sensor captures more noise.

Everyone makes a different choice. Some people go for full frame sensors because they want the quality (and associated expense). Some people will purchase lower resolution camera bodies (older models at a discount price or second hand) and put the savings into purchasing better quality lenses. They are quite likely to produce shots that are as good as, and even better than someone using a cheaper lens and a newer higher-megapixel camera.

Hope this hasn't been too confusing for you!

[gooberking]

I well imagine it's easy to get confused right about now. In theory the more the merrier, but as mentioned, in practice its not always the case. The poster talking about noise in smaller sensor (point-n-shoot) cameras verses pro models did a good job pointing out that fact. Want to really fry your noodle? Try understanding why 2 8MP cameras have to totally different max image sizes.

The bad news is more or less that there isn't any real easy way to look at numbers and know exactly what you are getting. The good news is that most big brand simi-pro cameras are really good these days. So its probably hard to find something that is total junk. Especially if your "breaking in" you should have several very cost effective yet good quality options.

More good news is there are lots of good reviews to be had on any camera worth owning. If you see a camera you think you might want, read a review or two. A good one will get into all that nitty-gritty stuff and do head to head comparisons to similar models as well as tell you how it fairs in the grand scheme of things.

Bottom line is its not about MP or any other one thing. Its about the whole package and you will only know if that's any good buy checking reading the reviews, all of them. Even the parts that seam scary.

[cgammonsjr]

Originally Posted by LightChaser

I guess one way to simplify it is this whole issue of megapixels vs. sensor size is this:

P&S cameras have tiny sensors roughly the size of that "Report Post" icon you see on every post on this thread. You don't want anything more than 8MP (maybe even 6MP) on a sensor like that.

Most DSLR have sensors roughly the size of your (cgammonsjr's) avatar. That's why you can get much better images with a 4MP DSLR than an 8MP P&S. It also means the MP limit for DSLRs is higher. I guess the top models at 16MP are already approaching the maximum pixel densities for a sensor this size.

Somebody mentioed getting a medium-format camera. The sensor on that thing is somewhere between the "Posting Rules" box below and the Google Ads somewhere in the middle of this page. A couple of years ago, there were 33MP sensors in the market - I don't know what's out now.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer again..

Crystal. thank you. having the visuals made it so much easier to understand. now I can get a little closer to making my choice.

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by cgammonsjr

having the visuals made it so much easier to understand. now I can get a little closer to making my choice.

If you go to the following link, there is a nice image and table there that shows you how much the sensor size varies from P&S up to medium format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

Most of the users on the forums here with DSLRs have APS-C sensors.

[slycat_blaze]

This post is amazing! I'm really happy since I was wondering about the same thing. About the megapixel count and all. ^_^ Now I totally understand from your explanations, and now I understand why old dSLRs produce higher quality photos than even the best of P&S cameras. Cool!

[inkista]

Just in case you wanted a more detailed illustration/explanation about the effects of sensor size, I'd recommend the following tutorial on Cambridge in Colour:

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How Do These Influence Photography?

And remember that the most common P&S camera sensor size these days is 1/2.5".

Originally Posted by LightChaser

Somebody mentioed getting a medium-format camera. The sensor on that thing is somewhere between the "Posting Rules" box below and the Google Ads somewhere in the middle of this page. A couple of years ago, there were 33MP sensors in the market - I don't know what's out now.

I always think of medium format as roughly 2"x2". The backs that the latest Hasselblad, the H3DII, can take max out, I believe, at 39 MP.

[cgammonsjr]

I am sooooooo happy that this has been cleared up. I have gone to different stores to test out the feel of certain models and harrass the employees of the store. When I asked which models gave the best pictures they would always push MP's. The higher the MP's the better the product. Now you see where the confusion started. Thank you to all that responded.