Salesman Said No To More Than 8 Megapixels

[benjaminpendleton]

I was at a well-known camera store in the Allentown, Pa area. The salesman that I was talking to seemed very well informed. He said that he wouldn't go with any camera with more than 8 megapixels, that the memory that is currently available in cameras can't handle any more than that and that the camera companies are all blowing smoke with their higher megapixel models. He said that the higher megapixel models are actually producing lower quality images, not higher. Any comments?

 

[skieur]

I was at a well-known camera store in the Allentown, Pa area. The salesman that I was talking to seemed very well informed. He said that he wouldn't go with any camera with more than 8 megapixels, that the memory that is currently available in cameras can't handle any more than that and that the camera companies are all blowing smoke with their higher megapixel models. He said that the higher megapixel models are actually producing lower quality images, not higher. Any comments?

I think that technology has reached a point whereby to get the resolution related to the higher pixels, you need great quality lenses and filters.
A high megapixel camera with kit lenses that would sell alone for less than $200 is likely not going to resolve detail at its potential high megapixel level. Salespeople too are suggesting that you buy body only when purchasing a high megapixel camera and choose a top quality lens to go with it instead of the included kit lens.

skieur

 

[ksmattfish]

All else being the same bigger photoreceptors are better than smaller photoreceptors, particularly in decreased noise and increased dynamic range. So he's infering that if the manufacturers are cramming more photoreceptors into the same sized sensor they must be smaller, therefore less quality.

But it's not this simple, because all else is rarely the same. The technology advances between a 4 year old 8mp DSLR and a recently introduced 10 or 12mp DSLR may have influence. Some of the improvements camera makers have made with smaller photoreceptors include reflective areas and micro lenses to make them more efficient at light gathering. Also it's hard to discount software changes. Software power is increasing as fast or faster than hardware power.

I've been using a Canon 20D (8mp APS-C) for several years, and recently purchased a 40D (10mp APS-C). I was worried that the 40D might actually be noisier at high ISOs. After shooting with the 40D for a couple of months it appears to me that it has slightly less noise at high ISO than my 20D, although the difference is very slight. It might be Digic II vs Digic III?

Overall I'd say it's probably pretty tough even for experienced photogs to see the difference between 8mp, 10mp, or 12mp in 16"x24" or smaller prints. I think the concept that all megapixels are not created equal is becoming common knowledge. People understand it's not just about increased megapixel counts, but the quality of the megapixels. I think this is the reason that Nikon didn't feel compelled to go higher than 12mp with the D3 even though that bar had been reached by plenty of consumer level cameras. On the other hand I also doubt pros would put up with excessive noise in the very expensive, 21mp Canon 1Ds Mk III.

 

[LWW]

A high megapixel camera with kit lenses that would sell alone for less than $200 is likely not going to resolve detail at its potential high megapixel level. Salespeople too are suggesting that you buy body only when purchasing a high megapixel camera and choose a top quality lens to go with it instead of the included kit lens.

skieur

Well said.

Nothing replaces good glass.

LWW

 

[Big Mike]

I was at a well-known camera store in the Allentown, Pa area. The salesman that I was talking to seemed very well informed. He said that he wouldn't go with any camera with more than 8 megapixels, that the memory that is currently available in cameras can't handle any more than that and that the camera companies are all blowing smoke with their higher megapixel models. He said that the higher megapixel models are actually producing lower quality images, not higher. Any comments?

It's not that black & white. There are many other factors. Camera technology gets better all the time. 5 years ago, you wouldn't want to shoot at ISO 800 on a DSLR and ISO 400 on a digicam was terrible. Now you can shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 with a DSLR and get usable results.

If you are talking about non-SLR cameras...then I would tend to agree that more than 8MP seams to be getting excessive...but that's because the sensors are so small. A DSRL has a much larger sensor and can handle a higher MP count.

As for the memory (and processors) in cameras...that has also been getting better. There might be some models that haven't improved with their MP count...but most probably have. Canon's top camera, the IDs mark III, shoots at over 21 Mega pixels and handles the large files just fine...although, you would probably need to upgrade your computer to edit them

 

[benjaminpendleton]

Thanks to you all for the information, it was very helpful. Great site..!

 

[Vautrin]

, that the memory that is currently available in cameras can't handle any more than that

A 4 GB card I have holds maybe 150 - 200 pictures when I use RAW + JPEG on my 10 MP camera -- it would save many more if I used just JPEG.

A 16 GB card is available for $50 if you look at the right stores online. 32 GB card are double that. So I don't think memory is really an issue....

-Dan

 

[STICKMAN]

Can you perhabs share this location with memory at these prices, if not in the forum then maybe by pm??? If not I completly understand...

 

[Applefanboy]

Read this: http://6mpixel.org/en/

 

[Alpha]

Salesmen can be idiots. That's often why they're salesmen in the first place.

 

[Bifurcator]

I was at a well-known camera store in the Allentown, Pa area. The salesman that I was talking to seemed very well informed. He said that he wouldn't go with any camera with more than 8 megapixels, that the memory that is currently available in cameras can't handle any more than that and that the camera companies are all blowing smoke with their higher megapixel models. He said that the higher megapixel models are actually producing lower quality images, not higher. Any comments?

He's right. He's only lacking detail and clarification in his explanation. But that's a little too deep for a showroom discussion as you're seeing here.

 

[Antithesis]

I'm pretty convinced that anything more than 10-12 megapixels starts to get a little cumbersome in the memory department for not that much of a gain in the image quality department. However, working with the 1Ds-mk3 has shown me that an image can look that much better at 21mp. It also has to do with the spot-on accurate white balance and the ability to bring underexposed shadows up 2 1/2 stops in raw images.

That being said, you can blow through 16gb cards really fast and lightroom tends to take a nose dive when your trying to convert 21 megabyte RAWs into jpeg. I don't imagine I'll ever require anything above 13mp for a long while, unless I start working in a commercial studio or something.

 

[ksmattfish]

Dpreview.com just put up their detailed review of the 21mp EOS, and show comparisons to the 12mp D3 and 5D. At the lower ISOs, where there really isn't any noise to begin with the 21mp camera rocks. At ISO 800+ the 12mp cameras start to take the lead (at least as far as noise is concerned). Although it's amazing how close the 1Ds Mk III is to the 5D. The D3 still beats them both.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/page19.asp