8mp vs. 10mp

[johnnyg]

A novice here that's been doin' a lot of research lately on info sites- with the size of bigger pixels (microns) on a sensor being a major factor in the quality of a picture would a sensor with 8mp have a better quality than one with 10mp providing the sensors were the same size?--Just wondering why an 8mp (olympus 400 for example vs. an olympus 410 with 10mp)would be priced less than the 10mp,giving everything else was equal on the cameras. Why wouldn't the quality be better and higher priced on the 8mp???????

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

Only if you are planning to print at large sizes... Technically, for a 4x6" print you can get by with a 3MP sensor.... So 8 or 10 or more... Really only comes into play if your printing large or you do a lot of cropping.

Then again... I am not an expert photographer. Just technically savy.

 

[Big Mike]

There are more factors than just the ratio of pixels to the size of the sensor, that determine image quality.

For example:
Camera processors & firmware are continually advancing. So it may well be that a current 10 or 15MP camera can give you as good or better image quality than an 8MP camera from a few years ago. (same sensor size).

 

[BKMOOD]

Do yourself a favor and get that megapixel crap out of your head.

 

[johnnyg]

Thanks, BK ,that was really informative.

 

[Derrel]

The megapixel race and the differentiation of the cameras in any one company's product line help set the price point. In the Nikon line for example, many of the cameras have a 12 megapixel sensor. The D300s and the D90 are reputed to use the same, APS-C sized 12.2 MP sensor made by Sony. But the D300s costs much more than the D90 costs.

Nikon's D3s and D700 also use a 12.2 MP sensor, but in those bodies it is a FF sensor, and the D3 series body costs MORE money than the D700 body.

Canon's professional sports/action camera the EOS 1D-Mark III had a 10.3 MP sensor of the APS-H or 1.3x FOV size, and that camera cost $4500, while the Canon 7D has a 17.8 MP sensor, and the body sells for $1699. When comparing megapixel counts, we have to look at the size of the pixels (area, in microns), the size of the sensor, AND the generation of the sensor and the associated hardware and in-camera software.

As to your original question: at High ISO values like 6400 and 12500 and 25000 and so on, Nikon's D3s camera with only 12 million pixels produces cleaner images,with less noise and a more-pleasing image overall, than cameras that have SMALLER pixels and 16.4 million and 22.1 million pixels. So, YES, larger pixels in cameras of the same or concurrent generation, have actually what one could call "better image quality" at elevated ISO levels. In good, bright light however, the situation changes, and the higher the MP count, the higher the resolution, which is where cameras like the EOS 5D Mark II and Sony A900 and Nikon D3x really look fantastic!

 

[Garbz]

Thanks, BK ,that was really informative.

He is right though, marketing dictates megapixels have to be as big as possible differences be dammed. As others have mentioned megapixels are only a small part of the bigger problem of image quality however lets assume that megapixels are the only thing that matters

8/6 = 1.333 increase in resolution. However this resolution needs to be divided amongst an increase in area so you end up with a 1.154 increase in x and y resolution. This means if you say have a 12x8 image on your 6mpx camera you can get a 13.8x9.2 image of the same resolution on the 8mpx camera.

You need to get a 4x increase in megapixels to double your image size, so if you were comparing a 6mpx camera to a 24mpx then it would be worth being concerned about, but 6 to 8 or even 10 or 12 makes little to no difference in the practical size you can print your images.

Also remember just because the D2H for instance was only 4mpx it didn't stop professionals from doing simply stunning work with them.

 

[inTempus]

One generation can make a pretty big difference.

The 1D3 has a 10MP sensor whereas the new 1D4 has a 16MP sensor. The 1D4 has cleaner high ISO than the 1D3. The 1D3 images really start to look rough at ISO 6400. The new 1D4 can safely hit ISO 12800 and the images look cleaner than the 1D3 at ISO 6400 despite having 6 more megapixels.

 

[thoughtcryme]

I understand what BK is saying.
It seems as if MP count is more of a point of sale than the end all be all in regard to the camera.
For example, I have several point n shoots.
I have an older Canon PowershotSD that's 3.2MP, and a Kodak Easyshare that's 6.1MP.
So that's almost twice the amount.
But the color and clarity of the image from the 3.2MP canon far surpasses the 6.1MP kodak.
Not only that, but the file size for the canon is almost 2x that of the kodak.
This is contrary to the way that most people understand digital camera tech.

So what BK is saying is that MP count shouldn't be the deciding factor in purchasing a camera.
I think what makes the camera have better image quality all around is the optics.
As long as we're talking about comparable cameras.
DSLR's have larger sensors and pixels, so the quality is above and beyond a point n shoot.
DSLR's also use 16bit color, where most point n shoots use only 8bit.
Point n shoots generally use the jpeg format to store images, which is a compressed format(lossy compression at that), where dslr's also offer some rendition of the RAW format.
I'm still baffled by the idea that any digital camera uses the jpeg format.
I remember when the jpeg format became popular on the web in the 1990's, replacing the .bmp format.
I was shocked the 1st time I saw a camera that saved images in the jpeg format.
Sure, it's come a long way since then, but still, they're jpeg's and they strip out data that some microchip thinks you don't need or won't notice.

Another factor that plays a big role IMO, is the color space.
A dslr will have sRGB, and AdobeRGB.
AdobeRGB has a much wider gamut, so it can display more colors than sRGB.
Most point n shoots have either sRGB only, or a proprietary space that's based on sRGB.

 

[flightless_beaker]

I work in an electronics store and I'm serious when I say most people only think in megapixels. Someone will look at the Nikon S630 and the Sony TX1 and say the TX1 is worse because it has 10 instead of the 12 in the S630. When I explain to them why the Sony camera is better, they don't understand. I sometimes explain why by mentioning the Canon G10 and G11. The G10 had a 15 megapixels sensor but it was not good in lowlight. When they came out with the G11, they dropped it to 10 mp and the image quality in low light is a world better. Another example is the Olympus Tough 8000 and 6000. The 8000 has 12 and the 6000 has 10 and is a lower model. Tests by DPReview showed the 6000 had better image quality because of the 10mp sensor.

I totally agree with BK, get that megapixel crap out of your head. I tell my customers it really should be the last thing to consider because the vast majority of people will never take advantage of it. Image processor, lens, firmware and the senor itself are what to consider, not how many megapixels it has.

 

[inTempus]

While megapixels certainly shouldn't be the deciding factor in all cases, it certainly isn't something to be ignored. We also shouldn't claim that more megapixels automatically = worse image quality.

As technology advances we're going to get more megapixels. Just because Nikon holds off on increasing the MP count on a generation of bodies doesn't mean Nikon will stay at 12MP forever. They're staying where it's comfortable for them right now as they work on a bigger release/update to their bodies down the road. I can't say I fault them, I wish Canon would do the same. Although I was very happy when they announced the 1D4 that it only had 16MP which seems to fit very nicely with the 1.3x sensor with current technology.

But there are folks out there, like wildlife photographers, that want more megapixels and crop sensors.

Personally, I would rather the next release of the 5D (Mark III) have the same 21MP only with more modern noise reduction technology employed vs. taking it to 30+MP. It seems that as of late any improvements Canon makes in noise reduction they are nullified by increasing the pixel count so that the high ISO performance doesn't improve all that much. The same is true of dynamic range...

 

[redtippmann]

My D2H only has 4.1mp (Or something around that) and I use Nikon lenses. My schools newspaper owns a Rebel XT and that has 8mp, but they have REALLY cheap lenses. So when I compare pictures, my Nikon has allot better IQ.

So the most important thing, I think, is the lenses. (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[flightless_beaker]

My D2H only has 4.1mp (Or something around that) and I use Nikon lenses. My schools newspaper owns a Rebel XT and that has 8mp, but they have REALLY cheap lenses. So when I compare pictures, my Nikon has allot better IQ.

So the most important thing, I think, is the lenses. (correct me if I'm wrong)

I think the most important thing is the person using the camera

 

[Garbz]

Yep come back to me when you sell a print for $1000 taken from an iPhone

You hear that over and over again, but the ability to make a good image is paramount.