Is it worth sacraficing MPX?

[Ballistics]

Oh, cherry picking. Calling mega pixels a marketing ploy, and me disagreeing is taking your statement out of context. Sure.

You're backpedaling.

In this day and age when even bargain basement pocket cameras are up over 8MP, frankly, I’m surprised megapixel count still gets talked about as much as it does.

This ^^ does not change the context of the quote immediately below and does not say anything that you added, which is why I left it out.

megapixels are just a means of shifting more units to spec-obsessed consumers who don’t know any better and just want to one-up their friends

As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a marketing ploy....

What you are saying, by saying "are just" and "it's just", is that megapixels are only a marketing ploy.

So to paraphrase what you're saying, higher MP cameras are sometimes better and sometimes not....? Hey, I agree!

No, actually.
I said:

usually/most of the time

 

[cynicaster]

Oh, cherry picking. Calling mega pixels a marketing ploy, and me disagreeing is taking your statement out of context. Sure.

You're backpedaling.

In this day and age when even bargain basement pocket cameras are up over 8MP, frankly, I’m surprised megapixel count still gets talked about as much as it does.

This ^^ does not change the context of the quote immediately below and does not say anything that you added, which is why I left it out.

megapixels are just a means of shifting more units to spec-obsessed consumers who don’t know any better and just want to one-up their friends

What you are saying, by saying "are just" and "it's just", is that megapixels are only a marketing ploy.

So to paraphrase what you're saying, higher MP cameras are sometimes better and sometimes not....? Hey, I agree!

No, actually.
I said:

usually/most of the time

For crying out loud.

If you truly can’t see how the part you cut out establishes the very premise behind what I’m trying to say, then I’ll spell out the whole thing one more time, deferring nothing to your comprehension skills:

1. In the early days of digital photography, megapixels used to be in short supply due to technological limitations and the high cost of sensors. Back then, the ability to have more megapixels used to be a big selling point, because at those levels, differences in MP count had significant implications for even novice users. Corollary: Megapixel marketing *NOT* a ploy in this scenario.
2. Over time, technology improved and costs came down to the point where even bargain bin cameras started coming equipped with LOTS of megapixels
3. Today, we’ve reached a point where even entry level products adequately address the “megapixel problem” for the vast majority of use cases. As a result, other factors have surpassed megapixels as more deserving of the consumer’s attention—consumers like the OP, for instance, who asked about this very issue. This is not to say that megapixels as a whole are irrelevant, it is only to say that continuing to count them is pointless, because ALL cameras on the market have more of them than most of us will ever need.
4. Despite point #3, the high-priced marketing gurus at the camera companies continue to draw major attention to megapixel counts in the promotional materials for their products. Now, why would they do that? Because they know a high megapixel count has the power to not only up-sell newbies, but to squeeze an endless stream of “upgrade revenue” out of millions of existing customers who have more money than brains. I choose to refer to this practice as a “marketing ploy”, whereas others curiously choose to give the salesmen the benefit of the doubt.

That’s how I see things. I’d love to know what parts of this you think are untrue, and why.

I realize my initial post kind of jumped in at point #2, but considering the company, I felt that point #1 went without saying.

 

[Ballistics]

My comprehension is on point, your communications skills... not so much.

If you think your last post, demonstrates the point in your first post, there's nothing much left to say lol.

 

[pakman010]

Check out this helpful blog post on the canon 50mm f1.8
Best Canon Prime Lens For Beginners | Lifeanswerz

 

[Garbz]

This is not to say that megapixels as a whole are irrelevant, it is only to say that continuing to count them is pointless, because ALL cameras on the market have more of them than most of us will ever need.

Silly pedantic language arguments aside I could not disagree more. I mean I thought the same thing till I actually used a high megapixel camera. However the advantages quickly became apparent. One aspect of a higher megapixel count is that it ends up bring any generatednoise down to effectively what could be called a sub-pixel area. I.e. the neighbouring pixels end up averaging and reducing noise. Now some may argue that with large pixels comes more light capturing area, however the smaller pixels allow more detail not relevant to the final picture, but very relevant to all manner of noise reduction algorithms and other such image processing system (stitching panoramas more accurately anyone?).

I for one don't intend to look at a sub 24mpxl camera again because of these very reasons.

 

[Photographiend]

Garbz - But also taking into account other factors such as brand and body type (which would utimately dertermine the quality of the pixels you are afforded)... would you prefer an older 10 - 12 MP Canon DSLR or a 14 MP FujiFilm bridge?

For me, 24 MP is about as realistic a contemplation as winning the lottery... so... yeah.

 

[12sndsgood]

first starting out I had a 1 mp digital camera. Paid like $400 bucks for it. it took decent photos. year or so later we bought another camera for the wife to have, paid less and it was 4 mp. I thoug wow this thing has double the mp then my camera no need using my camera anymore so I gave it to the wifes parents. low and behold the 4mp camera took worse photos then my 1 mp camera. sure it have tons of mp. but the rest of the build quality of the camera wound up with lackluster photos. I soon wished I would have kept the old camera.

even to this day I have people that come up and ask me how many megapixels my camera has as the sole qualifier of wether its a good camera or not. and marketing guys know this, they know if they can have a higher mp then there competitor they will pick up sales because of it. these are dont in the lower end department store cameras, and cell phone manufatureres trying to one up the competition. this doesnt mean the same thing when your talking your high end dslr.

would I rather have a 16 mp point an shoot or a 10mp quality dslr. i'd take the quality dslr every day of the week. because we all know that the build quality and parts are going to be better and the lack of those extra 6 mp in the end product isn't going to make the point and shoot better.

 

[cynicaster]

The Nikon D4 is a full frame body that costs about $5000, yet it only comes with a measly 16 megapixels. How stupid does Nikon think we are? At that price point, a camera should have at least 120 megapixels…. 100 bare minimum.

 

[djacobox372]

Until a year ago, the best camera Nikon made (the d3s) was "only" 12.1 megapixels. That should tell you all you need to know about how much a huge MP number matters. Their current flagship, the D4, is "only" 16mp.

My 2.7mp D1h is higher resolution than my 8mp phone camera.

Resolution is what matters, and most people's resolution is more often gated by their technique, focus, or sensor noise levels than pixel count. Also keep in mind that you have to quadruple "megapixels" to double resolution, so a camera with 50% more "megapixels" really only has 25% more resolution "capability."

 

[Ballistics]

Until a year ago, the best camera Nikon made (the d3s) was "only" 12.1 megapixels. That should tell you all you need to know about how much a huge MP number matters. Their current flagship, the D4, is "only" 16mp.

My 2.7mp D1h is higher resolution than my 8mp phone camera.

Resolution is what matters, and most people's resolution is more often gated by their technique, focus, or sensor noise levels than pixel count. Also keep in mind that you have to quadruple "megapixels" to double resolution, so a camera with 50% more "megapixels" really only has 25% more resolution "capability."

The 8MP on a cell phone camera is not 8MP on a DSLR. Just to make that clear. When comparing, at least make reasonable comparisons. Like, for example, the D800 has 36 MP, and is rated to have a higher image quality than the D4.

Let me point out that I am by no means saying a higher MP count automatically equals better image quality. I'm merely pointing out, giving the price point and the class of camera, usually higher MPs are accompanied by better features to make those MPs matter. I shot with a 39MP hasselblad, and let me tell you... MP matter. Boy do they matter.

 

[Garbz]

Garbz - But also taking into account other factors such as brand and body type (which would utimately dertermine the quality of the pixels you are afforded)... would you prefer an older 10 - 12 MP Canon DSLR or a 14 MP FujiFilm bridge?

For me, 24 MP is about as realistic a contemplation as winning the lottery... so... yeah.

Well if we're going to compare Apples to Oranges I'll have a grapefruit thanks. But why the theoretical comparative bull****? Why not compare say a D700 to a D800. The D700 takes the lead in noise depending on how it's measured, yet fails quite remarkably compared to the D800 when even the slightest amount of noise reduction is applied.

My 2.7mp D1h is higher resolution than my 8mp phone camera.

Erm no not by several metrics. The camera in your phone is far higher in resolution than you D1h both in terms of pixels in your final image and the ability to record small details in the light rays hitting the sensor. Your problem is the lens in the front of each system are dramatically different as is the quality of the supporting electronics. There's lots to be said in favour of the D1h but resolution is not at all one of them.

 

[Photographiend]

Garbz - But also taking into account other factors such as brand and body type (which would utimately dertermine the quality of the pixels you are afforded)... would you prefer an older 10 - 12 MP Canon DSLR or a 14 MP FujiFilm bridge?

For me, 24 MP is about as realistic a contemplation as winning the lottery... so... yeah.

Well if we're going to compare Apples to Oranges I'll have a grapefruit thanks. But why the theoretical comparative bull****? Why not compare say a D700 to a D800. The D700 takes the lead in noise depending on how it's measured, yet fails quite remarkably compared to the D800 when even the slightest amount of noise reduction is applied.

Did you not read the whole premise of this thread? That was the question. One is what I have the other is the best I can afford...???

I am looking at potentially getting a DSLR in a couple months time. The only thing is my budget is going to limit this purchase somewhat. I am currently working with a sub-par camera that has 14.1 MPX and the ones I am looking at are Canon 12 and 10 MPX.

...

Certainly I have jumped into a thread and made posts before without reading all the posts... I do however usually read the first one...

 

[Canuk]

To answer your original question - simply. Yes a 10 or 12 MP DSRL will allow you to capture better images over a wide range of instances (with adequate lenses), when the 14.1MP point and shoot camera will have problems. Most Point and Shoot digital cameras have a notable shutter lag, where as DSLR's don't.

 

[Photographiend]

Good to know about the shutter lag.

 

[Bmalt]

A 10 or 12 mp DSLR will produce better results than a 14mp P&S because the sensor is superior. The difference between a 10 or 12 mp camera will only be about 300 px, which isn't much if there's a big price difference.

However, MP count is THE most important factor in my book because I need to produce very large prints. MP count is not an arbitrary number; the maximum print size of a higher MP camera before loosing resolution will be distinctly greater than that of a smaller MP camera.

If you're only going to post photos online or make 8x12's then MP count doesn't matter much.

Sometimes it's portrayed as if higher MP isn't very important because high MP means you're sacrificing something else such as dynamic range or camera features, which isn't so with modern DSLR's. In lab tests high MP cameras DO have marginally less dynamic range than lower MP cameras with same sized sensors (i.e. D800 vs D600), but the tiny difference isn't worth sacrificing greater resolution, imo.

The size of prints does not increase proportionately with megapixel count though; you have to look at image size in pixels. For example: D700(12mp) 4,256px, D600(24mp) 6016px, D800(36mp)7360px
So basically the D800 (36mp) gets me twice the print size of a 10mp camera, not 3.6 times the print size.