Megapixels competition

[Namrata]

Canon always has the higher megapixel for its similar. comparable model of Nikon. How important is it to have a better megapixel count? What other things should be taken into account while going for the first, anxious buy??? Also how will a difference of 2mp differ the image quality, like 16mp and 18mp for example?

 

[tyler_h]

Higher megapixels (for the same sensor size) gives a smaller area for each megapixel and hence worse high ISO performance.

There has been a little bit of a megapixel race, and next generation FF sensors are predicted to have somewhere up to 40mp sensors. There has been a continual improvement in noise handling regardless though.

Anything over 6-8mp will do everything you want unless you need to make large prints. Higher mp will allow you to crop further which maintaining a decent image size though. In the case of 16 vs 18 it shouldn't mean anything really.

 

[Kerbouchard]

24x30 is about the limit I can print with good quality from a good picture from my 12 mp Nikon. If anything is off; exposure, focus, etc, 24x30 doesn't do well.

I rarely print that large, and if I do, it is a shot I nailed, so...I, personally, don't think more megapixels would help me.

As far as other things to consider, it would be lens compatibility/availability, flash compatibility and features(like having a commander mode to control off camera flashes built in), focus speed, focus accuracy, high ISO performance, and ease of use(control layout). I think all of those are more important than megapixels.

 

[KmH]

Also how will a difference of 2mp differ the image quality, like 16mp and 18mp for example?

Virtually none. Based on your other thread, I'd say you're looking at the wrong camera body specifications.

Image quality is about a lot more than just the MP count. You must also consider the dynamic range and color depth a particular image sensor can deliver, meteriing performance, focus mode, lens quality, etc, though ultimately image quality is mostly a function of the knowledge and skill the photographer has available.

 

[mjhoward]

Did you also notice that Canon uses a smaller sensor than Nikon? Nikon's sensors have ~12% more area than Canon's crop sensor.

 

[orb9220]

Also how will a difference of 2mp differ the image quality, like 16mp and 18mp for example?

Virtually none. Based on your other thread, I'd say you're looking at the wrong camera body specifications.

Image quality is about a lot more than just the MP count. You must also consider the dynamic range and color depth a particular image sensor can deliver, meteriing performance, focus mode, lens quality, etc, though ultimately image quality is mostly a function of the knowledge and skill the photographer has available.

+1 to KmH as MP density is secondary consideration for me. It great to have more megapixels for cropping when needed. But not at the sacrifice of dynamic range and cleaner noiseless images at higher iso or color. And as mentioned any 12mp dslr will give outstanding large prints used by most. Unless of course you are shooting for a Billboard Ad agency.
.

 

[Derrel]

The NEWER Sony-made sensor with the 16.2 MP pixel count is being used in the new Pentax, Sony, and Nikon cameras, and is a MUCH-better sensor than the 18 MP sensor being used by Canon. The new Pentax and Nikon cameras are handily bettering the Canon cameras using the older-technology 18 MP sensor and electronics. Nikon's D7000 and the new Pentax are two of the absolute best APS-C sensor d-slr models in terms of image quality. It is not only the sensor--the read-out electronics that the sensor is matched up with play a big part in the image quality. If one chefs says he has 18 pounds of premium fish, and another chef says he has 16.2 pounds of the same boat's catch of premium fish, do you suppose that the chef with the higher weight of fish will automatically serve a better-tasting, more-delicious meal? NO. With d-slr images, the way the signal is "prepared" (read electronics) and "cooked" (demosaicing) and "plated" (processed) is the way the final image is created. It's now no longer simply about having a higher MP count--it is about having lower-noise producing read electronics, better image demosaicing, and better image processing. The NEWEST Sony-manufactured 16.2 MP sensor is currently in the best-performing cameras. Canon's older 18MP cameras do not have the same quality in their image processing pipeline. This claim is proven by numerous testing sites,and it often really irritates those who are loyal to Canon equipment.

 

[Dao]

One thing I believe that Canon is a company that good at marketing. In the entry level DSLR market, it seems they did a pretty good job. And maybe that is why the are leading the overall world DSLR market sales. (Source from USAToday)

I think in the past few years, a lot of people jumping from Point and Shoot to Entry-Level DSLR market, and those buyer were feed with information such as higher megapixel are better camera and more X is better (i.e. 10x is better 3x Zoom). So maybe that's what Canon going after and it seems working so far.

As for photographer concern, megapixel is important. But it only to a point. I do not think I will settle with a 4 megapixel camera. But 12 to 16 is nice to have. Little crop here and there or print the photo on a larger format paper will be benefit with the higher megapixel camera.

I remember I saw it somewhere (forgot where) when Canon EOS 5D MKII was released, someone had a chance to talked to one of the anonymous Canon Engineer and the Canon Engineer said they could produce the 5D camera with a lot less noise and it could blow away the competition. However, when the marketing people stepped in ..... the company decided to go with higher megapixel. Of course, there is no way to proof if that is valid or not nor did that Engineer even exist. But I kind of believe it because that is what Canon going after in the past few years - Higher Megapixel camera.

If Canon still capture 44.5% DSLR worldwide market share, I do not think they will change that game. Sometimes, I wish they can produce a 6D that only have 12mpix full frame sensor with great ISO performance and cost around $1500. (3 fps is good for a lot of photographer).

 

[Garbz]

To put it in perspective the difference between 16mpx and 18mpx is 6% in width and height.

That's right you can in theory make an image that is 6% wider and 6% higher with the same quality. This further assumes all else being equal (it usually isn't) and that you have good quality sharp glass (at reasonably prices you usually don't).

 

[djacobox372]

If u double the mp you end up with just 25% more resolution. So only large increases are noticeable, and you typically sacrifice low light ability, for example the d3s has half the mp as the more expensive d3x, but the d3s is about 3 times better in low light (1.5 stops).

3x worse low light performance for only 25% more resolution? Not worth it unless it's only a studio camera.