The higher the MP the worst the picture; why?

[mikephotq]

Have notice that the higher the MP the more the images look bad and closer[normal/100%] inspection.

The two examples - Canon power A3400is and Nikon coolpix s3300, both 16MP.

when you zoom in 100% the image looks (hard to explain) out of focus or something like that.

I don't get that with a kodak 10.2 MP.

Anyone else see that, and what is that about??

And no the picture were are not out of focus, I have run test, with the cameras to make sure they were in focus and used self timer on flat surface, no hand held; still get this 'whatever'.

A kodak 10.2MP you zoom into 100% and picture and details look good.

Any good info appreciated.

 

[Peeb73 1]

The Nikon and Canon you were testing are not exactly boutique quality- so sample variation could come into play- as could lens quality- as could a mismatch between the resolving power of the sensor and the lens. The better your sensor, the better your glass had better be!

 

[astroNikon]

The Nikon and Canon you were testing are not exactly boutique quality- so sample variation could come into play- as could lens quality- as could a mismatch between the resolving power of the sensor and the lens. The better your sensor, the better your glass had better be!

I have this problem with some old lenses.
I had nikon 75-300 which was okay on a 16mp APS-C sensor. I put it on a 24mp FF sensor and it just looked awful. Likewise some of my good glass for 24mp FF is just fine, but on a 36mp d800 it just looks mushy.

Some of the bridge cameras may have small sensors. My P7800 had a small 12mp sensor made nice photos but lacked quality IQ when you looked up close, reminded me of film at a high ASA in low light.

A better evaluation of the lens glass, the specific type of sensor and all else would have to be used to determine why one is better than another.

 

[mikephotq]

...just looks mushy.

'...just looks mushy...' that is a good description [again hard to explain],

the 12mp Kodak pictures look better, up close at 100%, even at 200% then the 16MP nikon s3300 or canon a3400 look at 100%.

I just thought that the higher the MP, the better the picture. but yes at 100% viewing the 16MP cameras look 'mushy' or whatever.

but any slr camera is not a fair comparison you can change your lens. I talking about point and shoot. You get the sensor and lens you get and that is it. I just think these are bad cameras, why sell / make them. Your going to spend more money on a 16MP and get badder(sic) pic than with a 12MP, that is not right.

 

[KmH]

If MP goes up but sensor size stays the same, the higher MP pixels are smaller which demands a lens that provides more resolution.

The average consumer buys a digital camera largely on how many MP it has rather than by the resolving power of the lens.

Put another way, the average consumer doesn't know what camera technical specifications and camera features are the most important and assume that more MP is better, regardless.

For instance the analog image sensor in most digital cameras has in front of it an Anti-aliasing (AA) or optical low-pass (OLP) filter. The aggressiveness of an AA/OPL filter varies by camera make and model.
Many newer DSLRs, mostly made by Nikon, no longer use an AA type OLP filter.

 

[Overread17 5]

A pixel is a pixel which means if you put more mega pixels on the same sensor area and then view that image at 100% size as defined by those pixels then clearly the one with a higher MP value will be larger.

In essence it means that you're increasing the size (magnification) of the image even more. This means if you compare a 10mp to a 15 or 20mp photo at 100% view; chances are the 10mp might look sharper (all other things equal). However if you were to upsample, ergo increase the size of the 10mp up to the same value as the 15 or 20 chances are it would look as good if not worse.


Since most display situations for the average person will result in resizing to a smaller size for display this means that higher MP images have potential to have more cropped away and to achieve the same as or a higher overall level of quality.



Another aspect is magnification and handshake/camera shake. If you magnify a photo more and more the impact of handshake increases (just like if you increase the focal length more and more). The result is that a "sharp" 100% crop on a 20mp might require a faster shutter speed than a sharp shot on a 10mp - but only when comparing at 100% view. At a resized version for display will generally show equal if not better performance on the higher MP




The point regarding resolution has also been raised as well.



In general when I changed from my 400D to 7D in Canon i found the 60% view on the 7D more pleasing and better to evaluate based on my experiences evaluating sharpness and detail in my 400D photos.

 

[nerwin]

So many factors go into making a high quality image, not just megapixels.

 

[goodguy]

So many factors go into making a high quality image, not just megapixels.

Exactly!!!

1.Lenses
2.Sensors
3.Amount of light and quality of light
4.users skills
5.IS/VR/VC/OS
6.AF system

And more

 

[Braineack]

A kodak 10.2MP you zoom into 100% and picture and details look good.

I notice the complete opposite.


in each of these shots, the sensor has more MP:

in each of these shots, the 100% fine details looks significantly better as the MPs increase...

 

[greybeard35 7]

Before you start throwing away lenses etc. Make sure your camera isn't mis-focusing. I went from a Nikon D5200 to a D7000. My initial shots on the D7000 were soft compared to the d5200. I then did some tests on the D7000 and found it was back focusing and need a -17 adjustment. Now it is sharp with all my lenses.

 

[chuasam]

My D810 (36.3 Mp) puts out waaaaaay better image quality than my D70s (6Mp), D300 (12.3Mp) and D700 (12.1Mp)

 

[greybeard35 7]

My D810 (36.3 Mp) puts out waaaaaay better image quality than my D70s (6Mp), D300 (12.3Mp) and D700 (12.1Mp)

I bet that was like going from a mule to a racehorse, well from the D70 at least, the D300 and D700 are still pretty formidable cameras.

 

[zombiesniper115 14]

but any slr camera is not a fair comparison you can change your lens. I talking about point and shoot.

You are crippling any reasonable outcome with this limitation. Your question was about the effect of higher MP. An interchangeable lens camera IS the only way you can accurately test this since you can use the same lens on both MP sized camera's.
Two cameras with different sensors sizes (MP). Both share the same lens. Snap pic of the same subject, distance, angle, lighting etc. Then compare. The only way you can intelligently comment on the effect higher MP has on quality at 100% crop.