digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Truth About Digital Cameras: Megapixels Don't Matter

pogue.blogs.nytimes.com — This post is going to get a lot of people riled up, I know, because in THEORY, you should be able to see a difference. But you can ’t. I’m hoping this little test can save you some bucks the next time you’re shopping for a camera.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Wolf451man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36What? No test involving the zooming in or cropping of the image?
    Just derezzing?
    • cogit0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6My question is how did they do the derezzing? was it in camera, so the ccd is actually catching different rez images, or was it through software? I don't have the dimensions in front of me for the three sizes (13, 8, and 5 megapixel), but they must be doing some kinda interpolation between pixels for each derez step. Wouldn't that change the quality of image from what a CCD would catch at the same scene, do to color blur, etc?
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+100the image on that page is terrible, they needed a camera with a higher megapixel count.
    • COlson87, on 10/12/2007, -22/+1Are you telling me that I got ripped off on my 7.2 MP Sony?

      http://darthno.ytmnd.com/
    • rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It wouldn't be digg if an article about how "megapixels don't matter" didn't make it to the front page every couple of months.

      We get it.. It's not the megapixels that define the quality.
    • eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20You're right, with that size of prints megapixels don't matter. Now try blowing it up to the size of a trade show display. What's that you say? Large reduction in quality between the 13 megapixel and 5 megapixel cameras? Shock and awe.
    • sludgepickle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3you gotta read http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005180&pageNumber=1
    • IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I want to see a native resolution print from a 3MP and a 13MP camera on a 36x48 poster size. And oh please the printer should be able to print at 600dpi atleast.

      Pick up Vogue magazine and see the photos in there. Do you *think* those photos look anything taking with a 3MP camera?

      I am not even considering the potential a 13MP picture provides for in terms of cropping and reprocessing.
    • tcugrilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What cameras were used? Which lenses? And btw who the hell makes a 13 megapixel camera? Not Canon, Not Nikon. Who? And so many posters here are soooooo correct. More megapixels give you the ability to crop. For joe blow with a point and shoot I agree it doesnt matter. But for serious amatuers or pros it makes a HUGE difference.
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1depends on the physical size of the camera. a really small P&S job is going to really shake in your hand when you take a picture, meaning all the extra pixels (say 7MP as opposed to 4MP) will blur into each other.

      On high-end cameras, it does make a difference... yeah yeah, optics, electronics... yawn.
    • isukeyo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4It's becoming more clear with each article he writes that David Pogue knows next to nothing!
    • Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I suspect that cogit0 is correct.

      You can't just take an image at 13MP, then resize it to 5MP and call it a 5MP image.

      A simple test to prove this is to take any digital camera and take two identical images, one at 640x480, and then the other at the max resolution and then downsize it to 640x480. You will see a huge difference in image quality when comparing the two 640x480 images. This sounds like it might be the same procedure followed in the article. This is why, even if I only want a 640x480 image, I'll still take my pictures at full resolution and then downside them--they always look much better.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lets see him pull a chromakey from his lower res camera, or try and get any more scope with a better lens...

      lets see him get a close up, a mid shot and a wide out of the single shot...

      Megapixels don't matter for taking happy snaps of your babies first steps...
      Megapixels don't matter on your phone camera when the lens, and light receptors are so pathetic that they only pick up 300,000 pixels worth of blury image stored on a several megapixel compressed jpeg... These lies you'll get, and an expose is welcome, but the "eye" test is just ridiculous... most people can't tell the difference between a cold and meninga cocol, but that doesn't make them the same... most people can't tell the difference between an MP3 and a wav, but musicians *never* record directly to MP3...

      Megapixels DO matter if you intend of actually using your camera for real work, and not to just have horrible artifacty underlit images headlining your website articles.
    • olego, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@IQ70

      I agree with you. The truth of the matter is that if you end up resizing all your pictures anyway, or printing them on a 4x6, then you shouldn't pay extra for the resolution that you aren't going to use.

      I have a 5MP camera and I'm quite happy with it, since all my pics end up 1024x768 in the end.
    • rusty0101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just a couple of observations. If you are planning on making 10 foot tall prints for a convention, or something like that, then yes mega pixels matter. The question then becomes "is the article for people doing such things?" No it isn't. The article is directed at the people who are going to get information about what may be their next camera purchase from sources like the Discovery Channel.

      These people are going to take the camera on vacation with them to take pictures of the things they see on vacation to share with their friends. They are going to take baby pictures that they will then print for hanging, or e-mail to their family. etc.

      For those uses, it is reasonable to point out that most people will not know if the reason the photo is blurry is because of the resolution of the camera, vs the competence of the photographer.
    • lowbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>The truth of the matter is that if you end up resizing all your pictures anyway, or printing them on a 4x6, then you shouldn't pay extra for the resolution that you aren't going to use.

      Right. I feel sorry for Joe Consumer out there who is just told to buy whatever is most expensive and has the most megapixels, much like the mhz myth of the past. I'd rather see the industry standardize on 5-8 megapixels and work on improving the lens, zoom, and processing. They can save the higher resolution devices for the pro set.
    • scottmoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Keep in mind a ***** photographer takes ***** pictures.....
    • dvdmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First of all, for those commenting about very large prints, ones even bigger then poster size, or even just poster size for that matter, my question to you is - when was the last time you made a print this large? My wife is a portrait photographer and she's never had a request for anything that large! Chances are, if you want something that big, it's for a very special purpose, and not something that you would need to have in your every-day camera. If you need to make such a print, just rent a medium-format camera with a digital back! Those creating full-page magazine ads will use these often.

      The other thing that hasn't been mentioned by anyone is that aside from the sensor size and the lense one uses, there are other features that can compensate for total megapixels. For example, Fujifilm, at least on it's DSLR's, uses octagonal pixels and multiple sensors that allow for better color accuracy as well as a better dynamic range than your standard sensor. They are about to come out with a new one, the S5 Pro, and they have kept it at 6MP, despite the race that's infected even DSLR's. I mean, you might expect the average consumer to fixate on megapixels, but for $2000+ DSLR's, you would think the photographers would have done a bit more thorough research. I guess it just shows that even professionals can get seduced by a number!
  • glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2As interesting as it is I thought the fact that it is going to be on discovery was equally as interesting. A new series called "It's all Geek to me".

    If you want to see some screenshot comparisons of a 6MP vs a 8MP you can visit this forum where I posted conclusively that the 6MP completely out did the 8MP. Even in areas I thought it would surely do better. It is about detail resolution, which is dependent on the sensor and glass.
    • gaberowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It'd be interesting to know how much ink bleeds on photo paper and which printer the professional photo lab uses. Since a printer must do its own form of downsampling to put the either CMYK or RGB. Basically I'm asking, "what is the effective DPI of the printer?"

      I think above 5 MP you start to hit the upper limit of capabilities for color printers that most people own--especially if you don't use photo paper. On a screen, its easy to see the difference between 5 MP and higher because you can zoom in so easily. Zooming in is only somewhat useful unless you are a private investigator or something. Or if you want to impress your friends with the amount of stubble you can grow now.

      Oh and I wish they'd mention how many pixels per inch you are getting, because that's a big deal...
  • glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry here is the link

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&thread=20388944
  • procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25another megapixels don't matter article??? :/ this is getting old...
    • neoporcupine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sure this info is old, but people still want the bigger number and need to be constantly reminded that they probably don't need it. If people crop a lot, or print posters then more megapixels is damned nice. Most people - more megapixels = fewer images on camera, more space used on HDD and very annoyed friends and relatives with 20Meg of images in their inbox.

      It is like all the people getting DSLRs when they should have P&S, they don't understand / want / need 90% of the DSLR functionality. P&S cameras take damned nice photos! Go for better optics and sensors ... or just get the camera to reduce the res.

      http://neoporcupine.blogspot.com/2004/07/digital-photo-printing.html
    • DarkSenay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1megapixels = mega-marketing
  • pious1313, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I work in a biology lab and we use a 1.5 mega pixel camera! The pictures we get are much better than anything you could get with a commercial camera. The sensor seems to be way more important.
    • jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4don't forget the optics. they are also pretty important to image sharpness and color.
    • jbsnyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Precisely, the things that matter here are the sensor (quality & size of photosites are a big deal), and the glass that you're using. Those 7-8MP point-and-shoots with the 1-2cm diameter lens are just NEVER going to give you an image where every last pixel that the sensor is recording matters. It really doesn't matter how many megapixels your sensor has if your lens is a piece of crap. This is one of the main reasons (aside from manual controls) that people buy SLR (digital or otherwise) is that if you're willing to pay for professional quality lenses you can get them, and it makes a difference. Now all that said, what matters even more than ANY of these things is whoever is behind the lens.
  • tsundae, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Stop digging this article... the same bit was dugg last week. And above that, its not interesting.
  • wozley, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Interesting, I always assumed it was all about the megapixels.
    • radiopayola, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6And you should continue to assume such... This article is incomplete and presumptuous. I've seen the difference countless times.
    • tarmithius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Nope, it's all about the Pentiums.
    • paulface12, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1More precisely, its all about Benjamins, baby.
  • Teaboy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I don't get this. If you take 3 different megapixel pictures and then resize them all to the same size, surely they're gonna look the same!?! Depending on the resize method, that is.
    • duxxyuk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I don't entirely agree with you :
      In terms of detail the resize will (as you correctly point out) put the images on par for detail.
      However, differences can be seen in the way the images are exposed, the focus and other aspects that depend on the camera used.
  • REpler, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9This dude is mentally challenged.

    I've seen his other pieces for the NYTimes, and honestly, they're all garbage.
  • fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Umm, not strictly true.

    I have a different title idea for you:
    "The Truth About Digital Cameras: While Megapixels Matter Occasionally Such As With Large Prints, Sensor and Optics Quality is Much More Significant"

    Doesn't have the same ring to it though.
  • benfairless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9So a 8mp camera is not necessarily better than a 3mp one? It ONLY depends on lens quality and sensor sensitivity?
    • celopes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I don't see why they dig you down, it is a fair question.

      The answer is... well... No. The article oversimplifies things.

      Megapixels is just part of the equation. You need a good sensor, the larger the better, and if you intend to do cropping (who doesn't tighten up the composition by cropping? Demi-Gods of photography maybe...) the more megapixels the better. Lens quality, obviously, is very important too.

      But most importantly: you need a good photographer...
    • gildude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@celopes - I certainly agree with your point on the good photographer. I am certainly no pro, but I do generally have good composition and all in my photots. With the same camera, my wife and my sister take photos that - well - suck. I recently did a DVD of over 300 pictures of my son's soccer team - produced one for each player. One other parent with a similar DSLR had done the same. His photos had heads cut off, pics where the feet and the ball were missing, crazy arms in too close to the camera to focus, etc. With similar equipment the results were completely different. And I imagine if a pro took the photos they would make MINE look bad.
  • brlittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Not wholly accurate, especially if you do serious enlargements. But not a bad consideration. I'd take a 4-6MP with superior optics over a cheap 8MP with ***** glass any day.
  • InMSWeAntitrust, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Size does matter, but you need to have a good sensor or else it's worthless...

    No innuendo here, move along
  • duxxyuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As long as the camera has more than 3 megapixels, I'll make my decision principally on lens quality, aperture and exposure controls.

    Also where SLR cameras are concerned, look out for dust management options. Nothing more frustrating than a spec of dust on the CCD and not being able to clean it off.
  • BillehBob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Megapixels don't matter. Let me guess....

    it's what you do with them ?
  • Frost9999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mega-pixels are mostly used as a marketing and sales technique to differentiate cameras in the market. A 6 mega-pixel Nikon D70 with a nice lens will take a much nicer photo than any 8 mega-pixel camera the size of a credit card. But professional photographers already know this. That's one reason we carry expensive digital SLR's with relatively heavy lenses, because even a 50 mega-pixel point'n'shoot would not be good enough!
  • mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One thing I've learned is that those small thin deck of card sized cameras are pretty much junk. Those are not much better than camera that's built into cell phones. The picture quality depends on the lens, physical size of the sensors, the electronics that reduce noise on low light conditions, and most importantly the photographer. It's sad how most consumers are attracted to mega pixel number, the size of the camera itself, and the size of the LCD screen.
    • forcedfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're right the slim profile cameras, are generally worse than their larger counterparts, however, most consumers are more concerned with being able to take the picture and have the camera with them than they are having awesome image quality. What point is there in having a camera that takes great pictures if you can't bring it with you to capture those rare moments?
    • CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What difference will it make what type of camera it is when a good portion of digital photos are taken with an outstretched arm with the lens pointed back at the photographer?
  • sterlingtjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It matters if you plan on editing the photo.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly, I often find something interesting in a photo I've taken and want to crop and blow it up. With a low megapixel camera I can't do that effectively. Oftentimes we only have one chance at certain shots and it pays to have the detail in the images.

      Megapixels may not matter in some cases, but they do matter in a hell of lot more cases.
    • jbsnyder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It doesn't matter if the optics on the camera aren't good enough to make additional resolution give you additional detail. The point is that if you can get the same image by interpolating a low resolution image up to the same resolution as the highest a camera will take, those additional pixels aren't getting you anything in the camera. These issues are tied up in the quality of the lens (mostly) and actual quality of the sensor.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd rather zoom into a low quality image and get blurred spots rather than pixelation. unfortunately these cameras aren't limited by their lenses (detail wise) but rather their resolution.
  • karn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This Op-Ed piece is definitely stupid. Try doing what he did with your 1MP camera phone...Hmm, doesn't look the same as your 13MP camera when blown up to 16x24.
    I'll agree a lot has to do with the lens as well though. But if your serious about doing some photo editing or resizing your image, the extra MP will come in handy. It seems the author just glosses over everything to push his own point.
    • AgentAce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Moot point. The camera has a lens. The phone does not.
    • jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23mpixel (certain cellphones already have this) are enought in almost any case for amateur pictures.
      if you want to crop though, 6mpixel can come in handy ... but most of the time you won't need it.
    • jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4some cellphones DO have lenses if you didn't notice.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The camera phones (all camera phones) do have a cheap lens... they must.

      There is almost no reason to use a good lens if you don't have the pixels to capture the data.
    • oreo2123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hate to break it to ya...but every camera has a lens.

      yes, even a camera phone is still a camera.
    • kday, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1> hate to break it to ya...but every camera has a lens.
      >
      > yes, even a camera phone is still a camera.

      every camera does not have a lens..... dumbass. I have taken pictures with my SLR with a hole drilled through the body cap. Don't comment if you don't know *****.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera
    • oreo2123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you will probably never read this...but,

      From the article YOU provided:
      ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera )
      "In the arts, digital cameras encourage artistic experimentation due to the elimination of film and processing costs; as a result, some photographers have tried making their own PINHOLE LENSES for digital camera bodies, usually using a body cap with an extremely tiny hole in the center."

      well that's a little interesting isn't it??

      hmmmm.....wait a tic...what is a lens then?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29

      "A lens is a device that causes light to either converge and concentrate or to diverge."

      OMG....does that mean a hole in a makeshift camera can constitute a lens....yep.

      So...don't be an ass if you don't know your *****...
      or, how 'bout - just don't be an ass...you pompous prick.
  • riots, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Ken Rockwell has been saying something like this for ages but in better detail and with better evidence. His site is down atm so I can't leave a direct link, but it's Megapixel Myth on this page http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4dugg down for mention of Ken Rockwell.(He is a joke among camera buffs)
    • snowwrestler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@billyboobs34

      Ken Rockwell is a joke among "camera buffs" because he does not take the pixel peeping as seriously as they do. They attack those who do not worship at the feet of the spec sheet or agree with them (example: your digg down). I'm sure I'll get dugg down as well for the same reason.

      If people spent half as much time surfing Ken's gallery pages as they did nitpicking his tech pages they might get a better idea of what he's about.

      - James (photogapher, not "camera buff")
  • AgentAce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Anyone with a trivial understanding of photography will know that the image quality of the photograph depends on the quality of lens the camera has. Once the image sensor is capable of capturing light at a resolution of more than 2 megapixels the greatest factor on the camera is the lens. At this point, the camera is capable of performing what most people want it to do: take photographs and create prints (4x6, 5x7, 8x10). Anything beyond 2-3 megapixels is really only useful when the user is going to create large prints or, for some reason, needs to be able to zoom in on the license plate of a car which is 300 yards away from the camera.

    On a side note, this is why I'll never understand the hype surrounding the camera capabilities of mobile phones. No matter how many MEGAHURTZ (excuse me, megapixels) they make those things capable of capturing, it'll still produce the same ugly, grainy, washed-out image as before. Why? Because there isn't any damned lens on the thing (at least not one worth mentioning). If they'd quit jacking up the megapixels on the things and perhaps put a semi-decent lens on them, perhaps they'd be useful.
    • Linh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bingo. Unfortunately, the numbers game always wins out with the general public. It's very frustrating trying to explain that to someone.

      I wish manufactures would spend more time on finding ways to improve the optics, and get IS cheaper. It seems like they are starting to push IS out there, but it could have been done sooner if this stupid megapixel war wasn't being pushed.

    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is so much optical data on a high quality lens wasted on a 2-3 megapixel camera.
  • Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2IDGI. 'down-rezzing' couldn't have anything to do with it now could it? Another thing to note is that these people were not likely looking at the prints from a 'distance' where the differences would be more apparent.
    • telmacbrit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree. I'd like to see the same experiment done, with the same printer, same size poster, same print resolution, but leaving the source images at their native resolution. If there is still no difference, then I'll listen. Until then, I don't think they're doing a fair comparison. It's the equivalent of saying HDTV is no better quality if viewed on a old 1950's b&w tv...
  • gregrich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Megapixels matter to an extent; take a POS 5 megapixel camera made by some no name company and take a 3 megapixel Canon; the Canon is going to win hands down. The megapixels are not the only thing that counts its a combination of the image sensor, optics, image processor and megapixels. For a point and shoot camera 5 megapixels for most people is going to be more than adequate; but for a pro the better the quality or camera / lens and the higher the megapixels the better because the minute you load that photo into Photoshop and start doing some editing the difference between a 5 megapixel photo and a 13 megapixel photo is going to be night and day.
    • Chesterfield, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well said. I use digital photography for visual effects in movies. It's the bit-depth and the optics that really count, as much as the size in megapixels. Has to be above 6 to be useful at full frame, much higher if cropped. On a 40-foot sceen, you see all the flaws.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Exactly, it all boils down to having both good optics and high megapixels. One is useless without the other!
  • garyeterry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2How many times is this story coming back from the dead? Old news..
  • Dominatus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To say megapixels don't matter at all is about as idiotic as to say megapixels are the only thing that matters.
  • elbeano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't think the whole "derezzing" thing makes for an accurate comparison. A 5 MP picture made from something of a higher resolution is going to be better quality than a 5 MP picture in it's native resolution. When they do transfers for dvds they sample the source material at 4 times the resolution and "derezz" it because it ends up being better quality than just transferring it at the dvd resolution.
  • ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Megapixels may not matter, but I guarantee in a few years you won't be able to find anything less than 15 mega's. I seriously doubt they will stop making bigger and better because "size doesn't matter". Sounds like the same argument he's made to his girlfriend.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...and he is wrong on both arguments
  • crashingechelon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well I'm happy with my 4mp camera. It works for what I need it for and the image it produces does well for editing. If I were to get anything higher, I'd just opt for an SLR or whatever those high camera's are.
  • socket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you're a professional then EVERYTHING about the camera is important. As an ex-professional the CCD and lens are on the top of my list. The mega pixel count is part of the consideration when looking at the CCD. But there are lost of concerns about a CCD that are above the mega pixel count. There are plenty of CCD's at 8 mega pixel that can produce much better picture then some 12 mega pixel CCD's. But saying straight out that mega pixels do not matter is stupid.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Being an ex-pro you'd know that the cameras we use don't have CCDs...they have CMOS

    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1by "we" I mean we professional photographers
    • snowwrestler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@billyboobs34

      The Nikon D200 is one of many professional-level cameras using a CCD sensor. CCD has traditionally been a superiour sensor technology in terms of noise and low-light performance--every astronomical camera used a CCD sensor for decades for that reason--but produced slower readout, used more power, and was much more expensive to produce. CMOS sensors are much cheaper to produce because they use the same production process used to make other chips such as CPUs and RAM. But they collect less light per pixel and are harder to get a uniform low-noise image off of. CMOS sensors can produce great images but require perfect manufacturing and more data processing. Canon's true competitive advantage includes not only their sensors but also their image processing--it's so important they even gave it its own brand name (DIGIC).

      Learn more: http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp
  • inajeep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Saw a similar thread on digg.com a while ago, the other more important thing that any photographer will tell you is the lens is a large factor that can't be ignored. In this guy's test he makes not mention of the camera brand, model or lenses he used. Nor does he give those pics to use to see on a monitor which is easier to tell the difference on than a photograph.
  • Combathangar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It takes a 'special' kind of self righteous individual to make a grand statement like Mega pixles Don't Matter, and then admit in the article that a professional could tell the difference and dismiss this factual finding as 'luck'. The subject in the alleged comparison was a baby, which is by its very nature a pretty low end subject for comparing details. Why didn't he try something a little more along the lines of a panoramic shot of a forest or other subject that has a requirement for more detail to be acceptable?

    First of all, mega pixels are not the only thing that matter. They are part of an important group of things it takes to make a good picture. The number of pixels is important, but so is the sensor size, and quality. The electronics that decode the sensor data, the lens that actually directs the light onto the sensor and the software used to compress the image (since almost no one shoots in raw format).

    Secondly, his 'test' is not a true test of mega pixels in the real word. You CAN NOT take a 13 mega pixel picture, and RESIZE it as done in this article, and call it a true comparison. When you take a higher resolution picture and resize it down, you are averaging a 13 mega pixel image, and you get a much better, cleaner and sharper image than you would by taking a picture at 8 or 5 mega pixels to start with. This alone invalidates the results.

    The entire article is full of bogus claims, and half truths. Mega pixels do matter, There is a point of diminishing returns for normal use (it is above 10 mega pixels), but even at that point a high mega pixel count will allow you to crop your shows to get the best composition, and make up for any lack of zoom.
    • lemz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thnx for saving me time having to type this...

      The test is flawed to begin with. He should've upsampled the original, not downsampled it and then upsampled again.

      If anything, megapixels do matter a great deal, just because of the sensor size in SLRs and crop factor.
  • ZackScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a question then. What if you use only one camera, and take the same picture (I know, it's impossible, but stick with me here) using that camera's different resolutions? You know, take one at 2 MP, one at 5 MP, and maybe one at 10 MP? So if you blow them all up to the same size (say 16x24 or even 32x48) will they all look the same? Is that what the article is claiming?

    Also, what about home printing? I don't want to go to a professional lab just to get good quality prints.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is what the article is falsely claiming. Although it's only method of resizing shown is down-sampling.

      If I resized all my pics to 320x240 they'd probably look like the same quality too.

      For home printing use a canon photo printer or go to the nearest Walgreen's (cheaper).
    • zoom1928, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1billlyboobs34 your resizing joke isn't actually a joke. Most of the images shared online are reduced to in size to 600x600 or smaller so you're describing something very common. There is a huge difference in quality between cameras even when you reduce the resolution that much. I have a five year-old hand calibrated Japanese camera with three CCD sensors that takes 640x480 pictures, and they are spectacular. The colors are perfect, and the dynamic range is nice. With our new $2k 8Mp digital SLR with lenses after the pictures are reduced to 640x480 (we use them on our web site), the pictures are not nearly as nice as the ones with the old, low resolution camera. The new camera is 26 times the resolution, but for pictures on the web it isn't as nice as the old camera because of the improved color and dynamic range of the old camera. For us and most of the people that use their pictures on the web, Megapixels don't matter.
  • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah and some people can't tell the difference in quality between cassettes and CDs, or between bit rates. Doesn't mean there isn't one.

    While I will admit it's no where near as important as the marketing makes out, saying it doesn't make a difference is moronic
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Horses for course - does make a difference for high-end pro or semi-pro cameras, but makes absolutely no difference for titchy point and shoot cameras.

      Buying a mini-P&S with an 8MP CCD is a bit like buying a Mini with a 500HP V12 engine - you'll never get all the power down through the little wheels.
  • painting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how come my 2 mp camera takes such crappy poster sized pictures, its all blurry, I'm pretty sure I used autofocus I must be a bad photographer :-(.
  • mariuspopovici, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I too believe that MP don't matter so much as the quality of the sensor and lens. I own a 10 MP camera but I mostly shoot at 5MP. Here are two photos taken with different cameras at 3.2 and 5MP:

    1. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=169170325&size=l
    Shot with a Canon S1 IS (3.2 MP) (Canon Lens)
    2. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=295441257&size=o
    Shot with a Panasonic FZ50 @ 5MP (Leica Lens)

    You can see the enhanced sharpness and detail in the second photo and I attribute that to the quality of the Leica lens more than to the 1.8 MP difference.
    • painting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0uhhh those are resized to 600 000 pixels, which means you've proven nothing.
    • billlyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0unfortunately those aren't the same photo taken with both cameras
  • punkrawkintrev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HA, i cant believe all of you are hopping on this story when it is so obviously flawed! Of course you cant tell a difference between the prints at 16x24 because that size of a print is easily doable by any decent 5mp camera. When conducting a test you should make prints that are doable by the higher end cameras but out of the range of the lower end ones. This test is like taking a Geo Metro, a Toyota Camry and a Ferrari and saying that they are all the same because they can all hit 30 mph just fine. That said as a graphic designer I know that anything above a 5mp camera is a waste of money to the average consumer as the difference isn't visible at smaller sizes. But its is completely erroneous to say that mega pixels don't matter, they matter a whole lot to us designers. My advice would be not to pick up a new camera this Christmas if you already have a 5mp, but to invest in a high end epson printer because print quality makes more of a difference.
  • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1GAAARGH!

    So many posts, so little insight...

    All things being equal (optics, electronics and such), more megapixels is good.

    HOWEVER - my friend just bought a little Canon point&shoot with a 7MP CCD, cost her about £150 so not bad, but it can't compete with my 4MP SLR, which cost about the same.

    Why? Something nobody has mentioned as far as I can see - hand wobbling.

    There's no way you can resolve 7million pixels with a camera the size of a deck of cards, weighing about 50g, simply because your hand will shake so much when you snap, all the extra pixels will blur into each other.

    Actually it's quite nice to have the megapixel race, you can buy really good digi cameras for next to nothing, because they were released 18 months ago and haven't got enough pixels to look tempting on a high street shelf.
    • acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1shake is a function shutter speed (how long the shutter is open), which is a function of the amount of light in a scene and how much light the lens lets in (f stop..). Maybe the extra detail in the picture shows shake more, but it will be there for most cameras.

      The "rule" about handholding is use a shutter speed = or larger than the mm rating of your lens. (ie a 200mm lens, don't go under 1/200th of a second shutter speed). This has changed a little as many cameras have stabilizers and/or smaller sensors. One technique is to take 2 -3 pictures digitally when at the edge of camera shake. One is usually much better than the others.


  • paulface12, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0If someone else makes a remark about "sensor quality" or "glass" I'm going to bash my head in with a shovel. Yeah, yeah, yeah... we get it... you're the cool photographer type.
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I find it astonishing how so many people can be talking at total cross-purposes and still end up saying the exact same things.
  • ektar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For me it's this simple: everything else being equal, if you think mega-pixels don't matter, its probably because you don't know how to use the extra pixels... so for that kind of person, buying more than a 2 or 3 mp is a waste of money.
  • Weakling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Totally bogus test. First of all: professional photo labs do not print at 300dpi, but a lot lower than that. It is another misconception that the higher the dpi is, the better the picture will be. The single dot size matters a lot in that respect.

    Second: if you take for example a picture of sand grains in a 10 x 10 box with a 3mp and a 13mp camera, you will definitely see a lot more detail on the 13mp picture if you view it in digital form on your computer monitor.

    Making something digital analog again always results in loss in quality. It is like saying: "SACD's do not sound better than a normal CD, look I have placed examples of both on a cassette tape and you cannot hear the difference".
  • adspigot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know you all know this already, but give me a break, all things the same, same QUALITY sensor, same lens, no interpolation, there is a huge difference. Sure if your using crappy consumer cams, there is very little difference because the lenses are too bad to capture any sharpness anyway, but if you are using say a Canon 1Ds, with a 70-200L Lens, and you set it to capture at 4MP, and then recapture the SAME image on a tripod at 11.2MP, and then print BOTH of those images at 16x20 at 300dpi, if you can't tell the difference, your a blind idiot.

    JB
  • acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am a photographer (hobbist now but it used to be my job). When it was my job, I used film.

    Some points: a photographic print from film has usually 300 ppi (pixels per inch) resolution max. ie if you slap your 4x6 on a flatbed scanner and scan at 1200 (ppi) you won't get any more detail than if you scanned at 300 dpi, just a larger file. (pixels and dots are interchangeable here, but dpi is usually reservered from printers).

    to double the resolution of a 4 megapixel camera takes 16 mexapixels, because the numbers are square)

    The subject your shooting matters. If you have a scene with lots of fine detail, the extra megapixels can help. If you shooting subjects with less detail, not so much.

    2 megapixel point and shoot (I had one..) does well 4x6 snaps. 5 megapixels a great 8x10. 8-10 megapixels makes a great 11x17. Keep in mind you want about 240 pixels per inch ideally. Most computer screens are 72-100 ppi.

    The larger you print the photograph the further away people will stand from it so they won't observe as much of the greater detail. So, there is somewhat of a diminishing return on those extra pixels. However, it makes cropping easier/possible.

    Pixel size matters to especially in lower light, (why an 8 megapixel digital SLR camer will take better pictures than an 8 megapixel point and shoot). In bright sunshine the difference between the point and shoot and SLR quality is less.
    • ulsterwrod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i disagree. i had a 6.3 megapixel digital rebel and the 8 x 10 prints were nowhere near great.

      i sold the camera and started shooting 4 x 5 to make large prints.

      and they look very good.
  • JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Terrible article. I have had three digital cameras and to say that mega pixels don't matter means you are not qualified to make statements like that. I have had a 1.3 MP camera, a 4 MP camera, and a 6.3 MP SLR. There are great differences between the photos produced by all of these cameras, printed and on screen.

    Not to mention this is not scientific, it's just a friggin' poll.
  • isukeyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For the last ***** time, this is such *****! Megapixels DO MATTER!

    Of course your average person probably won't see the difference between the images that are produced in the test they did - but try publishing a magazine with a 3-5 megapixel image on the cover or inside and then the differences become all too clear. Different pixel counts serve different purposes and just because your average Joe doesn't see the difference in once situation does not mean they won't notice in another.

    Megapixels DO MATTER! How many needed simply depends on the final output!
    • isukeyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm really starting to dislike David Pogue!
  • symbha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Photo noob.
    You have to get into sizes above 16x24, and better quality printers to be able to utilize the extra information contained in 13MP.

    Yes, Megapixels matter (and we reached sufficient for the average user a while ago.)
    So do optics, ccd quality, and print reproduction equipment.

    His equipment will not reveal differences, but they most certainly are there.
  • VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Yo yo yo, check it mutha *****!!! I been doin' professional fotograffy fo ma frienz wit digital kameraz fo ten years holla! An I can say dat u ain't got ***** unless da megapixelz is at de 11 range. When I take da booty shotz on ma frienz ridez, I get more flesh detailz wit mo megapixelz yo. Dis story is *****. Diggniz diz bitch down mutha *****!
  • sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Great, just great. This is gonna end up making peoples jobs harder. People like me. The next time I recomend a digital camera to management for work, or I recomend that one of our sales reps buy a digital camera for taking pictures for advertisements, I'll encounter "but they said megapixels don't matter! we're going to buy the $150 camera instead!". Then they'll proceed to stand 30 feet away from the subject, zoomed all the way out, and take a few careless snapshots and expect our people to be able to do something with the five pixel wide person/sign/product/etc in the center of the frame.
  • mrdat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When I purchased my Nikon D200, the guy at the store recommended me to get a $1000 lens. I told him, I spent "this" much already for the D200, I can't spend that much more for a lens... but his response was: One of the most important part of a camera is the lens. If the glass is not good, the camera body makes no difference. He said he uses the original Canon 6.1 Digital Rebel with a $1200 lens and it makes a world of a difference. I learned this really early and now I have a few of the best Nikon lenses to use. (Oddly enough, one of the best ones by Nikon is only $114: Nikon 50mm 1.8D ) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=247091&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

    Marc.
    • mrdat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh Yeah, It's also very important where you print your photos. I used to print my 10MP prints at walgreens and were never impressed with my camera.... but when I printed for the first time at a Wolf/Ritz camera, I was very impressed and very happy!

      It maybe more money, but it's worth it! I'm sure your 5mp and lower prints will turn out great at a Wolf/Ritz
  • cruzlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This whole article would look just as bad at 0.001 Megapixel.

    For instance, he poses that of all the people he showed the pictures only ONE put the pictures in the right order. Now this is a very good sign that he is lying, because there are only six possible orders to put three pictures in, which would make his outcome very unlikely with the "dozens of people" stopping by. Even IF the pictures were exactly the same, which of course they are not.

    Second argument: Where is this test of his? I see no numbers, no real statistics, etc. Instead we have to believe him because he tells us very often? ("I’m telling you, there was NO DIFFERENCE.")
    This is something you should be sceptical about.

    Third argument. A downsampled picture is shown IN the friggin' article. It looks as bad as they get.

    Conclusion:
    quote: "I’m telling you, there was NO DIFFERENCE."
    I myself am telling you: Do not trust this man, because there are valid reasons to doubt him. Do the test yourself. Same outcome? Cool. Show me the test results.
  • caffeine43, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Tim the "Tool Man" Taylor says "more pow....megapixels!"
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.