16 megapixel camera nikon image
Nazif
I was in an electronics store today looking at cameras. The £59.99 Nikon S3200 camera had 16 megapixels while the £118.97 Canon Power shot SX230 had 12.1 megapixels. I know there are other features, like CMOS, which compensate for the lower megapixels and overall make the picture quality better. But I just wondered why a lot of higher priced cameras seem to have somewhat lower megapixels.
Answer
More megapixels does not mean better pictures. This is a marketing myth. It can mean more detail, but in practice it doesn't usually even mean that. To get more megapixels onto the same sized sensor, each pixel has to get smaller. That means it is less reactive to light, so less effective in low light levels.
Unfortunately people got used to the lie that more megapixels means better pictures back in the days when the difference between 2MP and 3MP really did make a difference. The truth is that anything over 10MP is enough.
The things which make a camera cost more are things like lens quality, reaction times, fastest shutter speeds, LCD size, and a load of other factors. Manufacturers just keep increasing the MP count to make people think they are getting a better deal when in fact they aren't.
Once you go over 10MP the only things that makes much difference are lens quality and sensor size - and you pay a lot more for a large sensor camera. Most other things are just marketing fluff.
Digital zoom is another example - completely useless because it's the same thing as cropping your picture on a computer, but manufacturers insist on quoting ever inflated figures to make you think you are getting something better.
More megapixels does not mean better pictures. This is a marketing myth. It can mean more detail, but in practice it doesn't usually even mean that. To get more megapixels onto the same sized sensor, each pixel has to get smaller. That means it is less reactive to light, so less effective in low light levels.
Unfortunately people got used to the lie that more megapixels means better pictures back in the days when the difference between 2MP and 3MP really did make a difference. The truth is that anything over 10MP is enough.
The things which make a camera cost more are things like lens quality, reaction times, fastest shutter speeds, LCD size, and a load of other factors. Manufacturers just keep increasing the MP count to make people think they are getting a better deal when in fact they aren't.
Once you go over 10MP the only things that makes much difference are lens quality and sensor size - and you pay a lot more for a large sensor camera. Most other things are just marketing fluff.
Digital zoom is another example - completely useless because it's the same thing as cropping your picture on a computer, but manufacturers insist on quoting ever inflated figures to make you think you are getting something better.
What relationship does megapixel rating have with image quality?
Jared
Hi,
I am about to purchase my first DSLR, and I am noticing that nikon has a 24 megapixel (D3200) for 550 dollars at my best buy. Their better and more expensive model, however, only has a 16 megapixel rating (D5100.) Cannon also has options... with a slightly higher megapixel rating and a slightly better camera as you go down the line. How worried should I be about megapixel rating? I won't really ever be printing over 11x14's.
With a higher Megapixel rating, Will that provide the ability to print a larger image without seeing the fuzzy dots that make up the digital image? Does image quality in a more expensive camera sometimes trump a large megapixel number in a cheaper camera?
Thanks a heap.
www.jaredcravens.com
Answer
megapixels are not a measure of image quality.
the marketing teams of camera companies push the numbers higher and higher only to sell cameras.
Don't fall for the large print myth. People here give advice as if everyone were going to print up big billboard photos.
12-16MP is enough for anybody not making money selling large gallery prints.
When you add pixels, you must pay a price, there is no free lunch. The 3200, 5200 and 7100 take a hit in low light at high ISO vs a lower pixel count sensor. So you have to weigh the feature set of each camera, along with the image sensor.
Lastly, don't fall for anyone posting links to DxOmark.com. Those up front numbers don't tell the truth, you have to dig into the data to get the real performance of the image sensor. The D3200 sensor, when you see the real numbers, is no better than the old D3000.
The real champs when it comes to APS-C image sensors, when you see the real data are the Fuji X100 and the Pentax K5 II.
Shoot in RAW format, keep your ISO low, and with 16 MP, you can go really big if you need to.
megapixels are not a measure of image quality.
the marketing teams of camera companies push the numbers higher and higher only to sell cameras.
Don't fall for the large print myth. People here give advice as if everyone were going to print up big billboard photos.
12-16MP is enough for anybody not making money selling large gallery prints.
When you add pixels, you must pay a price, there is no free lunch. The 3200, 5200 and 7100 take a hit in low light at high ISO vs a lower pixel count sensor. So you have to weigh the feature set of each camera, along with the image sensor.
Lastly, don't fall for anyone posting links to DxOmark.com. Those up front numbers don't tell the truth, you have to dig into the data to get the real performance of the image sensor. The D3200 sensor, when you see the real numbers, is no better than the old D3000.
The real champs when it comes to APS-C image sensors, when you see the real data are the Fuji X100 and the Pentax K5 II.
Shoot in RAW format, keep your ISO low, and with 16 MP, you can go really big if you need to.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Why do more expensive cameras have lower megapixels?
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment