Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Scott M

The Megapixel myth and consumer shopping

2 posts in this topic

Don’t start search for digital camera before resolving Megapixel Myth


It happens to all of us: the moment when one finds out that more megapixels and better photographs aren't always the same thing. To be disabused of the Megapixel Myth -- this decade's analog of the Megahertz Myth -- can lead to an existential buyer's crisis in miniature.

Disbelief, at first, gives way to a sort of embarrassing self-questioning: You mean, 15 megapixels isn't three times better than 5 megapixels? This year's model isn't better than last year's? I spent all that money upgrading -- for nothing?

The panicky consumer is then faced with the choice of dumping digital electronics or learning about camera technology and taking control of purchasing decisions.

Upon pursuing this latter path, one soon realizes that all is not lost. Newer generations of digital cameras and camcorders, which almost always have more megapixels or higher resolutions, still tend to produce great output.

But there is more to a digital camera's sensor than resolution. Understanding some of the basics may just convince you that, at least this year, buying last year's model is a smart move.

In a sea of specifications, one of the most overlooked is the size, not the number, of pixels on a camera's sensor. Bigger sensors usually mean bigger pixels, which provides some advantages when it comes to making an image.

The mechanics of this can be understood by thinking of a digital camera sensor as a flat sheet of material pocked with millions (hence "mega") of cylindrical, cuplike pixels. In other words, picture the digital sensor as a tiny cupcake tin.

Photons (light particles) pass through a camera's lens and are captured by the cups in the tray. Each cup is either red, yellow or blue (the three colors that are the building blocks for all other colors). The more photons a cup catches, the brighter that cup's color. Totally empty cups record black; totally full cups record white.

Often not worth paying extra

Larger pixels (cups, remember), with larger surface areas, capture more photons per second, which in electronics-speak means a stronger signal -- and in camera-speak means less noise and cleaner colors. Bigger pixels can also capture more photons per exposure without filling up, so larger pixels hold on to their color longer and don't go white as quickly as smaller pixels.

Since sensor sizes in compact cameras haven't gotten much bigger, but their megapixel count has, increasing the number of pixels can be accomplished only by using smaller pixels. For this reason, it's often not worth paying extra for the newest megapixel champion, says Phil Askey, editor of

"Once you get beyond seven or eight megapixels in a compact point-and-shoot camera, the small lenses are struggling to keep up," Askey said.

The same thing is true for digital single-lens reflex cameras. In fact, recent tests conducted at concluded that the new 15-megapixel Canon EOS 50D ($1,400) "shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise," and slightly less dynamic range, than the older 10-megapixel Canon EOS 40D ($920).

As a way to visualize just how densely packed sensors have become, Askey's HSOforum provides pixel density and sensor-size data on more than 1,200 digital cameras.

So if you're in the market for a "pro-sumer" DSLR (a consumer camera with the quality and features of a professional model) that minimizes noise issues, take a look at the Canon Rebel XSi ($600), Canon 40D ($920), Nikon D80 ($640), and Nikon D90 ($1,000).

Tapping your inner pro

Another advantage of a larger sensor is the ability to produce images where only a relatively small portion of the subject is in focus. Understanding how this works may require a physics degree, but in general, cameras with small sensors tend to produce images where almost everything appears to be in focus.

This is the main reason that, in normal shooting situations, images produced by small point-and-shoot cameras and DSLRs look so distinct. In digital video, the result of using small sensors is sometimes referred to as the "video look."

The bad news: You'll probably need to use a DSLR to produce a really shallow depth of field. The good news: You can achieve that professional look with the cheapest of entry-level DSLRs, which are also relatively small.

If you're looking for a smallish camera that can achieve shallow-depth-of-field images, good deals include the Canon Rebel XS (around $510 with lens), Nikon D40/D40X (around $450 with lens), and Olympus E-420 (around $460 with lens).

Though some experts say they believe that improvement has slowed in digital imaging, it's always wise to remember that with technology, today's rules are tomorrow's anachronisms.

But no matter when the next advance in digital imaging comes, the old saying that the photographer is the most important part of a good photo will still hold true.

Consider Alex Majoli, an award-winning Magnum photographer known for shooting images of war and other dramatic scenes for publications like National Geographic -- with compact point-and-shoot digital cameras.

Or consider the more critical words of Ansel Adams, who once wrote, "The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."


Something my parents, friends, and sister need to see, and that's coming from a guy who knows the bare minimum about cameras!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article, Scott. Thanks for posting it. smilesmile

I've largely resisted the compulsion to upgrade every year, not to mention the financial angle. The megapixel war is a battle of marketing, not need, the targeting of the perception that more is better.

I'm still using 8 Mp DSLR bodies, and while I may upgrade one of those bodies to a 15 Mp body, it's not because of the megapixels, but because of the other features.

In image quality comparisons between the 40D and 50D, it's important to note whether in-camera noise reduction was used in the 50D for the comparison. Side-by-side with the 40D, the 50D will show more noise, but when the in-camera 50D noise reduction is enabled at the "strong" level, that's when the camera shines. Since this article is trying to make the point that newer cameras and more megapixels are not necessarily better, it may be that the comparison does not allow the 50D's noise reduction in the mix, which is like comparing a new turbocharged mustang to the last model of non-turbo mustang but leaving the turbocharger off in the new one. The DP Review assessment has been one of those that has not allowed the in-camera noise reduction in the 50D when comparing noise/IQ on the two bodies. Sure, you can compare them that way, but why do it? It's not a real-world comparison.

Ideally, I'd love to see a 50D with 10-12 Mp and all its new technology. That would be a total assassin when it comes to noise and image quality. I shoot my 1.6 crop 8 Mp sensors at iso1600 freely and at need, and have had great luck and little noise with that when the images are properly exposed. I've made prints now to 30x45 with those 8 Mp 1.6 crop sensors, and the images are great. Imagine the new technology at 10-12 Mp on that crop sensor instead of 15 Mp. But of course that won't happen because it's all a battle of marketing overcoming real-world need.

One of the basic theses of this article -- that it's the eye, mind and heart behind the camera rather than the Mp count within it that dictates artful photography -- is so true and so important that it bears repeating as often as anyone cares to repeat it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Posts

    • Best of wishes Bryce! You got this   buddy reporting absolutely bonkers action up in mid Saskatchewan right now. They're still a long ways away boys
    • Made it out again Saturday. The water had turned but the muskies didn't seem to mind. Found them in similar but different locations (baitfish seem to be patrolling the shallows searching for food). Stuck a small one myself and my brother got a nice 41.5" that was thickening up for fall. A lot of people dragging suckers, and buoys are starting to disappear from the lakes so be careful navigating.
    • Went out and grabbed a trail cam today that I left on a piece of public I haven't hunted before. Bucks showing up around that first 30 min of daylight in the last week or two. Rubs and scrapes are showing up everywhere.
    • A D.A. sander and 220 grit. Clean off with the cleaner after, now you just preped the boat for paint as well.
    • That's because you aren't bored sitting in a dorm room having a few beers thinking hey lets put some breast augmentation craap on a fishing forum and see what kind of replies we can get!
    • In my first post.....stressed REPUTABLE poll trackers. Trump twitters everyday about polls saying he is ahead. If you think he is right ....fine .....on topic.....give us your number line.
    • I have been looking at houses for the last five years.  Only thing close to what I want is a Yetti and still not totally sold on them.  Two reasons why i have not bought one,  quality and price.  I cannot justify $20k for one especially if its built with poor craftsmanship.  I will buy someday but I can still catch fish out of my portable.   I think you could get into the market if you can produce a quality product at a fair price.  A lot of good business advice here also.   Unless you have a pile of cash you can afford to lose,  start small and grow as business dictates.
    • That's not what the stories at the time said.  There was definitely a surprise factor there.  And note in the Washington post piece that only 3 of 10 polling organizations called the result within the margin of error.  So, nice try but incorrect. Here's why the majority of Brexit polls were wrong     Why were polls so wrong about Brexit?   Monday, 4 Jul 2016 | 12:17 AM ET | 01:54   It was a result that forced the ouster of the British Prime Minister, sent shockwaves across financial markets and raised doubts over the fate and composition of the European Union. Just how did experts get it this wrong? The U.K. EU referendum vote prompted a global massive market selloff as markets were priced in expecting a remain outcome. More than two trillion dollars were wiped out globally, the largest drop on record. Leading up to voting day, the vast majority of polls predicted the remain side would prevail, however the final results gave the leave side a victory margin of more than one million votes. According to SurveyMonkey's Chief Research Officer, Jon Cohen, young voter turnout and the death of Lawmaker Jo Cox are the likely largest factors in the discrepancy between polls and the final outcome. "The Remain campaign was heavily dependent on support among younger voters and they simply didn't show up," Cohen told CNBC. The murder of Cox in the days leading up to the vote, triggered new challenges in polling, even though it was difficult to determine how the tragedy would influence polling. "After the assassination, the Remain side became more vocal and were willing to share their opinions about Brexit than were leave voters," Cohen said. "It was a very difficult environment to gauge an opinion in." John MacDougall | AFP | Getty Images A poster featuring a Brexit vote ballot with 'out' tagged is on display at a book shop window. Yet many are wondering, how in an age of unprecedented information and data, could the majority of polls predict a wrong outcome. "The polls really showed a close-in contest until the very end," Cohen clarified. "But I think we still need to dig in on what happened in those final days to show such a strong movement for Remain that ultimately dissipated on election day." The inaccurate Brexit prediction is just one of multiple misses over recent years, including last year's U.K. general election, the Scottish referendum in 2014 and most recently during Bernie Sanders' upset over Hillary Clinton during the Michigan primary......   Here’s why pollsters and pundits got Brexit wrong By Chris Hanretty June 24
      A European Union flag, with a hole cut in the middle, flies at half-mast outside a home in Knutsford Cheshire, Britain. (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images) Late Thursday night, voters in the English city of Newcastle chose to remain in the European Union. Pollsters had predicted that voters there and elsewhere in Britain would have voted Remain by a considerable margin. In the end, Remain won by the tiniest of margins, taking 50.7 percent of the vote in Newcastle. Over the next six hours, results from across the United Kingdom showed that British voters were tearing up the script and starting again. Not only did they turn out to vote at higher rates than in any previous U.K.-wide referendum, they also voted to Leave at higher rates than most had predicted. In the end, almost 52 percent of voters chose to exit the European Union.   Before we move on to discussing the consequences of this shock vote, it’s important to think about what this says about our ability to predict, and render intelligible, referendums of this kind. There are four main points to make. First, we did not see this coming. For some weeks now, Stephen Fisher and Rosalind Shorrocks have been tracking referendum forecasts. They consider a wide range of sources, from forecasting models based on polls, to citizen forecasts, to betting markets. None of these methods saw a Leave outcome as the most likely outcome. Ordinary citizens came closest, putting the probability of ‘Brexit’ at 55.2 percent, closely followed by an average of polls at 55.6 percent. The least accurate forecasting method was to infer probabilities from betting markets. Fisher and Horrocks, on their morning of poll update, reported an implied probability of just 23 percent. Ninety minutes after the close of poll, this market-derived probability had fallen to just 11.3 percent. Second, this was not a systematic polling failure of the same magnitude as last year’s U.K. general election, where opinion polls badly underestimated the Conservatives’ chance of victory. There are very many ways to combine polls, but a simple average of the last poll released by each polling company predicts that Remain would get 51 percent, three percentage points off the final result. Three of 10 polling companies published final figures which were within the margin of error of the final result. Two of these companies conducted their polling online, and generally online polls — which had provided lower figures for Remain throughout the campaign — were more accurate. Although the polling industry would have preferred to have nailed it “on average,” they have not performed as badly as they did last year, and remain acutely aware of the potential ways in which their polls can fail.
    • BlackLundPro gets his 4th weekly win of the year this week. 3rd, 9th, 11th, and 19th place along with 5 qualifying points from Keselowski earned his team 319 points. Congrats BlackLundPro!   BlackLundPro - 319 Huckfin - 310 juneau4 - 288 Fishin-Novice - 282 Jar Jar - 239 88fan - 223 cat-man - 223 musky999 - 219 jwhjr - 217 mnwildman - 217 gregg52 - 205 fishing star - 204 yaggie - 190 Rip_Some_Lip - 189 Airjer - 149 SwivelDigger - 137 Moose - 11   Total Points 1  Fishin-Novice  9,068 2  musky999  8,903 3  gregg52  8,852 4  jwhjr  8,767 5  Rip_Some_Lip  8,702 6  mnwildman  8,648 7  88fan  8,607 8  BlackLundPro  8,546 9  yaggie   8,499 10  Huckfin  8,487 11  fishing star  8,400 12  SwivelDigger  8,357 13  juneau4  8,318 14  cat-man  8,308 15  Jar Jar  8,280 16  Airjer  8,195 17  Moose  6,783
    • Were the stories different?  Or just the headlines?   Sometimes stuff changes during a press run at any newspaper.  What was the date?  And who pointed it out?   Putin? 
  • Our Sponsors