Chasing the Megapixel
Posted by jeff in Photography, tags: Camera, digital, Image, Nikon, PhotoRecently I gave a presentation at work to educate my fellow employees on how to go about purchasing a digital camera. One of the main points of emphasis was not to get caught up in the race for more pixels. This is especially true for those that are buying point-n-shoot cameras. Being a techno-geeky sort of guy I can understand how easy it is to get caught up in new technology. I swap out camera bodies about once every year and a half, but hopefully for the right reasons. One of the key points I made during my presentation was to know what you plan on doing with all of those pixels. So many people never make anything larger than a 4×6 print with the majority of images being sent in emails to GrandMa. Do you really need an 8 megapixel camera for a 4×6? I would think you could get by on 3.2 or less.
The other day I read an article about photographer Gary Land who swears buy printing at 150 dpi. So if you do the math, that equals about 540,000 pixels or a .5 megapixel camera sensor. Ok, I know that’s not realistic but it is close to the truth. When I was trekking around Cambodia, the only camera I carried was a Nikon D70s with a whopping 6 megapixels. I have made numerous prints from those images, many at sizes up to 13″x19″ and they kick butt! This was why I was so excited to see that the new Nikon D3 didn’t cram more pixels into their array, rather they made their pixels larger and better. This is what has been missing in the point-n-shoot world. Squeezing more pixels into a fingernail sized sensor can actually lead to decreased image quality, less sensitivity, and lower dynamic range. The only reason I can see for anyone to upgrade their camera these days is to take advantage of improved technology in the cameras, not more pixels behind the lens.
Chris MacAskill, chief executive of SmugMug, a Web site that hosts photos and lets users print them said “The word ‘megapixel’ is a marketer’s dream. Every consumer believes more is better,” “The trouble is megapixels stopped mattering once we passed 6 of them,” “One in a million shots would benefit from more than 6 megapixels, while every indoor shot would benefit from less noise.” I couldn’t agree more with Chris. Unfortunately digital cameras have gone down the same road as the megahertz race in computer processors and bigger high-def TV screens. Most manufacturers claim better quality but still feed the frenzy with ever larger pixel counts. You think there’s a reason they put those big stickers on the front of a camera that boasts how many pixels it has? Funny how improved image processors always gets 2nd or 3rd billing. Who wants to brag about their digic III processor when they can show off their 12 megapixel sticker? My hope is that consumers will someday realize that they won’t need more pixels to improve their photos and that they should concentrate on the features like image stabilization and face recognition that will ultimately improve their photography.
Related posts:
Entries (RSS)
Well Jeff, I think we have talked about this before but I swear my 995 Coolpix was sharper that my D1x. Same with my 8700 which had more pixels than the D1x. If your glass is soft you could have a forty million megapixel camera (like KB says) and it won’t do any good. And as far as printing at 150 versus 360 It’s really more about YOUR individual printer. My big LJ printer outputs at 200dpi and everything is sharp even when the file sizes aren’t that big. So I am always skeptical when someone says that you should always print at 144, 150, 300, 360 or whatever. Unless you know where the secret pro button is, it doesn’t matter. Joking aside, if it works for you and you and your clients are happy, forget what anyone else tells you.
mike meyer