ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
RichA
bound to appear.
ABC
Why More Megapixels Don't Make Better Pix
Have a Pocket-Sized Camera? Watch Out for Too Many Megapixels
By CHRIS GAYLORD
April 25, 2009 —
When it comes to electronics, more is better. Consumers want more
features, more hard-drive space, more cellphone minutes and more
battery life.
But with digital cameras, it's not that simple. Many stores will tell
you that the worth of a camera is measured in megapixels. The more
manufacturers can pack in, the better, right?
Not necessarily, says Amit Gupta, founder of Photojojo.com, an online
newsletter for camera tips and projects.
A high-megapixel count doesn't always equate to better image quality.
Actually, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a
small camera, it can have the opposite effect.
Such a counterintuitive snag mostly affects tiny digital cameras, the
ones compact enough to fit in your pocket.
To keep sizes down, manufacturers place itty-bitty image sensors
inside their point-and-shoot models. These small parts perform well
within a certain range. But when companies try to raise the megapixel
count without increasing the dimensions of the camera, the same size
sensor now has to do more work.
The result are larger but less accurate images, Gupta says. The
overburdened sensor can lose sharpness, struggle in low-light
situations and add "noise" (small blotches or odd colors).
Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots, but the
extra room allows for much bigger sensors and often better image
quality per megapixel.
Cameras are rarely advertised on their sensor sizes, which makes the
warning difficult to act on. But the problem usually pops up when
companies release two very similar models, one with more megapixels
and, most likely, a higher price. In those situations, the extra few
hundred dollars doesn't necessarily buy you a better camera.
Sensor technology improves all the time, making the issue of cramped
megapixels less important each year. Improved lenses and anti-shake
features also dampen the effect.
But even if companies could make a flawless 18-megapixel camera the
size of a deck of cards, few people will ever need that much, Gupta
says.
Start With 8 Megapixels
He suggests that shoppers start looking at eight megapixels, consider
10, but think hard before shelling out for a 12-megapixel camera or
higher.
"Six megapixels is great for 8-by-10 prints," he says. "We use a six-
megapixel camera for everything on the site. ... In fact, we're making
a Photojojo book and shooting with the same camera for all of those
pictures."
Gary Edstrom
the late 1950's / early 1960's. The major advertising claim in those
days was how many transistor's their radio had. There were even cases
where a manufacturer had put in dummy transistors with all 3 leads
soldered together just so that they could up the count.
The manufacturers will make what sells, not necessarily what is best.
Gary
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:40:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>'Fraid it's too late. The 20 megaxpixel, 1/2.5 sensored camera is
>bound to appear.
[snip]
>A high-megapixel count doesn't always equate to better image quality.
>Actually, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a
>small camera, it can have the opposite effect.
[snip]
La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb
nuff sed
Gary Edstrom
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>
>nuff sed
So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?
A P&S camera for convenience. You can carry it anywhere and not have to
worry about changing lenses or filters. It is great for candid shots,
it is FAR FAR less obvious that you are carrying a camera, and IT
DOESN"T MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A PROFESSIONAL! I have been in several
situations (mainly computer trade shows), where you were allowed in and
allowed to take pictures if all you had was a P&S. But if you had an
SLR slung over your shoulder, you first had to go to the press booth to
apply for a press pass and/or photography permit to take the camera into
the show.
On the other hand, a DSLR is ideal for SERIOUS photography.
Si why not have BOTH in your arsenal?
nuff sed
Gary
Bob Haar
Private
"Bob Haar" <bob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C619FD5F.456078%bob...@comcast.net...
> Where is the news in this?
>
Slow news day.
NBC
[snip]
More Megapixels=Better Digital Zoom
Some P&S cameras have 10x to 24x optical zooms that you can add 4x
digital zoom too.
Its nice to be able to analyze and frame a 40x or more stabilized image
in a bright 3 inch screen.
Give me More Megapixels!
NBC
Gary Edstrom
There is a limit as to what can be achieved with technology in smaller
and smaller sensors. It has to do with the laws of physics,
diffraction, and the particle nature of light. The smaller the pixel
sensor, the poorer a job it is going to do, even if perfectly
manufactured, and no amount of technology can change that.
It's like with telescopes: There is no limit to how much magnification
you can achieve, but beyond a certain point, all you are doing is making
a small fuzzy image into a large fuzzy image. This applies to even
perfectly manufactured optics.
Gary
Rich
news:jb09v49aeql3e7vij...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
> La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>>
>>nuff sed
>
> So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
> really into photography, why not have both?
>
Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
use a DSLR each and every time.
Fred
news:pdidneTb-YxgnmjU...@giganews.com...
just pretending to be!
If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the time,
then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that the more
savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete cameras when the
situation warrants it.
If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset of
40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.
QED
Robert Spanjaard
>> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way
>> to use a DSLR each and every time.
>
> Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into
> photography", just pretending to be!
>
> If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the
> time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that
> the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete
> cameras when the situation warrants it.
>
> If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset
> of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.
And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious'
photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the
best known example of such a small system.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Chris Malcolm
Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Bob Larter
Nicely put.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
George Kerby
On 4/27/09 3:07 AM, in article
993b7$49f567bf$5469b618$59...@cache90.multikabel.net, "Robert Spanjaard"
<spam...@arumes.com> wrote:
Minox! Minox, I say!!!
Matt Clara
news:49f5a2d4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
It's funny, Bob, but you have the exact same sig file a fella named Lionel
used to use here on the photo forums.
Matt Clara
news:4ah9v4h0gejel2k3n...@4ax.com...
Aren't those two separate issues? With telescopes, there's the issue of the
atmosphere making images blurry, so that further magnification is of no use
in extracting more data; whereas, with image sensors, current technology
needs x number of photons per pixel to come up with something we humans
perceive as an image that accurately reflects reality?
Bob Larter
> It's funny, Bob, but you have the exact same sig file a fella named
> Lionel used to use here on the photo forums.
Well yeah, that's because we're the same person. ;^)
Gary Edstrom
wrote:
No, the main limit of a good telescope from a good viewing location is
the resolving power of the optics. The resolving power of the optics is
limited by the laws of physics, even for perfectly manufactured optics.
Diffraction cause the light of two starts that are very close together
to fuse into a single blob that can't be separated. The only thing that
can resolve it is optics of even larger diameter.
With image sensors, the problems of diffraction are magnified by the
particle nature of light and the noise caused by fewer photons hitting
the sensor. BOTH of those problems are reduced by making larger pixels.
Gary
Sensor Man
> Being an old geezer, I remember when transistor radios first came out in
> the late 1950's / early 1960's. The major advertising claim in those
> days was how many transistor's their radio had. There were even cases
> where a manufacturer had put in dummy transistors with all 3 leads
> soldered together just so that they could up the count.
Yep. I built my first transistor radio (Heathkit) in 1957 when in high
school.
Matt Clara
Thanks, Gary.
Optics 101
wrote:
The only time that optics are limited by the laws of physics (of light) is
WHEN (not "even" if) they are perfectly manufactured--polished to surfaces
of 1/8th to 1/10th wavelength of light or better. Which is the case of most
all reflective telescope optics sold today, they are already polished to
those tolerances. Minus some dime-store reflectors, and *all* DSLR glass,
which is never polished that accurate. Even most dime-store telescopes (not
DSLR glass) are polished to 1/4th wavelength today. Putting them well
within the ability to fully resolve, to the keen eye.
>Diffraction cause the light of two starts that are very close together
>to fuse into a single blob that can't be separated. The only thing that
>can resolve it is optics of even larger diameter.
Dawes' Limit. The mindless monkey-see-monkey-do drones of this newsgroup
would do well to go study something they aren't aware of, and which proves
all of the "Pro" photo websites 100% wrong about the resolving power of
their beloved but poorly manufactured DSLRs and poorly polished glass. Can
you spell S-C-A-M? Then they wonder, "Why are my images soft and details
not resolved down to pixel level at wider apertures when by all the
accounts of the physics of light the images should be getting sharper not
softer?" (Duh)
>
>With image sensors, the problems of diffraction are magnified by the
>particle nature of light and the noise caused by fewer photons hitting
>the sensor. BOTH of those problems are reduced by making larger pixels.
>
>Gary
Make the sensor photo-sites too large and you lose the resolving power of
larger diameter optics (any airy-disk smaller than the sensor's photo-site
size). Larger diameter 1/8th wavelength optics with small photo-sites is
the key for optimum resolving power. Most every DSLR sized sensor's
photo-sites will degrade larger diameter optics' resolving power. (If those
optics are polished to 1/4th the wavelength of light or better.)
In another recent thread someone's been trying to find that sweet-spot for
his given telescope optics sizes to test its resolving powers while not
senselessly throwing away money on something that's useless for his
purposes (DSLR gear). Doing so would do nothing but hide what he's trying
to find. Much to the chagrin (humiliation and disappointment) of all the
idiot DSLR worshippers that want to believe that only DSLRs are the answer
to everything in life, because that's what they've been mindlessly told to
believe by other idiots just as amazingly stupid as themselves.
This post brought to you by "Optics 101" (circa 1800's) for all the
resident armchair-photographer trolls. You are ~150 years behind the
learning-curve of everyone else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Dawes
Catch up.
Rich
news:75le53F...@mid.individual.net:
Or, you can spend hours and hours designing and building a frigging timed
exposure mechanism to GO with that little digicam, or you can tether a
Pentax K20D to the ballons and use the timed shutter facility to do it
instead. Nikon's D300 has the same kind of thing, but it's heavier than
the Pentax.
Rich
But unlike with the sensor, the telescope runs into the problem of
"seeing conditions" which can limit the effect of an increase in diameter
from the standpoint of resolution gain. Light capture however, just
keeps increasing with increasign aperture.
Gary Edstrom
wrote:
>"Gary Edstrom" <GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote in message
>news:tlrcv456h5j7nf27q...@4ax.com...
>>
>> No, the main limit of a good telescope from a good viewing location is
>> the resolving power of the optics. The resolving power of the optics is
>> limited by the laws of physics, even for perfectly manufactured optics.
>> Diffraction cause the light of two starts that are very close together
>> to fuse into a single blob that can't be separated. The only thing that
>> can resolve it is optics of even larger diameter.
>>
>> With image sensors, the problems of diffraction are magnified by the
>> particle nature of light and the noise caused by fewer photons hitting
>> the sensor. BOTH of those problems are reduced by making larger pixels.
>>
>> Gary
>
>Thanks, Gary.
The short and simple answer is 'You don't get something for nothing.'
There is a cost to everything. Not just in life, but in technology too.
When you push the ASA setting of your digital camera up beyond a certain
point, or lengthen the exposure beyond a certain point, you start to get
noisy pictures. Likewise, in the film days, going to higher and higher
ASA film or pushing the developing produced grainy or contrasty
pictures.
In the same way, there will be a 'cost' associated with P&S cameras
going to smaller and smaller pixel cells.
Gary Edstrom
Chris Malcolm
What on earth is the use of a timed shutter when you already have full
radio control of aim and zoom, radio live view to see the image, and a
radio controlled shutter to take the photograph? No, none of those
facilities are available from the camera manufacturer, but you don't
have to design and build the kit yourself, it can all be bought from
third party suppliers, and is routinely used by the aerial
photographers who use balloons, kites, and masts. DSLRs are often
eschewed in favour of high performance compacts because of the weight
and lack of motorised zoom.
--
Chris Malcolm
Roy G
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:75le53F...@mid.individual.net...
That is a load of rubbish.
I know of a business who suspend both a Film Hassleblad and a DSLR from a
Helium balloon at the same time.
There is a local business who suspend a DSLR from a small Hot Air Balloon.
It is small enough that his own weight prevents it from drifting off.
Roy G
Chris Malcolm
Obviously you can loft any weight you like with a big enough balloon
or kite. Zeppelin had orchestras in their passenger balloons.
The point is that the costs of the balloon and kite and its tethering
and control rise very dramatically as the weight required to be lifted
increases, and the size of the kit required shifts quickly from being
easily carried in a backpack to needing a car to needing a special
trailer or large van. That's why many people using that technology
prefer to settle on the lightest camera whose quality will be
acceptable. There's a very big difference between the cost and
portability of what will loft a few pounds weight and several pounds.
--
Chris Malcolm
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> No, the main limit of a good telescope from a good viewing location is
> the resolving power of the optics. The resolving power of the optics is
> limited by the laws of physics, even for perfectly manufactured optics.
> Diffraction cause the light of two starts that are very close together
> to fuse into a single blob that can't be separated. The only thing that
> can resolve it is optics of even larger diameter.
>
> With image sensors, the problems of diffraction are magnified by the
> particle nature of light and the noise caused by fewer photons hitting
> the sensor. BOTH of those problems are reduced by making larger pixels.
>
> Gary
Hello, Gary:
Actually, light-gathering capability determines the effectiveness of
a telescope. To resolve >anything<, the instrument has to "see" it, to
begin with. That's why reflectors have mirrors, and don't even bother
with objective lenses.
What you've written above, applies largely to refractors, therefore.
Regardless, the eyepiece in queston always plays an important part,
also.
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>