More Megapixels is a Waste

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://petavoxel.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/diffraction-fraud/' target='_blank'>http://petavoxel.wordpress.com/2010...fraction-fraud/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Remember, this is all at the lens&rsquo;s widest aperture (i.e., the one giving the poorest lens performance). As you stop down from there, the diffraction just gets worse. Yet today&rsquo;s models continue their mad race to ever-higher megapixel counts. Ten, twelve&mdash;now even 14 Mp are being sold. This is where I start using the word &ldquo;fraud.&rdquo; Customers are being sold on these higher numbers with the implication it will make their photos better. This is simply a lie. All the higher megapixels deliver is needlessly bloated file sizes."</em></p><p>The article lays out the physics pretty nicely. &nbsp;The Cliff's Notes version is that as megapixels have climbed, the pixel size on sensor has dropped. &nbsp;At these tiny sizes, light behaves a bit differently than we perceive it. &nbsp;As a result, after about 9 megapixels anything else isn't going to matter other than to make the file size larger.</p><p><em></em></p>

[Jason Dunn]

I agree completely that it's silly to have a 15 megapixel sensor on a camera with a tiny point and shoot sensor, but the key here isn't that more megapixels are "bad", it's that the sensor sizes need to start getting bigger. An 18 megapixel sensor on a Canon 7D really does give you more to work with than a 12 megapixel sensor. The author of this article also doesn't mention one of the key advantages of having larger images (assuming that the sensor is large enough to make it a large, GOOD image): cropping. Sure, you don't need a 15 mega pixel image to print out an 8x10 photo. But if you have to crop that 15 megapixel image down to a 6 megapixel image to get the framing you want, you'll appreciate having the extra pixel to do that.

In general though I agree with the premise, and I'm seeing the camera industry start to move toward sensors that are bigger, better in low light, etc.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I'm going to disagree on the cropping bit. To crop from 15 to 6 megapixels shows a problem with the photographer's ability to frame and compose out in the field. Cropping is usually done to make minor corrections, to slightly reframe the subject, or change the aspect ratio. Even going from a 3:2 ratio (as common on DSLRs) to a square format does not require such extreme cropping, less with sensors using 4:3 ratios.

Have I done it? Yes, certainly. Am I happy about it? No, of course not. I consider it a flaw in one's photographic vision, and will hamper growth in one's artistic development eventually as how is one expected to learn a visual art when one cannot see?

[Mexico]

I'm going to disagree on the cropping bit. To crop from 15 to 6 megapixels shows a problem with the photographer's ability to frame and compose out in the field. Cropping is usually done to make minor corrections, to slightly reframe the subject, or change the aspect ratio. Even going from a 3:2 ratio (as common on DSLRs) to a square format does not require such extreme cropping, less with sensors using 4:3 ratios.

Have I done it? Yes, certainly. Am I happy about it? No, of course not. I consider it a flaw in one's photographic vision, and will hamper growth in one's artistic development eventually as how is one expected to learn a visual art when one cannot see?

With all due respect, but your reasoning regarding cropping is rather limited. There are many valid reasons for cropping. Not everybody is pursuing an artistic approach to photography, and there are many factors that can affect the photographer's ability to plan the perfect composition.


Available equipment - I'm on vacation; do I carry my 5 lenses to guarantee perfect framing for all my shots?
Access to the subject - I'm 500 feet away, and I ran out of zoom, should I jump the gate to avoid considerable cropping?
Time available - I need 10 technical photographs, which I will later on break into 60 detailed areas; does this mean I have to take 60 different, perfectly framed pictures?

I can come up with 20 other scenarios where cropping (and yes, considerable cropping) may come in handy if the sensor quality and original resolution allow for it.

Here's a last one that I deal with constantly. When designing websites for my clients, I often receive pictures (taken by them, or their uncle) that lack a desirable framing. In those circumstances I am thankful when they decided to use a 8+MP camera as opposed to a 1999 1.3MP model.

Peace!

M

[Jason Dunn]

I'm going to disagree on the cropping bit. To crop from 15 to 6 megapixels shows a problem with the photographer's ability to frame and compose out in the field.

You're telling me you've never been in a situation when you don't have a lens with a long enough reach, you can't get any closer to your subject, and your only option to get a reasonably decent picture in the end is to crop the hell out of it in the end? I find that very hard to believe - or, if it's true, you mustn't do very much live event photography.

I had a *lot* of pictures like that when I was shooting an air show two years ago, and I was using a 300mm equivalent lens, the longest I had. It happens frequently at live events I shoot as well - the limitations of equipment and physical positioning limit my ability to get the ideal framing.

I think it's fine to talk about artistic vision and improving the photographers skill at framing the image, but the physical limitations of the real world trump that every time. What matters is getting the great picture, even if it means a heavy crop.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

It's true, I don't crop heavily often. If it requires a crop of more than half I generally don't take the photo. There have been exceptions but those generally involve some drastic change of aspect ratio (like from 3:2 to 4:1).

Mexico is right about one thing though... if you're getting paid you might want to crop. However I also know that there are certain technical standards that are required for paid work, and a heavy crop will generally mean that your photos might end up not being good enough to be accepted anyway.

So yes, in general, I don't do heavy crops.

[Jason Dunn]

It's true, I don't crop heavily often. If it requires a crop of more than half I generally don't take the photo.

I guess that's where we differ then: I always prefer to have the photo, even if it means it's going to be lower resolution, than to not have the photo. Not every photo I take is going to be technically great, but when you're capturing memories (which is mostly what I do), then low-resolution doesn't really matter.

[Reid Kistler]

In interesting experiment might be to take two photos of a suitably distant (and stationary!) object: one at the maximum Optical Zoom provided by your camera's lens, and then a second at the maximum Digital Zoom provided: if you then crop (& enlarge) the first photo to achieve prints with equivalent dimensions of your target, which will look better?

May have to explore my photo base to see what might be available at hand...;)


Beyond this, the article recalls an earlier one on digital camera resolution: there is a web site that advocated 6 megapixels as the optimum figure for most (non-SLR) cameras - again, working from a sensor-size assumption.

And - assuming I understand the article correctly - one of the author's points seems to be that for ANY given sensor size there will be some point beyond which simply adding pixels will NOT result in the capture of additional information. If that points happens to be - say, 6 MP, then moving to "8 MP" will be essentially an exercise in futility...

And while "fraud" may be a bit strong, would agree that there is a good deal of "misinformation" that is used to sell cameras to the general public - as well as any number of other technology products....