Beyond Megapixels 438
TheTechLounge points to this "first of a three-part series of editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware, as well as the author's views of what is to come." It boils down to the excellent point that pixel count alone is not the way to evaluate digital camera capabilities.
Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems analogous to consumer computer makers moving away from advertising GHz and MB.
It's what you (can) do with it that counts.
something I don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
if we are so 'green aware' why don't inkjet printers ever have green ink?
MP matters to a point (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course you also need picture quality. But it really doesn't matter how good the colors are if you're only getting a postage stamp image.
I have a 2.0 megapixel camera which I intend to replace eventually. Not because of the pixel count, but because of the image quality. I have a few pictures where a small branch got just a bit into the frame. The camera focused on that little branch and blurred the rest of the picture. There's no manual focus so all I can do is watch what's in the view carefully.
It also doesn't react intelligently to low light. Although with a bit of modification I can turn that into a feature as I can take time lapse photos to get good pictures in very low light.
As with all things, you need to pick the versions with the features you need.
Ben
Re:Identify a standard (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the same as in computers in general... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at screens. Graphics cards have improved massively (electronics), screens (optics) used to be 1024x768 quite a while back, and typically aren't more than 1600x1200 now. The LCDs will hopefully change that though, since they're much more scalable (make more pixels) than a CRT (move beam faster).
Same with digital camera. The back-end is getting much cheaper, multi-MP CCDs and other electronics, but good optics in the lens is still damn expensive.
I read a piece recently about HDTV cameras. There were rumors that a certain camera would be sub-10.000$. The official comment basicly said "we can't tell you the real price yet, but you're smoking crack. the lens alone is in the 7-9.000$ range".
That being said, most digital cameras today should be just fine, if you don't try to take "impossible" pics. If the sun is saturating the CCD, it won't happen. If there's light casting ugly shadows, fill it in or you'll never get rid of them. There's a lot more bad photography than bad cameras...
Kjella
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a Canon PowerShot A60 -- I chose it over other brands because I really like how my Canon Rebel EOS works and the A60 is very similar. 2.2MP isn't a hell of a lot, but it's enough to get 5x7 prints and have a chance in hell of it looking close to what I can get with a regular camera.
I completely disagree with your statement that digital cameras aren't used for prints -- I take a bazillion pictures, throw them up in 720x480 for the web for grandma and grandpa and then they tell me specifically which pictures they'd like prints of. I take the original 2.2MP JPEGs and give them to my film guy -- he touches them up and makes real 4x6 or 5x7 prints for me. They look fantastic and everyone's happy.
True, the bulk of my pictures stay in 720x480 but it's really nice to be able to get a 5x7 out of it should I want it. The amount of time I want 8x10s is next to nil; I go to the same photographer and get really good digital pictures taken in that case. (He's all but completely moved to a full digital studio.)
Re:It always... (Score:2, Interesting)
The example he gives of buckets of water is flawed, since falling rain isn't *focused* like light is. Light entering a lens is just being focused on a smaller area. Sure the area is smaller, but it's also brighter.
A larger sensor just requires the projected image to be spread out further. Of course, maybe if you got too small, you'd run into the same limits optical microscopes do, but I don't know that it's near that point yet.
Maybe the author was thinking of regular film cameras where a larger format negative captures more detail? Still, this is because the level of detail film can capture would be about the same per sq inch (so larger format, more detail). What I'd really like to see are some actual tests, and not just some author's wild speculation.
It is the LENSES dammit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, the additional detail is nice. But to be really usable to blow images up (which is probably the only reason for going higher than 4-5mp), the following problems have to be solved.
1. Noise has to be reduced. Especially in dark pics. Less of a problem now, but still an issue. Of course, if you're taking a 8mp camera and printing out an 8x10, you probably won't be complaining. Zoom in to 300-400% and you will be easily able to see it (and all the stuck sensors, but that is another story).
2. The lens is good enough to resolve that detail.
No, your made in china $5 lens will not be good enough. There is a reason professional film cameras have "big ass lenses".
Re:It always... (Score:2, Interesting)
If it was me, I would take a 3 MP DSL over a 5MP compact consumer camera....
IMHO
Depth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's the lens (Score:2, Interesting)
A Sony DSC-F717, with a street price of around $600, has 5.2 million sensors (or 5 megapixels) on a chip that is 8.8 by 6.6 millimeters (or
MP are important for printing and cropping (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, with the near ubiquitousness of photo editing software, almost everyone has the ability to crop and edit images. Not only would you rather have more pixels for any kind of editing, but with high MP, you can crop even a small portion of a picture and still get a decent 4x6.
Dynamic Range and the SIZE of the CCD!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Greater dynamic range will give you better details in your shadows and highlights. This is very important for the serious photog, although probably not important for snaps of your kid's Bar Mitzvah.
The other thing that matters is the actual size of the CCD. Manufacturers are using various technical tricks to squeeze out more pixels from the same size CCD, and the results are sometimes pretty bad. The worst problem I've seen was purple fringing in bright red objects that were backlit. Totally ruined an otherwise beautiful photograph.
The bigger the CCD the better.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Why digital camera? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But MP matters for size! (Score:5, Interesting)
Foveon cameras have one three-color sensor per pixel, but for PR purposes, they, too, count R, G, and B as separate pixels. For example, the Sigma SD-10 mentioned in the article has an imager 2268 x 1512 pixels, but is listed as a "10.8 megapixel" camera. For Foveon units, divide by 3.
Foveon cameras, since the R, G, and B sensors are at the same place, don't generate color artifacts at black/white boundaries. This eliminates one of the main effects that makes "digital" look worse than film. Of course, if you compress to JPEG, you get color artifacts anyway, but that's a JPEG problem, not an imager problem.
for your information... (Score:2, Interesting)
At the end of each the articles in this series, I will comment on what I think camera developers have done right and wrong, and what I think is important to the photographer who wants to produce better photographs.
By the generality of this statement, the author doesn't seem to have much resource on reviewing digital cameras case by case, which is necessary to make any useful assessment at all. I recommend this site [dpreview.com] for getting camera reviews.
They provide full review of some cameras (mostly prosumer kinds), which would include ISO sensitivity comparison against similar cameras, color tone test, auto focus test, lens distortion/shading, and tons of others. My personal favorite is the resolution chart [dpreview.com].
More MHZ syndrome all over again? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now the same thing has happened with cameras. It's all about megapixels. Your average consumer won't do enough research to learn about how the camera works, all they know is megapixels.
But what can be done? Instead of producing higher quality optics such as that on the mars rovers(1MP mind you), we get more megapixels with crappy everything else.
Lens distortions can be corrected (Score:2, Interesting)
Good lenses are much more important in the analog world, where literally, what you see is what you get.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
He told me that APS was just crap...and to avoid it like the plague.
He also said there was some thru the mail company, seattle film, or something like that. they would send people film, you send the film to them for processing. The quality on the film sucked because it was some different technology, and that you were locked into their scheme because you couldn't get it developed anywhere else..
Grump
Re:1 mp camera on Spirit (Score:1, Interesting)
In the consumer market, which Dalsa does not target, 5-megapixel cameras often use the same size CCD as a 3-megapixel camera. More pixels are simply crammed onto the same-size chip.
"The pixels themselves get smaller," Myles said. "This has an impact on image quality."
Why? For one thing, smaller pixels are less light-sensitive.
Re:misleading article (Score:1, Interesting)
Foveon's images have not lived up to the hype in tests, and there is no reason to believe that they would. The Foveon sensor really does have 1/4 the spatial resolution of a regular CCD sensor. In return, it avoids some color artifacts and requires a bit less post-processing. But that turns out not to be a very good tradeoff.
I definitely disagree. Check out DP Review's review of the Sigma SD10 [dpreview.com] which uses the Foveon sensor. You'll see images from the Foveon sensor that have been upsampled to match those of a Canon dSLR. The Canon does appear to resolve a bit more detail, but remember that the Sigma's images have been "digitally zoomed" from 3.4 MP to 6.3MP.
As for Fujifilm's new sensors that are designed to improve dynamic range, compare one of the pictures here [dcresource.com] (try the one with a lot of window reflection) with another picture of the same subject [dcresource.com]. You'll see that in the shadowed areas you can resolve more light detail by using the Fuji. It's not a huge difference but it is one that some people will appreciate.
Re:As an ex-commercial photographer (Score:5, Interesting)
Things I wish manufacturers did:
1. Store data in RAW format. (Thanks to Sigma for pushing this.) This get rid of the useless "low/medium/high quality" switch on the camera. There goes one pointless switch.
2. Store all data at the highest resolution. Get rid of the "small/medium/large" switch. If I needed to store more pictures on my card, I would have bought a higher-capacity CF drive. I can get 4GB models now. That should be enough to store hundreds of pics. Another pointless switch, gone...
3. Get rid of in-camera white-balance setting, and do this on the computer or laptop or even palmtop to simplify the camera and force the complexity outside. (Again, thanks to Sigma) This can be done on the computer if needed with the RAW file. Most amateur users have NO idea what the hell white-balance means anyways. A third pointless switch gone..
4. Get rid of the Priority switches- Aperture, Shutter, Etc.. Instead, allow the user to adjust the Aperture & Shutter on a lens ring. The ring can also have a setting for Auto. This can also be done for focusing with a Focusing ring. There- 3 buttons eliminated just like that.
5. Get rid of on-camera flashes settings (Keep the wimpy on-camera flash if you must, but leave it on Auto always, and auto-disable when external flash is connected) Pro photographers would have an external flash anyways, and any flash settings can be made on that. Another switch, gone...
There's so many useless switches on a modern Digital SLR that can be completely thrown away and still provide all the functionality anyone would want.
Some people may want all these useless features.. for them the camera vendors can have their own special overfeatured model. I would rather have one that's simple and obvious... The first Digital SLR vendor that comes out with a Camera that DOESN'T include an INSTRUCTION MANUAL, I'm buying.
Re:something I don't understand (Score:1, Interesting)
There are printers that add non-CMYK colors to extend their gamuts. This one has eight inks including red and green...
Canon i9900 [canon.com]
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, when I brought the prints to a store to get them dry mounted and I told them they were digital, the response was "THESE are DIGITAL?" The fact that the enlargements were done with a photographic process vs. a printing process certainly helps. The 4x6 prints I get look just as good as anything I've gotten from film, but, as another poster stated, you can't get that kind of quality from your $99 inkjet.
Check out http://www.adirondack-park.net/trip2003/ [adirondack-park.net] if you want to see the pictures I've gotten blown up (and a lot of others); they're all from a 13,000-mile trip around the U.S. last summer. The ones I've gotten at 16x20 are Bryce Canyon [adirondack-park.net], Crater Lake [adirondack-park.net], the mountain next to Mt. Dana in Yosemite N.P. [adirondack-park.net], and the Grand Tetons [adirondack-park.net].
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do I do my own printing? A $10,000 printer at a camera store is only as good as the person operating it. If I screw up my prints I have only myself to blame. For serious work I want at least a 6x6 cm negative, which is about equal to 64 megapixels.
For snapshots of people - which are never going to be enlarged bigger than 5" x 7" I suggest an inexpensive Argus D450 35 mm point and shoot with an aspheric plastic zoom lens, built in automatic flash, motor drive and a 10 year warranty. The camera, which came with 2 batteries, and a roll of Kodak 400 speed color film sold for $17.53 (including tax) at the local Wallmart. For this type of photography I don't know of a digital camera which can come close to it for the money.
Do I own digital cameras? Yes, but I don't think they are quite ready for primetime yet.
Re:As an ex-commercial photographer (Score:3, Interesting)
I think all high-quality cameras now can store RAW image formats.
2. Store at the highest resolution. Well, maybe, although it's a great way to save memory which ain't cheap or as large as I'd like to have it yet.
3. If you can shoot in RAW mode then you don't need the camera to do white-balance and you can do it in the computer where you have the horsepower and GUI to do it right.
4. I disagree. It's really nice to have a full manual mode but even Leica came to realize the joy of having Aperture Priority which many Leica shoots live in on the M7.
5. An on-camera flash is useful for fill and is a keeper
If you haven't held and played with a Leica Digilux 2 you should. It is a wonderful camera that works exactly like a film camera. Unfortunately they used an electronic view finder instead of a real range finder. Sigh.
As for manuals, even the M6 has a manual although it's only 20 pages long and in 4 or 5 languages.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, we had a newbie accidentally load some of that Seattle Filmworks stuff into our processor (standard C-41 chemistry) and it literally erased the entire roll. The same thing happens with TMAX film. You get this fully transparent spool of plastic
color density (Score:3, Interesting)
it's not just the number of colors, btw; the average human eye, while amazing, is not going to notice the difference between two shades in a 16bit per channel image (my scanner is capable of 16bit RGB, i don't know of any non-scanning back digital cameras that can do the same) but can the CCD actually resolve those shade gradations to take advantage of all the bits? definitely not the case yet.
Pixels (Score:2, Interesting)
Every few years or so, Kodak and a few other companies get together and decide that consumers don't care about resolution, as long as a 4x6 looks ok. The people fueling the "digital megapixel rush" are gadget heads who just want the latests and the greatest, and have a lot of disposable income on their hands.
Personally, if you really care about resolution, get a field camera or view camera. I used to shoot with one... 4x5" negatives/positives enlarge very nicely... albeit most of these cameras are huge and can weight 10lbs or more. A good compromise on size/quality is a decent medium format system. People are going crazy for the $1000-range, 6 megapixel digital cameras with interchangable lenses now. You can get a new Mamiya 645e medium format setup for that, and have tons more resolution... resolution that I don't think consumer digital cameras are going to reach in the near future (they are still chasing "35mm quality," IMHO).
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether digital or film is cheaper depends a lot on how many pictures you want to take and how many prints you want to make. A cheap film camera is probably a good choice if you're going to take a roll of snapshots once a year at Christmas and share one set of prints with your family. But if you want to take a few thousands photos a year and share them with everyone you know, the digital will pay for itself in reduced film, developing, and printing costs in fairly short order.
Digital also has some real practical advantages. The images are available immediately, which can be very handy in some cases. I went to a party not too long ago where I took pictures that we were able to view on the host's computer before everyone went home. That would be a lot harder with a film camera. Digital photos are also very easy to organize, which is a big plus.
Marketing run amok. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
With film enlargement, the choices of paper and film are what impacts the quality the most. I would agree that the current digital workflow rivals film for quality and blows it away for control, but traditional enlargements can and do frequently look better. I personally find HP's greens a little sickly.
I don't trust any inkjet manufacturer when they claim their prints are archival just yet. Check back with me in twenty years and I may have changed my mind. So, currently Lightjet is the printer that I make most of my prints on. It produces 300 DPI continuous tone color (equal to 4000 DPI halftone - I don't think you could find an inkjet that even prints 4000 DPI!!!), with a very wide gamut. It uses genuine archival photographic paper (many different kinds, actually). The price is competitive to inkjet systems as well. Color has been spot on so far.
Cool flower shots (Score:5, Interesting)
Flower shots from my folks Garden [backplane.com]
All of these pictures were taken with my Canon-EOS10D, 420EX flash (used mainly for shadow fill), and Sigma 20mm 1:1.8 EX DG prime lens. The shots were taken hand-held in AP mode using F4.0-F16 depending on the conditions. This particular lens produces ultra sharp results at F4.0-F13 or so. The 10D (and 300D) use a 6 MPix low-noise CMOS sensor and you can see it in the above shots.
Insofar as all the discussion goes, from my point of view it all comes down to three things: Lens Quality, Sensor Quality, and Dynamic Range (of the exposure). SLR's like the 10D have gotten good enough that I don't use film any more. The lens quality is there (being an SLR and taking the same lens as the film EOS's), sensor quality is there, and while dynamic range still needs another 2-4 bits of resolution for my comfort it's still good enough for 99% of the shots I take. Film is dead, digital rendition at 11!
And I tend to agree with the few other obviously experienced comments (verses the bozo comments from people that don't know jack about taking photographs). You first need to know how to take a picture before you can take a good one. Then comes lens and sensor noise. A lens hood is important, and a good flash (articulated for bounce shots and also be sure to have a diffusor handy) is very important (even when you don't think you need it). For example, most of those flower shots I took were with flash+diffusor, even though it was a bright sunny day outside. The flash was used primarily to fill in some of the shadow (one way to correct for limited dynamic range but it also makes the shots look a lot better).
-Matt
Re:Five facts from a professional photographer (Score:2, Interesting)
One magazine recently reviewed the Canon 1Ds and compared it against a Canon film camera w/ the same lense and iso 100 film. They blew up a section showing a sign w/ lettering. You could read it on digital, not on the film version.
I'm learning alot w/ my D100 that I'd never do with my wife's N80. I'm never afraid to take a bad photo or too many because it's not going to cost me anything. I get more good pictures when I do candids, bird photos, etc because of it.
Re:Professional Printers.... (Score:4, Interesting)
And not counting the cost of equipment, expect to pay $0.25 per sq. ft. for wet prints. It's going to be a lot more than 5 years before somebody has an inkjet process that can spit out 2000 4x6 archival prints in an hour for less than a nickel a piece.
aQazaQa
Re:As an ex-commercial photographer (Score:2, Interesting)
One reason storing RAW data at the highest resolution is not always the best idea: the bandwidth to flash needed to keep up with a stream of images being taken is greatly increased! This is because modern cameras have fast buffer memory, and slow (think hard drive) flash memory. The more images can be shuffled through the buffer before requiring a write to flash, the faster a sequence of images you can take! The consumer digital SLRs are up to ~3fps for 10's or even 100's of frames!
Of *course* this is true! (Score:3, Interesting)
And of course realize that if you take printing out of the picture and just keep everything digital, then 1 megapixel is fine for 80% of all uses. 2 megapixels covers the rest.
The huge downside is more megapixels is that, well, the images are huge, so you spend more time tranferring them and backing them up, you get fewer images on a CD, you need larger and more expensive memory cards, etc.
Re:Focal length multiplier, DOF, and ISO/CCD issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Great examples BTW - yea, you are right, the marketing folks would be putting this on the packaging right now ... along with even more "digital zoom" which obviousely is a loada crap - this is another thing that I just turn OFF.
I especially got a chuckle out of the wildlife pictures from the "next state over" - yep, you'd just end up with a buncha pixels all the same color, with some noise super-imposed over 'em.
Having said that, I've seen satellite images of my house that are pretty darn impressive [komar.org] where issue such as atmospheric distortion become significant. But obviousely these guys are spending just a little bit more on their camera equipment than we are! ;-)
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:1, Interesting)
If you're not doing more than point and shoot random images, and you already have a digital camera, don't bother spending money on features you are not going to (or be able to)use and that won't make images any better. If you are doing serious photography with a digital camera, and you've learned the basics of manual SLR use, then it would be worth spending the bucks on mid to high-end camera.