5 ms·

Why we've reached the end of the camera megapixel race

18 points by soundsop 18y ago

callmeed 18y ago
I don't think we've reached the end–at least not for consumers. Fuji was making point-and-shoot cameras with lower megapixels but superior image quality since '05 ... they still got their butts kicked by canon, nikon, and others. If Joe Consumer is looking at two equally priced cameras in Best Buy, he'll probably choose the one with more megapixels.
- jbert 18y ago
  > Fuji was making point-and-shoot cameras with lower megapixels but superior image quality since '05 Could you provide some references for this, please? Not because I disbelieve you, but for the opposite reason. I have an aging low-megapixel Fuji which appears to take better pictures than much 'better spec' cameras owned by my friends. I'd like a replacement, but I don't want to lose image quality.
  - gaius 18y ago
    You're thinking of S-pixels and R-pixels in Fuji's 2006 sensors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD
  - aoeu 18y ago
    If you're looking for a new camera I've found the following sites to be useful.. http://www.dpreview.com/ http://www.dpreview.com/ http://www.dcresource.com/ http://www.dcresource.com/ http://www.cameralabs.com/ http://www.cameralabs.com/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/ http://www.photographyblog.com/ http://www.photographyblog.com/
  - gommm 18y ago
    I have the F31d (almost usable at iso 800 and good enough until iso 400) which I bought when fuji was stopping it because the F41d that had just come out had more megapixels but higher noise... For good reviews see http://www.dpreview.com/ http://www.dpreview.com/ that's what I used last time I bought my camera...
vaksel 18y ago
Megapixels is like the only thing users compare cameras by. So they won't be going away, even though 99% of those users will never shoot above the typical 640x480 pic size.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- whatusername 18y ago
  On what grounds do you base the 640x480 claim? Most people that I know shoot at the highest res.. Also - the few photos I still get emailed seem much much slower to download than a 640 shot. :
whughes 18y ago
Storage will not be a major factor in the megapixel race. We're already seeing 16GB SD cards, and with the introduction of SDXC and the prevalence of high-capacity iPhones and other media devices that size will only go up. Megapixel increases are slowing, so they'll likely be surpassed by storage increases, making storage limits a minor consideration in the future.
JacobAldridge 18y ago
I believe the focus on megapixels did the digital camera world a disservice. When mobile phone cameras were introduced, phone makers were able to cram in the pixels and market the phones as comparable with purpose-built cameras. Had camera makers focussed on other measurables (like lens quality, perception depth) camera phones would have remained a novelty, or at best a useful phone app. More cameras would have been sold, and these could have been higher-end sales as well.
spyrosk 18y ago
Although I can't find the article anymore (I'm almost certain that it was posted here) I remember reading that, as far as small handheld cameras are concerned, there appears to be a limit to the number of megapixels they can have without suffering from "digital noise". It appears to be around 6 MP. Above that "ideal" area noise reducing algorithms have to be employed to keep the quality relatively stable. This phenomenon is caused due to the small area of the lens (sorry if this term is not correct for digital cameras) and the electronic properties of the light sensitive board. The above applies only to small handheld cameras, larger/more expensive models, ie DSLR's, do not suffer from this.
- gaius 18y ago
  The real measure of resolution is not megapixels but line-pairs/millimetre, and no matter how good your sensor is, a good quality lens can deliver about 90 lp/mm and you won't get that in practice without a good tripod. On a 36mm sensor that translates to about 6MP. That's why Foveon can deliver such great images even tho' their sensor is "only" 3MP - they are getting the most out of what the lens delivers. Shooting handheld, at 3MP you've got all the resolution you're going to get, the thing that matters more now is contrast, colour fidelity and saturation, sharpness.
ojbyrne 18y ago
"If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models," I think (hope) that the next arms race will be sensor size. I drool over a $35 k/50 megapixel/36x48 mm sensor Hasselblad -- http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx Never underestimate the ability of seemingly out-of-reach technology products to come down in price and go mainstream. Whenever I hear phrases like "for the casual user," or "most people" I think - there's a market that's ripe for disruption.

18 points by soundsop 18y ago

I don't think we've reached the end–at least not for consumers. Fuji was making point-and-shoot cameras with lower megapixels but superior image quality since '05 ... they still got their butts kicked by canon, nikon, and others. If Joe Consumer is looking at two equally priced cameras in Best Buy, he'll probably choose the one with more megapixels.

jbert 18y ago
> Fuji was making point-and-shoot cameras with lower megapixels but superior image quality since '05 Could you provide some references for this, please? Not because I disbelieve you, but for the opposite reason. I have an aging low-megapixel Fuji which appears to take better pictures than much 'better spec' cameras owned by my friends. I'd like a replacement, but I don't want to lose image quality.
- gaius 18y ago
  You're thinking of S-pixels and R-pixels in Fuji's 2006 sensors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD
- aoeu 18y ago
  If you're looking for a new camera I've found the following sites to be useful.. http://www.dpreview.com/ http://www.dpreview.com/ http://www.dcresource.com/ http://www.dcresource.com/ http://www.cameralabs.com/ http://www.cameralabs.com/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/ http://www.photographyblog.com/ http://www.photographyblog.com/
- gommm 18y ago
  I have the F31d (almost usable at iso 800 and good enough until iso 400) which I bought when fuji was stopping it because the F41d that had just come out had more megapixels but higher noise... For good reviews see http://www.dpreview.com/ http://www.dpreview.com/ that's what I used last time I bought my camera...

vaksel 18y ago

Megapixels is like the only thing users compare cameras by. So they won't be going away, even though 99% of those users will never shoot above the typical 640x480 pic size.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
whatusername 18y ago
On what grounds do you base the 640x480 claim? Most people that I know shoot at the highest res.. Also - the few photos I still get emailed seem much much slower to download than a 640 shot. :

whughes 18y ago

Storage will not be a major factor in the megapixel race. We're already seeing 16GB SD cards, and with the introduction of SDXC and the prevalence of high-capacity iPhones and other media devices that size will only go up. Megapixel increases are slowing, so they'll likely be surpassed by storage increases, making storage limits a minor consideration in the future.

JacobAldridge 18y ago

I believe the focus on megapixels did the digital camera world a disservice. When mobile phone cameras were introduced, phone makers were able to cram in the pixels and market the phones as comparable with purpose-built cameras. Had camera makers focussed on other measurables (like lens quality, perception depth) camera phones would have remained a novelty, or at best a useful phone app. More cameras would have been sold, and these could have been higher-end sales as well.

spyrosk 18y ago

Although I can't find the article anymore (I'm almost certain that it was posted here) I remember reading that, as far as small handheld cameras are concerned, there appears to be a limit to the number of megapixels they can have without suffering from "digital noise". It appears to be around 6 MP. Above that "ideal" area noise reducing algorithms have to be employed to keep the quality relatively stable. This phenomenon is caused due to the small area of the lens (sorry if this term is not correct for digital cameras) and the electronic properties of the light sensitive board. The above applies only to small handheld cameras, larger/more expensive models, ie DSLR's, do not suffer from this.

gaius 18y ago
The real measure of resolution is not megapixels but line-pairs/millimetre, and no matter how good your sensor is, a good quality lens can deliver about 90 lp/mm and you won't get that in practice without a good tripod. On a 36mm sensor that translates to about 6MP. That's why Foveon can deliver such great images even tho' their sensor is "only" 3MP - they are getting the most out of what the lens delivers. Shooting handheld, at 3MP you've got all the resolution you're going to get, the thing that matters more now is contrast, colour fidelity and saturation, sharpness.

ojbyrne 18y ago

"If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models," I think (hope) that the next arms race will be sensor size. I drool over a $35 k/50 megapixel/36x48 mm sensor Hasselblad -- http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx Never underestimate the ability of seemingly out-of-reach technology products to come down in price and go mainstream. Whenever I hear phrases like "for the casual user," or "most people" I think - there's a market that's ripe for disruption.