4 ms·

I see this copy/paste a lot. And while MP doesn't mean better dynamic range, lower noise, faster shutter speeds, or higher ISO performance saying that it isn't

I see this copy/paste a lot. And while MP doesn't mean better dynamic range, lower noise, faster shutter speeds, or higher ISO performance saying that it isn't "higher quality" is nonsense. Higher megapixels literally mean more information about a scene stored by the sensor. Now that information might not be more accurate than a camera with lower MP, but even with that being the case it does better allow you to sub-divide the picture (crop it) and generate new scenes/images without noticeable pixelation. I shoot with an SLR. I've read this "MP is meaningless" stuff a million and one times. But the people spouting it are almost wrong. Yes, there is FAR too much focus given on MP over more interesting things (e.g. dynamic range) but people take a basic truth too far. After going from 10 MP to 16 MP, sorry, but it did make a difference. In particular the freedom it gave me in post.

sukuriant 13y ago
The issue I have with super-high megapixel cameras isn't that number, it's the sensor density. At certain densities, light begins to behave different because of the shape of the sensor and it doesn't capture the image correctly anymore. This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. As for your SLR, 16MP, even around 20MP is still well within the "light behaves well" range. 16MP in the point and shoot range? 40MP in the camera phone sensor range? Now we're getting in a bad place.
- slantyyz 13y ago
  But, the Nokia has a 1/1.2" sensor. That's huge -- almost 5.5x times the surface area of the iPhone 5's sensor. It's almost as large as the sensor in a Nikon 1 or Sony RX100 series camera. Yes, the pixels are small at ~1.44 microns (I think most experts consider 6 microns to be the "ideal" size) so I would think the pixel density is actually lower than most cameraphones (the iPhone 5 is around ~1.39 microns).
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  > This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... As I said above, MP is just one way to measure a sensor's performance characteristics, and they have kind of ignored some others (dynamic range in particular). I'm not sure I follow your argument about "light behaving differently as pixels get smaller." I'm not even sure if that argument has scientific merit.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - superuser2 13y ago
    >I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... He's agreeing with you. When consumer-level devices boost megapixels, they don't usually boost the sensor's physical size. The explanation I've heard is that the denser you pack the sensor elements, the more interference they receive from each other. This is why digital images become grainy at higher ISO, and why the problem is worse with higher-megapixel cameras (when the sensor size isn't also increased). SLRs can go higher than P&S cameras while maintaining acceptable levels of noise because their pixel density is lower (even if there are more total pixels). In this particular case, they did make the sensor larger, which is great. But this is part of why more megapixels does not mean better.
superuser2 13y ago
Sure, the quantity of information increases, but more details about what's behind a slow, low-grade or even plastic lens does not necessarily lead to a better photograph, just one with higher resolution. I don't doubt that a better sensor behind SLR-quality graph lets you produce better output in Photoshop. But sharper lenses with larger apertures and better autofocus systems means that when conditions aren't ideal, the same actions taken by a user result in a better photograph for no additional effort at all. I suspect part of this is because cell phone manufacturers know exactly how to throw EEs at a problem to make better electronics. That's their core competency. But the democratization of cameras with high quality senors needs to be met by the democratization of high quality optics. Right now the demand for (good) optics is pretty small, so they can continue to be rare/expensive specialty items. If OEMs want them the way Apple wanted displays in 2006, there's a decent chance the market could make it happen.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

sukuriant 13y ago

The issue I have with super-high megapixel cameras isn't that number, it's the sensor density. At certain densities, light begins to behave different because of the shape of the sensor and it doesn't capture the image correctly anymore. This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. As for your SLR, 16MP, even around 20MP is still well within the "light behaves well" range. 16MP in the point and shoot range? 40MP in the camera phone sensor range? Now we're getting in a bad place.

slantyyz 13y ago
But, the Nokia has a 1/1.2" sensor. That's huge -- almost 5.5x times the surface area of the iPhone 5's sensor. It's almost as large as the sensor in a Nikon 1 or Sony RX100 series camera. Yes, the pixels are small at ~1.44 microns (I think most experts consider 6 microns to be the "ideal" size) so I would think the pixel density is actually lower than most cameraphones (the iPhone 5 is around ~1.39 microns).
UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
> This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... As I said above, MP is just one way to measure a sensor's performance characteristics, and they have kind of ignored some others (dynamic range in particular). I'm not sure I follow your argument about "light behaving differently as pixels get smaller." I'm not even sure if that argument has scientific merit.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- superuser2 13y ago
  >I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... He's agreeing with you. When consumer-level devices boost megapixels, they don't usually boost the sensor's physical size. The explanation I've heard is that the denser you pack the sensor elements, the more interference they receive from each other. This is why digital images become grainy at higher ISO, and why the problem is worse with higher-megapixel cameras (when the sensor size isn't also increased). SLRs can go higher than P&S cameras while maintaining acceptable levels of noise because their pixel density is lower (even if there are more total pixels). In this particular case, they did make the sensor larger, which is great. But this is part of why more megapixels does not mean better.

superuser2 13y ago

Sure, the quantity of information increases, but more details about what's behind a slow, low-grade or even plastic lens does not necessarily lead to a better photograph, just one with higher resolution. I don't doubt that a better sensor behind SLR-quality graph lets you produce better output in Photoshop. But sharper lenses with larger apertures and better autofocus systems means that when conditions aren't ideal, the same actions taken by a user result in a better photograph for no additional effort at all. I suspect part of this is because cell phone manufacturers know exactly how to throw EEs at a problem to make better electronics. That's their core competency. But the democratization of cameras with high quality senors needs to be met by the democratization of high quality optics. Right now the demand for (good) optics is pretty small, so they can continue to be rare/expensive specialty items. If OEMs want them the way Apple wanted displays in 2006, there's a decent chance the market could make it happen.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]