Megapixel Myth?

[amadjuster]

Here is an article that should generate some debate

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=339&tag=nl.e539

Now I am going to sit back and watch the mushroom clouds rise over the landscape.

[kenw]

I don't think it is as controversial as you might think.

[Jim]

I'm still waiting for the consumer gigapixel camera. lol

[johnastovall]

Yawn....

He's talking about consumer cameras here, boring.

Nor is there any discussion of pixel size, noise, dynamic range and all those things which make serious cameras interesting.

I'll now go back to reading about where more pixels do count, MF backs.

[Jim Victory]

All I have to say is the Eagles in his pictures are not fighting. That is mating behavior.

[Gordon]

There isn't really anything controversial in that post.

Most consumer digi-cams are diffraction limited by the lenses on them, so they can't even use the megapixels they currently have effectively anyway.

[dlbdata]

I am going to revert back to the 'pin hole camera' or film.....what's film?

[amadjuster]

How about a new product for those who are "pixel" challenged or have "pixel" envy. One of the New Jersey bait and switch centers could market a "pixel pump" and send it in a plain brown wrapper and guarantee its arrival just in time for Valentines Day! Or how about "Pixel Augmentation"? (One more nail in the coffin for Kodak)

Who needs full frame.

Woo Woo

[JamesB]

pixel size on the sensor is the most important thing, not the number of pixels. larger pixels (9 microns or bigger) would be good. the Canon 20D has a pixel size of 6.4 microns, the 10D had 7.4 micron pixels. the 1D has 11 micron pixels. there are CCD sensors out there with 16 micron pixels which if put in a full frame sensor would be very good.

but marketing feels the number of pixels is the driving force for sales.

James

[venchka]

You don't think "My pixels are bigger than your pixels" with proof to show the advantages would sell sensors?

I have always harbored a yen for a pin hole camera. Film is the stuff in my freezer taking up all the space where ice cream, tv dinners and pizza used to live.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by venchka

You don't think "My pixels are bigger than your pixels" with proof to show the advantages would sell sensors?

I have always harbored a yen for a pin hole camera. Film is the stuff in my freezer taking up all the space where ice cream, tv dinners and pizza used to live.

When it comes to pinhole cameras Zero Image has just what you need.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Originally Posted by Jim Victory

All I have to say is the Eagles in his pictures are not fighting. That is mating behavior.

Geeze Jim, you gave me a choking fit with this one.

[xseption]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Most consumer digi-cams are diffraction limited by the lenses on them, so they can't even use the megapixels they currently have effectively anyway.

I have the Canon Powershot G3 (almost three years old) which has 4.0 MP. I think the G3 seems to take better photos than many of the current higher pixel consumer cameras. Photos blown up to 16x20 are very sharp even upon close examination.

I think I may have the exception rather than the rule ...

[Gambit]

I'm sure that the folks who have been into PCs for a long time will be able to draw a comparison between the camera "megapixel myth" and the CPU "megahertz myth" that the market went through for so long. It was Intel vs AMD, and Intel kept cranking up the MHz (later, GHz) so their marketing material could say their CPUs were faster than AMDs. AMD, meanwhile, was accomplishing the same amount of work with about 1/3 the CPU speed. Intel finally figured out how this was working against them and stopped marketing chips based on MHz/GHz, and now both manufacturers use model numbers that may or may not have some resemblance to the actual speed.

One can hope the same thing is about to happen in the camera market, but I think it'll continue for a while until the camera consumers figure it out.

[amadjuster]

Originally Posted by Gambit

I'm sure that the folks who have been into PCs for a long time will be able to draw a comparison between the camera "megapixel myth" and the CPU "megahertz myth" that the market went through for so long. It was Intel vs AMD, and Intel kept cranking up the MHz (later, GHz) so their marketing material could say their CPUs were faster than AMDs. AMD, meanwhile, was accomplishing the same amount of work with about 1/3 the CPU speed. Intel finally figured out how this was working against them and stopped marketing chips based on MHz/GHz, and now both manufacturers use model numbers that may or may not have some resemblance to the actual speed.

One can hope the same thing is about to happen in the camera market, but I think it'll continue for a while until the camera consumers figure it out.

I have a 4 year old desktop with an AMD 2.0 processor and a 6 month old Dell Laptop with an Intel Core Duo 1.6. I can't tell them apart, except the Desktop does some things faster. I thought computers were obsolete after 2 years.

I guess we could say, "It's not how big the megapixels are, its how you swing them that counts", or something like that.