Don´t know, if the information provided here is new for everybody, but I think it is worth a closer look:
http://6mpixel.org/en/
Steve
http://6mpixel.org/en/
Steve
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Against the hype of more and more megapixels (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hinnark
- Start date
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Fascinating. Thanks, Steve. Useful information.
Robert / Seattle
Robert / Seattle
nigelblake
don't re member
This is only relavent to compact cameras, DSLRs have much bigger sensors, and have single pixel sizes bigger than the optimum size(3 microns) mentioned in this article, the new EOS 1Ds MkIII is 21.4Mp and has pixels that measure 6.2 microns.
Last edited:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
All of them? (4/3rds system, for example)
Last edited:
nigelblake
don't re member
Yes, there is a graphic on that site. In fact they contradict theirselves by showing that at 3 microns a full frame (35mm equivalent) could be as much as 96 megapixels
nigelblake
don't re member
Oh thats good, I did'nt read it right through........ the trouble with the net is that there is so much stuff written by people who think they know what they are talking about, and sadly it confuses many!
21.4Mp!!! just as well hard drives and memory cards are coming down in price
So in a normal situation (max. A4 prints rather than billboards) what does everyone reckon the optimum Mp to be?
nigelblake
don't re member
At 300dpi 8.3" X 11.7" it works out at 8.7399 megapixels
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
So, in layman's terms: There's an optimal pixel count for a sensor of a given size, above and below which (more or fewer pixels), the image can be said to deteriorate?
nigelblake
don't re member
Indeed that is the case, it is really down to optimum (individual) pixel size and pitch. However the quality of optics does have an influence here, higher quality optics have smaller 'circles of confusion' and less 'divergence' when stopping down to smaller apertures, so provided that the sensor is of high quality as well, with little 'on-chip' noise, you can have one with smaller pixels and therefore resolve greater detail.
Last edited:
Robert / Seattle
Well-known member
Thanks, Nigel. I'm therefore guessing that all of the combined characteristics above is why my Leica Digilux 3, at 7.5 mp, produces a higher quality image than would be intuitively assumed given the modest pixel count. Correct assumption?
nigelblake
don't re member
Very likely, I'm not familiar with that camera but if its 4/3rds then the sensor will be 17mm X 13mm, so 7.5 Mp would mean the pixel pitch is about 5.5µm, well above the 3µm theoretical minimum pixel size (I'm sure that will change in time though as the technology advances).
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
It will be interesting to see how the new 12 megapixel Nikon P5100 compares with the 10 megapixel P5000. I feel better about my puny 6 megapixel Fuji F30 already.
Ron
Ron
RAH
Well-known member
Nigel, assuming this is an answer to the "what is the optimum MP count" question above it, I have one comment - don't you ever crop? Especially with bird photography, seems to me that some cropping is often necessary. We need a little leeway, don't you think?
Last edited:
nigelblake
don't re member
Yes I do very occasionally crop images that I put on the web, and publishers often crop my shots too, (sometimes not to my liking, but its OK as long as they send the cheque!!). My feeling is why spend £5.5K on a 16.7 Mp camera and use it as a 10Mp camera!.
I have spent 30 odd years shooting on slides, composing images to suit the format becomes second nature after all that time.
I have spent 30 odd years shooting on slides, composing images to suit the format becomes second nature after all that time.
Last edited:
