Customers browse the digital camera selection at Best Buy in New York. Tiny cameras are great for portability. But with these small models, don't assume more megapixels will mean better pictures.
(Richard B. Levine/Newscom/File)Photos (1 of 1)
Why ‘more megapixels!’ doesn’t mean better pix
Digital photography is one area of electronics where less can be more.
By Chris Gaylord | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ April 22, 2009 edition
When it comes to electronics, more is better. Consumers want more features, more hard-drive space, more cellphone minutes, and more battery life.
But with digital cameras, it’s not that simple. Many stores will tell you that the worth of a camera is measured in megapixels. The more manufacturers can pack in, the better – right?
Not necessarily, says Amit Gupta, founder of Photojojo.com, an online newsletter for camera tips and projects.
A high megapixel count doesn’t always equate to better image quality. In fact, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a small camera it can actually have the opposite effect.
This counterintuitive snag mostly affects tiny digital cameras, the ones compact enough to fit in your pocket.
To keep sizes down, manufacturers place itty-bitty image sensors inside their point-and-shoot models. These small parts perform well within a certain range. But when companies try to raise the megapixel count without increasing the dimensions of the camera, that means the same size sensor now has to do more work.
This leads to larger but less accurate images, says Mr. Gupta. The overburdened sensor can lose sharpness, struggle in low-light situations, and add “noise” (small blotches or odd colors).
Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots, but the extra room allows for much bigger sensors and often better image quality per megapixel.
Cameras rarely advertise their sensor size, which makes this warning difficult to act on. But the problem usually pops up when companies release two very similar models, one with more megapixels and most likely a higher price. In those situations, the extra few hundred dollars doesn’t necessarily buy you a better camera.
Sensor technology improves all the time, making the issue of cramped megapixels less important each year. Improved lenses and anti-shake features also dampen the effect.
But even if companies could make a flawless 18-megapixel camera the size of a deck of cards, few people will ever need that much, Gupta says.
He suggests shoppers start looking at 8 megapixels, consider 10, but think hard before shelling out for a 12-megapixel camera or higher.
“Six megapixels is great for 8-by-10 prints,” he says. “We use a six-megapixel camera for everything on the site…. In fact, we’re making a Photojojo book and shooting with the same camera for all of those pictures.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Bruce W. | 04.22.09
Confirmation of what I have long suspected. I purchased a Nikon CoolPix 880 way back in 2001 when such cameras were VERY expensive. It had only 3.4 megapixel, but the photos it took were vastly superior to the cameras it was replaced with. The CoolPix 880 quit after 7 years and 17,000 exposures with a bad shutter. I have since purchased 2 new cameras with more than double the megapixel count, but with vastly inferior image quality. On one camera, an Olympus 510, the distortion of straight line images in macro is so disturbing that the feature is almost useless. Normal photography is grainy, especially on dark portions of the image. So I bought another Nikon CoolPix, one of the new slim credit card sized camera with 7.1 megapixels, and much as the articel suggests, it is also vastly inferior to the Nikon purchased 8 years ago. So much for progress, unless progress is strictly measured in marketing hype, which is about all the megapixel count really measures.
3. Dan | 04.23.09
The article is right, but merely shows the tip of the iceburg. It does nothing to talk about lenses and lighting and such. Without writing a novel, the best bet is to look at the reviews of the particular models you’re looking before buying.
4. John H | 05.01.09
The Mars Rover Cameras are only about 1 Megapixel but the sensor is 17.38 mm diagonal which is huge. Of course the image quality is extraordinary!
5. s. mitchell | 05.10.09
Less is more depends on what you want to do with the pictures too.
If you want to email a snapshot, bigger doesn’t make it look better.
I have 2 24″ monitors on my computer and want to make my own wallpaper of pictures I have taken. Even 12 megapixel cameras won’t cover both screens (5120 x 1920 pixels).
An 8 megapixel image in the center of the screen looks really small.
So here’s looking at 14 or 16 megapixel cameras!
More is better for me!
6. Kim | 05.10.09
I bought a FujiFilm FinePix F47fd 9MP 18 months ago and providing you are sensible with it - you drive it properly - you can get good photos out of it . One important thing to realise with digital cameras is that the sensor element is divided up into 4 pixel squares consisting of 3 colour sensors - 1 colour , 1 colour and 2 of a colour - RGB - point being that each pixel is interpolated when being used in high definition - but if you drop the definition down - I use mine at 3MP - you make better use of the sensor .
7. Chris | 05.10.09
Dear camera mfg: I wish there was a CHOICE to have less MPs. We recently bought a Canon SX200, and we really like it, but we would have HAPPILY purchased it with 6MP vs 12. The Elph it replaced is 3 years older, but the images are a lot less noisy. You can’t really tell a difference in print, but at 100% onscreen you sure can.
8. Will | 05.10.09
Hey Mitchell, unless you want to shell out dough for a super-expensive DSLR that will provide decent-looking pics at such high resolutions, I suggest just using a 7 or 8 MP point-and-shoot in “stitch” mode. That way you get an extra-wide picture without paying a ton, and you also won’t have to chop off the top and bottom of the picture like you would with a single huge-megapixel image. That’s what I always do, and I have the same monitor setup.
9. Mike | 05.10.09
The issue is called aliasing. A higher pixel count camera will always provide a better quality picture, it’s the processing for display after that counts. Try processing the image through a real photo program like Gimp or Photoshop and you’ll see what I mean…
10. DaveInFranklin | 05.10.09
While not disagreeing with any of the comments or the article, I’d only offer this: a great photograph is the result, not of technology but of technique, artistic eye and sometimes luck. Unless you’re doing, perhaps, medical imaging or extreme telephoto photography, it’s less about the camera and more about the photographer.
11. Bill Vincent | 05.11.09
Shawn Reeves: I agree with you to some extent..however, the ‘irreverence’ is almost required to draw the lion’s share of the 15-30 year-old demographic. Though I dislike it, perfect spelling and grammar, as well as impeccable professionalism, is a turn-off to many people from this group. The slang and even in some cases, mild profanity, increases the comfort level, making it more likely they’ll take the info seriously, and more likely they’ll return, which is the opposite effect that many older, more “cultured” (no offense, please) would experience.
12. Pete Kelly | 05.11.09
I have a 5 mega pixel Luminix and it is great but I also cary a great 35mm film camera It is better in lots of ways it is just more expensive to operate.
14. JP | 05.11.09
Yep, it’s simple. Without the space of a digital SLR and the light-gathering ability of its lens, going above 8 MP is useless. For “point and shooters” a compact digital camera with 8 MP is plenty good enough. The simple fact is, if you want really good pictures (in terms of light, contrast, color, etc.) then you have to go SLR.
15. Hoku | 05.11.09
s. mitchell - Screen resolution for monitors is 72 ppi (pixels per inch) while print resolution is 300 ppi.
At 72 ppi my 6 year old 4MP camera is capable of producing a 29.2 inch by 37.5 inch image from an original image, at 300 ppi, of 2100 x 2700 pixels. So, even an 8MP image is probably more than sufficient for two 24″ monitors.
16. Sam | 05.13.09
My 5 megapixel canon 800 IS is great, it’s a couple of years old now but still more than happy with it’s performance.
You can get as many pixels on a camera phone now but the quality is never as good, can’t fit much of a lens on a phone!
17. Bill | 05.17.09
Hoku - The ppi (pixels per inch) figure for displays varies considerably, depending upon resolution, with most modern displays being capable of significantly more than 72 ppi. It has generally been accepted that the human eye is not capable of distinguishing resolutions beyond 300 ppi, though there are many factors that would mitigate this. Some displays have been developed that far surpass 300 ppi as they are intended to be used for projectors where the image would be significantly expanded.
18. Bill | 05.17.09
Most who have left comments have generally agreed with the author that there are many factors to camera performance beyond simply the number of megapixels the image sensor is capable of producing. As there are so many other factors, it is not possible to know how a camera will perform without trying it out. Unfortunately, someone looking to purchase a camera does not have the luxury of being able to run hundreds (or even dozens) of cameras through a series of tests to first determine how well they perform. Fortunately, organizations like Consumers Reports have done this for us. CR long ago pointed out that a more megapixels does not necessarily equate to better pictures.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
4. Reddit: Trying to decide between a 7 or 8 megapixel camera? Turns out, more megapixels can actually make for a worse picture. « gogetterinfo.com | 05.20.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Shawn Reeves | 04.22.09
I notice that the photojojo web site cited in this article has quite irreverent language on its home page. It’d be one thing if the slang had a purpose, but it seems more like someone just used a slang-thesaurus to achingly try to be cool.
No slight to CSM, “I’m juss sayin, yo.”
The ideas themselves on the photojojo site are rather interesting.