PDA

View Full Version : Question About Megapixel Difference




Afro1989
Feb 13, 2006, 05:06 PM
Hey guys, I currently have a Casio EX-S500 and it is a 5 Megapixel camera. The new Casio EX-S600 camera is coming out with a 2X brighter LCD and an upgrade to 6 Megapixels.

The main question is will I notice a difference between 5 megapixels and 6? Is it worth it for me to sell my current camera and upgrade to the 6 megapixel camera?

Thanks so much!



trudd
Feb 13, 2006, 05:26 PM
Unless you consistently crop images, then blow them up to 16x20, then no.

stoid
Feb 13, 2006, 05:29 PM
Unless you regularly print at sizes larger than 8x10, I guarantee that you will notice absolutely NO difference between 5-6 megapixels.

Afro1989
Feb 13, 2006, 05:37 PM
No difference at all? What would be the point of them upgrading from 5 to 6 MP then?

Sarvis
Feb 13, 2006, 05:44 PM
No difference at all? What would be the point of them upgrading from 5 to 6 MP then?

Marketing.

:)

jared_kipe
Feb 13, 2006, 07:27 PM
No not a big difference, you have to double the megapixels to get 50% more resolution. That said, often time newer better cameras have better features like less noise and the like that make them better cameras, and take better pictures.

That said, I've never heard anyone speak too highly about anything with the name Casio on it. Maybe look at Panasonic or Fuji.

bigbossbmb
Feb 13, 2006, 07:47 PM
I've got a little Casio P&S and it's great. light, compact, and pics are just as good as my bro's sony which was $200 more.

ChrisA
Feb 13, 2006, 07:55 PM
The main question is will I notice a difference between 5 megapixels and 6? Is it worth it for me to sell my current camera and upgrade to the 6 megapixel camera?



What matters is pixesl per inch. Pixels per inch is proportional to the square root of the total number of pixels,
The new camera will give you about 9% greater resolution. So if you were hapy with 10 inch wide shots the new camera will let you make 10.9 inch wide shots of equal quality. It is a very small gain that IMO is not worth it unless the new cmera is better in other ways.

If you don't understand square roots, look at it this way: Each camera makes images that are X pixels wide by Y pixels tall. Compre the two X values, NOT the totals (which is the product of X times Y.) The product does not tell you much.

Anonymous Freak
Feb 13, 2006, 08:25 PM
And to make matters worse...

All other things being equal, a larger megapixel camera tends to be worse in low-light than a lower megapixel camera. That's because there is less light falling on each individual sensor. This tends to cause more noise.

But, as cameras get newer, they tend to have improved noise reduction routines, so it usually balances out. (And a camera with a larger lens will produce MUCH better low-light results, as the bigger lens lets more light in.)

For example, I 'replaced' a 2 megapixel, large lens Sony DSC-F505 with a 5 megapixel, micro lens Sony DSC-T1. In bright sunlight, the T1 produces better pictures. In even a moderately well-lit house at night, the F505 produces better pictures. And outdoors on cloudy days or at dusk, the F505 just blows away the T1. (While the T1 is capturing more data, it's so grainy that it's not worth printing, even if I could blow it up larger. The F505 may not be able to blow it up as big, but at least it's worth printing.)

This is why in Sony's newest 10.3 megapixel R1, they use both a physically larger imaging sensor and a large lens. This way, they get about as much light per individual sensor as a smaller megapixel camera.

I say 'replaced' because even though I bought the T1 with the intent to get rid of the F505, I've kept the 505 around for low light use, even though its LCD screen is cracked and unusable.

ChrisBrightwell
Feb 13, 2006, 09:34 PM
Unless you regularly print at sizes larger than 8x10, I guarantee that you will notice absolutely NO difference between 5-6 megapixels.This is just not true. A higher-res imager will allow the camera to capture more fine details, even if you're printing a 4x6 or 5x7.

You may not notice it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

bousozoku
Feb 13, 2006, 10:15 PM
This is just not true. A higher-res imager will allow the camera to capture more fine details, even if you're printing a 4x6 or 5x7.

You may not notice it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

It may allow the capture of more fine details but isn't certain to do that and with the possibility of higher noise, photos may look worse. Any digital noise reduction used within the camera to correct the photos may even make the photos look specifically processed and not as smooth as they should be.

CANEHDN
Feb 13, 2006, 11:46 PM
One thing you'll want to look at is the size of the image processor. If it's the same image processor then I wouldn't do it. The larger the image processor is the more light the camera can process which will give you a better picture. Mega pixels are second rate to the image processor.

form
Feb 14, 2006, 03:27 AM
The difference between 5 and 6 megapixels is pretty insignificant, and the extra fine detail that may be picked up probably won't be noticeable in most 4x6" developed photos. If you want noticeable improvement as a result of higher resolution, you should make a bigger jump. However, for 4x6", you just won't see much of a change past the 5 megapixel mark anyway.

The advantages of higher resolution are mostly greater editing flexibility and/or clean larger prints.

If the upgrade is only costing you a total of $50 (at the very most) then I'd say it's up to you. Otherwise, I dont believe it's worth it.

DerChef
Feb 17, 2006, 04:41 AM
As people have said the bigger issue is noise reduction rather than actual resolution.

Same issue when people buy cars they spend money on HP but what they actually like is Torque.

People are saying that their 6 Megapixal tiny digital compact is the same quality as a Nikon DSLR costing twice as much. Well it aint the bigger CCD has much better light gathering capabilities and does not need its gain/noise increased nearly as much;)

Abstract
Feb 17, 2006, 07:58 AM
The difference is almost nothing. None. Forget about it. It's the difference between a 3.2 GHz Pentium4 and a 3.4 GHz P4, or a 1.25 GHz G4 and a 1.33 GHz G4 --- who bloody cares! ;)

G4scott
Feb 17, 2006, 08:56 AM
When you're going from 5 to 6 megapixels, there's not going to be much of a difference in resolution, but possibly in brightness, noise, etc. You'll probably want to focus on those other factors rather than resolution. Now if you're going up from 5 to 16 megapixels, there would be a major difference...

miloblithe
Feb 17, 2006, 09:21 AM
It amazes me how different people are. Some are happy holding on to 8 year old computers that still do everything they need. Others must have the latest and greatest, even if the differences are virtually unnoticable. Others find a happy middle ground.

As for the OP, you've got to have something else that's more worthwhile to spend your money on.

ChrisA
Feb 17, 2006, 11:33 AM
...A higher-res imager will allow the camera to capture more fine details

This depends on the lens. Many times the lens is not sharp and projects a blurred image on the CCD sensor. Details then, would be limited by the optics and not the electronics. In smaller pocket sized cameras. there is just no space for a big chuck of glass. In Optics, resolution is proportional to the effective diameter of the lens. THere is no way around this. It has to do with the nature of light. Big glass and big sensors will always win.

numediaman
Feb 17, 2006, 01:23 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but . . .

While it would be nice for my 6 megapixel D50 to instead give me 12, the question is this: does all the rest of your equipment allow you to take advantage of the added pixels -- lens, printer, paper.

As I posted on another thread, I recently got a new printer -- an R1800. While I have been generally happy with the printer, until yesterday I did not see much improvement the quality of prints versus my older 960 (which I felt was great).

But yesterday I printed a shot that was mostly black with tiny details that were white. For the first time, I felt my printer was giving me an accurate print of an image that was 99% solid black.

My point: more megapixels would never help if your printer can not reproduce your image properly. Most of the time your printer will reflect what you want -- but in extreme cases, like the case of a predominantly black shot, your printer can not reproduce the shot as well as photo paper would (that is, film to enlarger to paper). White on black is, of course, the hardest to reproduce since white represents light (addition) but when printing white represents the absence of ink (negative).

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 17, 2006, 10:17 PM
It may allow the capture of more fine details but isn't certain to do that and with the possibility of higher noise, photos may look worse. Any digital noise reduction used within the camera to correct the photos may even make the photos look specifically processed and not as smooth as they should be.

Thank you. If one compares the images from a 6MP P&S compared to a 6mp DLSR,there are big differences in the large print quality. But those differences may not be seen by the average shooter.