Are megapixels still the predominant factor in image quality?

[gnasher729]

They certainly aren't, but I still think Apple have failed by not having more megapixels, simply because 90% of the Iphone buying population have no idea "why megapixels aren't the end-all-be-all for image quality". They think the more megapixels the better and that's potentially a big chunk of buyers that could be swayed elsewhere e.g the Z1.

So you are saying that Apple should produce a rubbish camera because 90% of people think it is better, instead of a quality camera?

----------

Alternatively, they chose profit margins over quality or quantity.

That's nonsense. The sensor size is what costs money, and the sensor size has increased. Dual LED flash costs money. Better lens costs money. Megapixels don't cost anything. Except quality

----------

Not the most predominant factor unless you are printing poster size photos... It still matters though.

In that case the noise added by having more pixels will become even more visible.

 

[zorinlynx]

On phone cameras, higher MP count can actually be a disadvantage, because each pixel is smaller and can collect less light. The result is crappier low-light performance.

And really, who cares what the "average idiot" thinks? If everyone appealed to the lowest common denominator, we would have crappy products. I'd much rather Apple keep the MP count lower and produce far better images than the competition.

What good is 16MP when you have to crop the picture down to 1/4 size to get rid of the noise and muddiness?

 

[VFC]

Yes, cropping ability is important, but again, I would hardly consider resolution to be the predominant factor in image quality.

The iPhone, or any other phone camera, cannot have excellent low-light performance given the slim profile. All any manufacturer can do is make incremental improvements and higher pixel density. Some manufacturers have released phones with a lens bulge to accommodate a larger lens and sensor. There is a big trade off in size to get good low-light performance.

 

[zedzded]

So you are saying that Apple should produce a rubbish camera because 90% of people think it is better, instead of a quality camera?

Do I think they should? No. Do the money men at Apple think they should have, most definitely. Can you imagine the hype if they whacked in an inferior 20 mega pixel camera in the 5S instead of the 8 megapixel one? The whole world would be p!ssing themselves like an excited puppy.

 

[zorinlynx]

Do I think they should? No. Do the money men at Apple think they should have, most definitely. Can you imagine the hype if they whacked in an inferior 20 mega pixel camera in the 5S instead of the 8 megapixel one? The whole world would be p!ssing themselves like an excited puppy.

And this is precisely what we DON'T want. The day Apple gives in to the "money men" and starts catering exclusively to them, will be the day the quality of their products drops and they won't be any better than the competition. They might make more money in the short run but eventually people will leave them in droves.

Apple keeps a reasonably good balance between catering to the money men and catering to those who want to build a good product. Let's hope they keep it up and don't ruin it.

 

[randy98mtu]

I found this article when looking for the sensor size of the iPhone 5. It explains more of the picture between MP and sensor size. By my math (15% increase in sensor size) Apple have gone from 1/3.2" to 1/3". The Nokia 1020 is still a 2/3" sensor, so I would still put my money on it taking better pictures, but it would probably do just as well or better down in the 10-20mp range.


Credit Gizmag

I have gone up through the ranks from 2 MP P&S cameras up to 10MP. Then to a 10MP Canon 40D, to a 18 MP Canon 7D. Now I use a 5D3 which is 20MP. I didn't really care about the MP count on any of them. Yes, cropping is a factor and if you crop like mad, you can't crop as much on a 10MP image as you can a 20MP image. Still, the larger sensor makes a bigger difference than the number of MP. As well as the aperture of the lens. I do wish Apple had gone all the way to 2.0 instead of 2.2, but I'm sure they had reasons.

 

[zedzded]

And this is precisely what we DON'T want. The day Apple gives in to the "money men" and starts catering exclusively to them, will be the day the quality of their products drops and they won't be any better than the competition. They might make more money in the short run but eventually people will leave them in droves.

Apple keeps a reasonably good balance between catering to the money men and catering to those who want to build a good product. Let's hope they keep it up and don't ruin it.

I agree. But I don't think Apple really understand their customer base anymore, they seem a bit confused. I'm still a bit mystified by the 5C, the pricing, the plastic back, the teenage colour schemes - I suppose only time will tell..

 

[VFC]

I found this article when looking for the sensor size of the iPhone 5. It explains more of the picture between MP and sensor size. By my math (15% increase in sensor size) Apple have gone from 1/3.2" to 1/3". The Nokia 1020 is still a 2/3" sensor, so I would still put my money on it taking better pictures, but it would probably do just as well or better down in the 10-20mp range.

.... Yes, cropping is a factor and if you crop like mad, you can't crop as much on a 10MP image as you can a 20MP image. Still, the larger sensor makes a bigger difference than the number of MP. As well as the aperture of the lens. I do wish Apple had gone all the way to 2.0 instead of 2.2, but I'm sure they had reasons.

Apple cannot go any larger on the sensor size unless they add the lens budge that the Nokia 1020 has. Is that what you want?

 

[Namji]

The general public is ignorant.. and Samsung, HTC, Motorola all know this..
That's why they flaunt the higher MP and feed the consumer into thinking it is better... Or.... its just human nature to believe higher the number, better the outcome..

 

[randy98mtu]

Apple cannot go any larger on the sensor size unless they add the lens budge that the Nokia 1020 has. Is that what you want?

Sorry, I was only trying to add to the point that higher MP is not as important as other factors beyond the level they are already at. I know they can only go so large without sacrificing another design element. Personally I would love an iPhone with a lens bulge for a larger sensor and then up it to 10 or 12MP. I have no expectations of them ever doing that though. Any improvements they can make to the camera I have in my pocket all day though are more than welcome, and I for one think they did all the right things here.

 

[zedzded]

Apple cannot go any larger on the sensor size unless they add the lens budge that the Nokia 1020 has. Is that what you want?

Yeah, a lot of us do. At the moment you can buy a cheap Chinese $40 point n shoot from Kmart that *****s all over the Iphones' camera. The Iphone costs in excess of $1000 in Australia. That's not acceptable.

 

[gnasher729]

Yeah, a lot of us do. At the moment you can buy a cheap Chinese $40 point n shoot from Kmart that *****s all over the Iphones' camera. The Iphone costs in excess of $1000 in Australia. That's not acceptable.

"All over the iPhone's camera"? I doubt it.

I made the mistake (forced upon me by the wife) to buy an 11.2 MP camera a while ago. She now uses an old iPhone 3GS and is quite convinced that it takes better pictures. And it actually does.

 

[Merkie]

Do I think they should? No. Do the money men at Apple think they should have, most definitely. Can you imagine the hype if they whacked in an inferior 20 mega pixel camera in the 5S instead of the 8 megapixel one? The whole world would be p!ssing themselves like an excited puppy.

Apple is not that company. If they were, they would just be another Samsung. Making Android phones and stuff.

 

[SvP]

Alternatively, they chose profit margins over quality or quantity.

I'll bet you the CMOS sensor improvement is more expensive than putting in a higher MP one.

 

[VFC]

"All over the iPhone's camera"? I doubt it.

I made the mistake (forced upon me by the wife) to buy an 11.2 MP camera a while ago. She now uses an old iPhone 3GS and is quite convinced that it takes better pictures. And it actually does.

In daylight, it is hard to tell the different between a picture taken with a phone camera and high-end DSLR. Your wife may prefer the color saturation and white balance of the iPhone 3GS over the neutral saturation/white balance of your camera. However, that doesn't mean the image quality is better.

 

[Lucille Carter]

Alternatively, they chose profit margins over quality or quantity.

It is a known fact that more crowded and smaller pixels do not perform as well. Many of the camera makers are even reducing the number of pixels in some of their cameras to give better low light performance. Most iPhone users never see their images on anything larger than their phone and a 50mp image will not look any better.

But then some do not care and just want more and more pixels on small sensors.

As far as saving money, I am betting that Apple is paying more for this sensor than one that it smaller and more crowded with more pixels.

There is also nothing wrong with Apple trying to make more profit! It is what made this country as great as what it is today!

 

[ucfgrad93]

Having less crowded pixels will give better low light performance. 8mp is more than enough to print to the web and even do 8x10 photos. Looks like Apple choose quality over quantity.

The amount of light let in and sensor size are the most critical aspects for a quality image.

Agreed. I think 8MP is plenty good enough if the other things about the camera are good as well. Not to mention, I think most people just post to Instagram, etc. and the camera certainly is more than good enough for that.

 

[Kurso]

I was extremely disappointed in the 5S still having 8mp. With digital cameras now averaging almost twice as much it's impossible not to be.

Megapixels = scalability
Lots of other things = quality

 

[ABC5S]

In daylight, it is hard to tell the different between a picture taken with a phone camera and high-end DSLR. Your wife may prefer the color saturation and white balance of the iPhone 3GS over the neutral saturation/white balance of your camera. However, that doesn't mean the image quality is better.

I might be a lousy picture taker, but your comment is, at least for me, correct. I bought a Nikon DSLR D5000 around $900.00 with one lens. I took many out door shots, than later I got took some iphone 5 stills outside, and really could not see the difference. Finally sold the DSLR a few months ago, and will get the iphone 5S. Don't have to lug the DSLR around anymore and that is a big plus for the simple pictures I take.

 

[VFC]

I might be a lousy picture taker, but your comment is, at least for me, correct. I bought a Nikon DSLR D5000 around $900.00 with one lens. I took many out door shots, than later I got took some iphone 5 stills outside, and really could not see the difference. Finally sold the DSLR a few months ago, and will get the iphone 5S. Don't have to lug the DSLR around anymore and that is a big plus for the simple pictures I take.

The only area where a large sensor and lens aperture is an absolute requirement is indoors (where flash is not allowed or the subject is beyond the reach of the flash like at a play or concert), or if you are taking indoor pictures of moving objects (ice hockey, karate, basketball, etc). That's why the 15% larger sensor in the 5S is not a big deal; it is still just a phone camera. However, a higher pixel count is useful when taking outdoor pictures.

 

[dejo]

Yeah, a lot of us do. At the moment you can buy a cheap Chinese $40 point n shoot from Kmart that *****s all over the Iphones' camera. The Iphone costs in excess of $1000 in Australia. That's not acceptable.

Do you realize that a P&S doesn't have to have a phone inside it, as well? A digital camera is dedicated to taking pictures, an iPhone is not.

 

[xArtx]

Do you realize that a P&S doesn't have to have a phone inside it, as well? A digital camera is dedicated to taking pictures, an iPhone is not.

The only advantage is the optical zoom.
If it weren't for that the $40 chinese job from Australia doesn't have the
kind of computer behind it to pull of the kind of tricks this phone is going to.
I don't think you can even open and close a mechanical shutter that fast.

 

[BJMRamage]

for anyone saying it is hard to tell teh difference between a smartphone photo and a DSLR photo Maybe if you are looking on a small LCD screen or phone. OPen that image on a computer and you will see a difference. Show on TV or projected and there is a difference.

Now, all that said smartphone camera shots can be good and I generally think mine are good. until I open on a computer and am disappointed, however since many of my shots are posted to Facebook and the like, they are just fine for that.

And back in 2004, I took a photo with my 6MP D70 and blew it up to 20x40". it wasn't bad. (granted if I knew more about photography then and used better settings, maybe shot in RAW if would have been a really good shot) but at this large poster size it was fine. and I have shot images on that 6MP camera that were enlarged between 4' and 6' ini size on a box truck and they are fine.


All that said, I was a bit disappointed in hearing the MP count did not increase as it seems to have in the past. But I have a great DLSR, a P&S, second DSLR, etc and can use them if need be. AND actually reading into the camera bit, I see the new improvements as a GREAT thing. the larger aperture is nice, better flash (not as harsh) is great.


PS. I upgraded that 6MP camera to a 16 (or 18) mp camera a few years back. One nice thing, as stated above is I can crop a vertical shot into a horizontal. (I create photo slideshows and print books so having the ability to take a vertical shot and switch it while still keeping clarity is great too.)

 

[randy98mtu]

I might be a lousy picture taker, but your comment is, at least for me, correct. I bought a Nikon DSLR D5000 around $900.00 with one lens. I took many out door shots, than later I got took some iphone 5 stills outside, and really could not see the difference. Finally sold the DSLR a few months ago, and will get the iphone 5S. Don't have to lug the DSLR around anymore and that is a big plus for the simple pictures I take.

This is true and smart if you are not using the additional things a DSLR can do. You can't put a ND filter on a phone and get a 30 second exposure of a shoreline or clouds in broad daylight. You can't take long exposures at night and force a low ISO. You can't open up the aperture and get shallow depth of field images (and video.) You can't TOUCH the low light indoor performance.

That said, you can take amazing shots of family and friends while you are out and about without lugging all the gear with you. You can take amazing landscapes when the lighting is right. These cover 90% of the shots a lot of people take. You don't need crazy high MP to do it, and Apple is giving people exactly what they need in a smartphone camera.

I do wish Apple would offer an "advanced" mode for the camera for those of us who want to shoot in some creative modes or full manual. It would be nice to force it to keep the ISO speed low. I think some of the software tricks they are using to merge shots to get a sharp image in lower light could be spectacular if they work as well as the sample they showed.

 

[OneMike]

I might be a lousy picture taker, but your comment is, at least for me, correct. I bought a Nikon DSLR D5000 around $900.00 with one lens. I took many out door shots, than later I got took some iphone 5 stills outside, and really could not see the difference. Finally sold the DSLR a few months ago, and will get the iphone 5S. Don't have to lug the DSLR around anymore and that is a big plus for the simple pictures I take.

It all depends on what you're taking a picture of. If you're taking a picture of a non moving object you can take great picture with both in most cases.

Take a picture of kids running around, birds in flight, vehicles racing, sports events, animals in the wild, etc.. Do that with both and compare. This is of course if you're using your DSLR in Manual mode or at least something other than automatic. That's my biggest thing.

With a DSLR you have more control over the end result.

I've only had my DSLR (Canon T3i) for maybe 2-3 months. I can't see myself going back to a regular phone camera ever.

That said both have their purposes and it all comes down to what works for you best.

To OP though megapixel is just a larger image. Not an indicator of quality. I can go to bestbuy or amazon now and get a $100 or less camera with 20MP that takes terrible pictures.