how many megapixels are enough?
How many megapixels do you need? Do most of your images remain in digital form, displayed on the web? Or do you create large prints for display?
As camera sensors grow in resolving power, greater demands are placed on lenses. A kit zoom lens that resolved just fine for a manufacturers 6 MP model might not rate so well on a 10 or 12 MP model. More resolution also means larger file sizes and increased data storage needs. With current cameras able to resolve well enough for many applications, is there a need for increasing numbers, other than for advertising purposes?
It will be interesting to see where Digital SLR design goes in the near future. Just a few years ago Nikon was fully committed to the smaller APS-C sized sensors and stated clearly that they had no intention of ever producing a full frame DSLR. Now they have two of them, the D3 and D700. Sony is not far behind with the coming release of their full-frame 24 MP sensor (watch Sony closely, folks, they’re a huge company with tons of resources). Olympus, on the other hand, has committed to a sensor half the size of full-frame with the 4/3 format. And they all produce high quality images.
Regardless of future directions taken by manufacturers, it’s assured we’ll be getting more impressive specifications with each new model release. Yes, some of the companies have taken a misstep here and there but, overall, the ball is rolling downhill pretty fast on innovation. Take Canon, for example, with the Digital Rebel.
 |
Popular Photography has a current DSLR shootout: Five Top Cameras Compared, posted both on their website and featured in the August 2008 issue of the magazine. Just out of curiosity I looked at the specs of the Canon Digital Rebel XSi and then flipped through the popphoto.com archives in order to find a similar shootout from 2006. In January 2006 they called a similar article the Hotshot Shoot-Out, which featured the Canon Digital Rebel XT. In between these two versions there was also the XTi model from Canon.
So how much has this camera evolved in the two and a half years from XT to XSi? At a glance there don’t seem to be earth-shattering changes, just constant refinements. But, taken as a whole, the improvements are impressive. Let’s walk through some specs, courtesy of Pop Photo:
Canon Digital Rebel XT (Jan. 2006) vs. Canon Digital Rebel XSi (Aug. 2008)
Roughly the same list price: XT was $880 with the just adequate 18-55mm kit lens. The XSi is listed at $900 with a much improved 18-55mm lens with image stabilization. Very big improvement.
The LCD screen has tripled in size, going up from 1.8” to 3”. Major improvement.
The megapixel count, the thing most people look at first, has jumped from 8 MP to 12 MP, a sizeable step. Color depth has also jumped from 12-bit to 14-bit A/D conversion, a wonderful spec at this price.
The friendly sensor also cleans itself off now, saving post-production time spotting out dust. Nice.
A thing that doesn’t show on Canon’s spec sheets but does in created images is the resolving power of the sensor. According to Pop Photo, the best the XT could resolve was 1800 lines per inch. The XSi? 2265 lines, a 25 percent improvement. Heck, the XSi still resolves 2160 lines at ISO 1600, better than the XT’s best effort at ISO 100! Major gains have also been made in noise reduction.
Compared to 2006, the latest Canon Digital Rebel is easier and faster to use and creates sharper images with increased resolution and less noise…all for the same price. Adding up the individual feature improvements points out huge gains on paper. And we’re just talking a couple years here, not 4 or 5 or even 10 years.
But, at the end of the day, do these improvements result in better images for most photographers? Or maybe an improved user experience? The larger LCD screen certainly does make things nice.
What are the certain features and improvements that compel you to buy a new camera? Are megapixels the most important thing?
The main reason I upgraded my camera body this last time was for megapixels. I was shooting with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D at 6MP. When this camera was released, this was professional level and the 6MP wasn’t an issue. As I got deeper into stock photography and art prints, I was finding that my photos were undersized for what the market needed. So I upgraded to the Sony Alpha a700 with 12MP. Now I have no problem producing large prints or selling photos as stock for double page spreads. So I’m probably good for a couple of years.
It’s hard to say if the future will require more megapixels. My guess is that certain parts of the industry will, while others won’t. And of course, it depends on what the photographer is providing photos for. There’s a reason that people use medium and large format cameras.
On a sidenote, I actually ran into a funny situation with my stock agency of choice (PhotoShelter Collection). My 120 film scans some out to be around 50MP, and I tried uploading a few of them to my account. I got an error that said the image was too big, and I couldn’t upload it. So apparently, on the flipside of files that are too small, files that are too big can be a bad thing.
Hi Jim,
I fully agree with you. Personaly I use a 4 years old KM Dynax (maxxum) 7D, and very pleased with it (good viewfinder, PC flash connection, large LCD screen, DOF test…)
Its 6 MP sensor looks very poor today, but it’s quite enough for learning, and I prefer to invest my money in lenses, lightings, tripods, filters, accessories, books and my time to improve my technical skills (thanks to you for your great video tutorials) and learning composition rules. But I sometimes feel alone, watching tons of 12Mp blurry, bad exposed photos published on Flickr everyday!
Hi Jim,
As technology grows and being developed, manufactures offer cameras incorporated with new features and improvements, including but not limited to more MP. I welcome that very well.
As I shoot for a local paper, high MP count might be useful sometimes; especially when you’re doing high resolution posters. Although, I believe that MP is overrated; I think most people doesn’t need (or want) to print very large images. 5-6 MP is enough for most common applications, such as A4-size paper print. On advertising (at least here in Sweden) too much emphasis is put on how many MP that and that camera have. But I guess thats only boost sales since people seems to like larger numbers?
When buying a (new) DSLR, your not only buying a camera; you’re buying a whole concept - a whole new world opens for you. But thats another story.
As experience rose, I’ve become more aware of things around me; I know exactly what I want today. My next purchase is definitely going to be a full-frame camera for superb performance at high ISO-levels, no crop factor and easier to maintain shallow depth-of-field. Hope for an Canon 5D II this year 
/ My 2 cents
Definitely not megapixels, I upgraded from the Rebel XT to the 30D (same MP). I wouldn’t mind a 10MP or 12MP sensor for more pixels to play with but my computer and laptop are already starting to struggle with ~7 meg RAW files.
What I’m hoping for when I upgrade from the 30D: Either what’s in the 50D in a year or two, or Canon’s answer to the Nikon D700, a full frame camera that can also use EF-S lenses. Although, I’d prefer a price point closer to their mid-range cameras so I’ll have enough to get a new computer to handle it!
Nice article. No, it has very little to do with the Megapixels now (esp after 8 Meg)
It has to do with two major factors. First and foremost Dynamic Range. Please remember, and hopefully write about, the dynamic range is what allows us to “fill” our megapixel “buckets” with what the Information holds, contrast, info of not only the color but the shades of gray etc. When I first received my Canon 40D, a then, $1,400 USD camera, I sold my Hasselblad H1 with a 16meg digital back and my Canon 5D because of the stunning Dynamic range is offered with it’s Digi III sensor.
It would do your readers good to write an article on Dynamic Range. I have written one as well that is quite easy to read and involves a little guy that goes by the name of Photon Phil.
Best,
Tom
I just recently went from D200 to D700. Same 2 year difference, but the improvements are obvious. It might not be fair to compare D200 to D700, but when compared to even the D300 the choice is an easy one. What compelled me to upgrade my otherwise perfectly functional camera? Better AF, low noise at high ISO, full frame. Honestly megapixels are the last thing I look at when considering a camera, but oddly enough, it’s the first thing that I get asked by others.
I actually had to look up how many megapixels my Rebel XTi has (10), so I guess that makes it relatively unimportant! Most of my photos live on the web or in 8×10 prints at most, which every DSLR can do these days.
Getting into microstock has sharpened my eye for image quality and noise, so that’s what I’m looking for next. As noted, the XSi offers some improvements there, though I’m anxious to see a possible 50D in January or a lower cost 5D.
What about cropping? I will often crop out unwanted items from the edge of photos, and would therefore much rather start with the higher MP count, assuming similar pixel density.
I agree with Rob above. Cropping, not print size, is likely the key impact of megapixel count for most people.
Being new to DSLR’s (and photography in general), I chose not to fall for the oft quoted ‘megapixel myth’ and picked up a Nikon D40 (6MP). Given its large photosensors, 1/500 flash sync and great usability, I am having a ball learning to shoot. It is really a fantastic (beginner) camera. However, I tend to crop aggressively and, just a couple of months in, I am already feeling constrained by the low pixel count. So much so, that I’m already considering upgrading to a higher MP sensor … fully aware that I’m likely to lose that fantastic 1/500 sync.
… bring on that D90! …
I’m bothered by the “is it 6 or is it 12 megapixels” question of my Fujifilm S5 Pro. If I have to do a serious crop on an image, there goes any potential of a 16×20 print sale. On the other hand, the pictures are gorgeous. I’m spoiled by how nice they look, and the exposure leeway I have when shooting under harsh conditions (such as moving two year olds who won’t stay near the strobes).
So yes, megapixels or lack thereof are very important to me. But 10 or 12 would work nicely…I don’t need 25 or anything crazy like that. Just enough to crop and sell a large print, that’s all I ask. But there’s no new digital in my future for awhile.
And then it probably wouldn’t look as nice as the Fuji. Just bigger.
I don’t buy the “I need megapixels so I can crop” argument. Crop in camera. Crop when before taking the picture. Be aware of your surroundings and the edges of your frame. It’ll make you a better photographer in the long run. And save time in post.
Mike C-
In the perfect world, I agree with you 100%. But as we all know, when you finally identify that “primo shot” of the 200 you to put on a card, a bit of cropping may be needed. Within the last few weeks Jim put up some great pre-cropped shots of an actor in a variety of costumes. So if that one great expression was otherwise in need of cropping, you trash the shot? I like the extra MPs if I need to crop a bit. “Hope for the best; plan for the worst.”
I couldn’t care less about MP . I have had work published from my old 640 X 480 sensor point and shoot. from 2mp , 4 mp 8 mp and now from my Canon Digital Rebel. I have even made acceptable 8 foot tall posters from the Canon.
Firstly I look for Ease of use. I have big hands and some buttons are just in the wrong place on some cameras. even the Digital rebel is not perfectly laid out for my fingers but I am getting there!
Next I look for versatility. I still shoot every day with a point and shoot but it has a superb range of settings that when you get to know lets you create simply stunning photos. but it really peeves me that I forgot to check if it had a viewfinder even though it was definitely on my wish list so low light work is hit and miss. It is lucky I like surprises!
I have grown to love the Richness of colour and the relatively low noise of the Canon Digital Rebel compared to my previous cameras but I didn’t even consider that till I bought it and discovered it for myself.
in the future I’d look for Bluetooth tethering, built in remote flash syncronisation(multi channel, improved Dynamic range, improved noise reduction, improved resolution (not necessarily more MP) and faster memory chip uploads and downloads.
in the software dept it would be nice if we couled upload software packs to the camera…. eg If i want to develop my skills with the ZONE system it would be nice if the camera had a tutorial mode and s ZONE system assist mode.
THis could be incorporated with a more advanced in viewfinder HUD.
Maybe I should work for canon and teach those guys about how creativity starts in the head!
thanks for a fab blog and tutorials
Rob, I’m with you on cropping if the shot is good or if you got a great expression, but didn’t have time to compose because it was i spur of the moment thing. What I was trying to say is that justifying a camera purchase based on MPs for cropping is setting yourself up for a disaster. But cropping an occasional shot or shooting loose so the client has play room is by no means a faux pas.
Another thought, Mike-
I will often capture an image that looks much better when cropping serves to change the aspect ratio - get to pretend I own one of those high end medium format digital backs. That may never happen, but a nice square photo does the trick from time to time. The additional MPs help preserve a good sized print.
For my personal work, 6 MP is perfectly fine. I like printing 6″ x 9″ and rarely crop an image, preferring to print full frame.
The studio is a pretty different world. Art Directors seem to want the best of both worlds, always saying “shoot looser, leave more room around the subject so there’s plenty of bleed and I can move it around in the layout”. Then, two days later, they point to some little detail and say, “now, I can blow that part up to full page, can’t I?”. Uh, yeah, right…
Megapixels are a bit like seatbelts:
Maybe most of the shots you get don’t need ‘em
( if 1/50 is good enough to show a client… )
… but when you *do*…
If I could get a camera that shot at 0.1 Mpx when my shots were not good enough, or mistimed, or out of focus, but automagically switches to 20 Mpx when everything comes together,
my card’d never fill up quick enough to force me to change ‘em in a single shoot!
There are features that attract me: In camera and off camera.
In camera it would be the precision of the AF system, Image quality and ergonomics.
Off camera would be the lens at my disposal and their price, as an example Olympus has fewer lenses -less options for specialized shootings- and they are more expensive than what you find in the top 3 camera makers… and this should be taken into account when buying a camera “Are the lenses competitively priced and have great quality?”, “I need this lens for (wedding, portraiture, photojournalism, landscape, etc) is it available in this brand or do I have to rely on 3rd party lenses??”
Yes, you start by looking at it from the right side, the lens. Today the lens usually is the limiting factor. Well, even on a 6mp DSLR you will see difference between a cheap consumer zoom and a more expensive one, or a fix focal. There is actually something called “System Resolution”, the resulting res. of both sensor and lens. The SR is not the worst of the two, neither the average of the two. But SR is overcourse to what i want to say, and that is about magnification ratio of the resolution the lens can deliver. Something people seem to forget when talking sensor size and megapixels.
Sharpness of a lens is often measured in lpmm, thats Lines Per Millimeter. Usually it is measured in “real life” contrasts, the lines are not pitch black and pure white, rather two shades of grey. A fairly good lens will achieve about 60 lpmm at its sweet spot around f8. Now to the important part, it does not matter what size of sensor the lens is made for, the glass will not perform better with a smaller or bigger sensor. So lets say we have quite good lens with 60 lpmm as input. Now think of two cases of capturing theese 60 lpmm. One on a 18 mm wide sensor, one on a 36 mm wide. Then print this image 1 meter wide.
In the small 18 mm sensor case, the captured resolution will be enlarged 55 times (18×55=~1000). The 60 lpmm from the lens will thus be reduced 55 times, to 1 lpmm in the print (60/55=~1). Now lets look at the bigger 36 mm sensor. That captured resolution will be enlarged only 28 times, so the captured 60 lpmm from the lens will only be reduced to 2. That is twise the resolution in final print. But this does not hold up in the real world, but i think you got the point. The reason that it is not true IRL, is that mentioned System Resolution. More megapixels and everything else the same, will rise the SR, but not as much as you think, the same goes for the lens. If you have a crappy res. and want to double it, you want get dobble by a twise asa sharp lens, neither with a twise res. sensor. Both have to be upgraded. But if you allready have the best lenses and jam packed pixels on the sensor, physical size on the sensor is the only way forward. It is like they say about cars, nothing beat cubic (size) inches. Heres an article about system resolution for those willing to take the overcourse.
More megapixels are nice for wildlife, because then you don’t have to spend the extra $$ for a 600mm lens, when you can get a 400mm lens and crop the image. That’s the major upside of the Pentax K20D.
There is more to image quality than MP for sure. I have both a Canon 300d and a 10D. Now they both have a 6mp sensor but they take very different photo’s. The 300d takes a lovely photo until you take the same photo with the 10D then you really see the colour and detail punch you in the face. But they were both totally different prices and aimed at different markets.
So, that leaves a question, is it better the buy a used ex-pro camera or the latest new consumer camera???
As for me? well I’m sticking the to the 10 and saving my pennys for some better lenses….
Leave your response!
Recent Articles
Further Reading
Pages
Categories
Archives
Top Commentators this month
Recent Comments
Related Posts
Most Popular Posts
Most Commented
Tags
approach around the net assisting bulbs business creativity customer service education equipment exposure film fine art gear history insurance interview lenses lighting logo design marketing nature photographer photographers pinhole portrait preview professional organizations RAW review stick-in-a-can studio taxes technical video workflow