megapixels
- Thread starter slimboy
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,782
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
1 megapixel is 1,000,000 pixels, 1 pixel is a little individual "square" of info, so the more of them you have, generally the better the quality can be although there are lots of other things that affect quality as well, but you certainly need megapixels 
All other factors being equal, the more pixels you have the better the image and the bigger you can blow it up, but as in all things in life there are limits. Essentially what more pixels give you is more resolving power, if you quadruple the number of pixels you'll double the resolving power, or put it another way halve the size of the object that you can recognise.
With todays resolution you'll need a big image or a tight crop to see differences between the resolving power of sensors currently in use.
Kev
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
All I would say is that on a 6x4in print, anything more than 2.2m pixels needs a magnifying glass, and likewise, a 10in print needs a very close squint indeed to see more than 6-7m. I have a five-foot wide print on the wall that looks pretty damn good to me at 10m pixels.
Of course, there is much more to it than this and as ever, all things are never equal (and lenses play a huge part). But I think it is true to say that some camera makers have demonstably gone too far in marketing-led high pixel counts - Canon G10 vs Lumix LX3 is a good example.
IMO, Nikon got it spot on with the D3's relatively modest 12mp, combining superb sharpness and amazing low-light performance, plus very fast shooting speed. Then they went and spoiled it with the D3x which despite it's huge pixel-count, is not any sharper but loses out on dynamic range at high ISO and has a slower shooting speed.
However, the buying public has got 'more pixels=better' firmly fixed in its mind so don't expect any change soon. For automative types, it's a bit like the bhp-vs-torque argument which has been running for decades
Richard.
Of course, there is much more to it than this and as ever, all things are never equal (and lenses play a huge part). But I think it is true to say that some camera makers have demonstably gone too far in marketing-led high pixel counts - Canon G10 vs Lumix LX3 is a good example.
IMO, Nikon got it spot on with the D3's relatively modest 12mp, combining superb sharpness and amazing low-light performance, plus very fast shooting speed. Then they went and spoiled it with the D3x which despite it's huge pixel-count, is not any sharper but loses out on dynamic range at high ISO and has a slower shooting speed.
However, the buying public has got 'more pixels=better' firmly fixed in its mind so don't expect any change soon. For automative types, it's a bit like the bhp-vs-torque argument which has been running for decades
Richard.