The battle of megapixels. Thoughts from Radozhiva

Add your thoughts in the question about megapixels in the comments.

The battle of megapixels. Thoughts from Radozhiva

The battle of megapixels. Thoughts from Radozhiva

Nowadays there are quite a few cameras with matrices with a very large number of pixels on board. Many amateur photographers are sure that the more pixels the better, but there are nuances and subtleties.

Some disadvantages of cameras with a large number of pixels:

  1. The more megapixels there are on the camera's matrix, the smaller these pixels are. In general, the smaller the pixel on the camera's matrix, the less light it can absorb, and the stronger the noise in the picture can appear. In general, a small pixel size (large number of megapixels) results in more noise. Fortunately, scientific progress does not stand still, and each new generation of cameras simultaneously increases the number of pixels and tries to reduce the level of noise produced. But there are certain limitations that are very difficult to go beyond.
  2. Cameras with a lot of pixels produce huge files, especially when shooting in RAW format. For example, files from a 36-megapixel monster Nikon D800 weigh about 70MB. The process of copying the shot material from a small photo shoot to a computer with an HDD with a hard drive can take tens of minutes.
  3. Processing images consisting of a large number of megapixels requires very powerful computers.
  4. On cameras with more megapixels, it is more difficult to achieve 'per pixel' sharpness. For super sharp images, you need use good resolution lenses... These lenses are usually very expensive. Therefore, it is customary to say that a matrix with a large number of pixels is more difficult to "feed" with ordinary lenses. Often times, closing the aperture well is enough to achieve a super sharp image.
  5. A matrix with a large number of pixels has a lower diffraction threshold. This means that on cameras with a large number of pixels, it is more difficult to achieve a sharp image with closed apertures. This is a serious problem with such cameras. More details about this can read here.
  6. When using matrices with a large number of megapixels, it is more difficult take off due to pixel-wise movement. On such cameras, you have to reduce the shutter speed to avoid grease.
  7. In fact, modern digital cameras do not have real pixels, in the usual sense of the word, you can read about a kind of `` wrapping '' pixels in the section about Bayer pattern.

Advantages of cameras with a large number of pixels:

  1. The possibility of a strong crop of the picture without much loss in image quality. This is very convenient for post-crop. But at the same time, in order to take advantage of this advantage, it is necessary that the original image be very well detailed, which in turn imposes restrictions on the optics.
  2. Ability to print on materials of a very large format, for example, on sheets of A1 format and more. This is a very strong point of such cameras. Sometimes this is the only serious argument in favor of cameras with a large number of MPs.
  3. In most cases, multi-pixel cameras have very wide dynamic range and large color depth, It is very important for accurate color reproduction and post photo processing.
  4. Cameras with high density sensors may not use an AA filter. At the same time, the sharpness of the image can significantly increase, but the possibility of obtaining moire in photographs also increases.

My experience:

As a photographer, personally for myself once and for all concluded that megapixels play a much smaller role than many people think about it. I very rarely need strong framing, I print canvas with wedding photos from my 12 MP camera without any problems, I have a huge number of printed A4 glossy photos from 6 megapixel cameras. Larger pixels allow the use of non-top-end lenses, and batch processing of photos takes much less time :).

On the topic of megapixels, I also advise you to look in the sections'Pixels and Subpixels", "Gigapixels'and'Megapixel Math'.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 172, on the topic: The battle of megapixels. Thoughts from Radozhiva

  • Victor

    It is true that for 99% of photographers 6 MP would be enough. That being said, reasonable sufficiency for the layman. Less - we start to sacrifice detail, more - quality at high ISO. The number of megapixels is the main marketing indicator for advertising a product and now their increase does not improve the quality of the photo in any way, it was relevant 15 years ago. Recently, they even turned to one of the manufacturers in an open letter to release a DSLR with a 6 MP low-noise matrix: http://www.change.org/ru/петиции/nikon-stop-megapixel-war-start-the-production-of-the-high-iso-dslr-camera-in-a-small-body

  • Vladimir

    I recently compared photos from my old Canon A700 6 MP and more modern Canon S95 10MP. spring Green
    and running water is much livelier in the old photo. Artificial sharpness and static annoy the images from the new camera.
    I think that this is not only a matter of optics, but also of algorithms for processing primary information from a matrix by a signal processor. In small matrices, there was little primary information, it was reliable, performance
    the number of processors is small - the algorithms used are simple, they only removed obvious flaws.
    There are a lot of information in modern large matrices, it is initially worse, processors are very fast, image enhancement algorithms are applied, i.e. the image is artificially formed based on the concepts of sharpness, contrast, etc. In fact, the capabilities of computer processing programs were transferred to the device and the results of their application were imposed initially, even in RAW.
    Those. the camera does not transmit the image of the object, but draws a picture based on information from the sensor. And worst of all, the results obtained have multiplicative distortions, i.e. Filters do not recover primary information.

    • Sergei

      I also came across the fact that with old cameras, the picture as a whole is more pleasant and livelier, if I may say so. I like the color from old Nikon CCDs.

      • Eugene

        :)

      • newreportage.ru

        Yes, on old cameras, such as 6 mgpks D40 and D50, the picture even on the whale looked very decent. Lively, voluminously, sharply. Therefore, I see no reason to abandon these cameras (or not to buy used for 80-120 bucks) for family photography (including full portraits) and for all kinds of bugs, spiders, daisies, mushrooms, berries.
        Newer DX cameras really give a less expressive picture.

  • Gennady

    Interesting article. However, if we are talking about the ratio of the number of megapixels / quality, then we will encounter many reservations and clarifications. What am I leading to? I'll take my example from Canon 40D and Canon 7D. These are two fundamentally identical cameras, standing in the same semi-professional category. Prior to the Canon 40D, I had a newer amateur 550D, which I think technologically outperformed the old 40D. For example, the working ISO of the 550 ranged from 800-1600, while the 800 at ISO 7 was already showing noise. But this was noticeable when the image was enlarged. On the prints, no difference was noticed, neither the quality nor the sharpness. And the XNUMXD is just a rich reportage camera functionality that I was missing. And megapixels are not an indicator for me.

    • anonym

      Well ... I think that only Rosette stores can announce the declared semi-professional cameras :) no offense, these are more advanced amateur ones. And about the pixels - I completely agree with the author of the article. If you don't need billboards, and you know how to crop a picture (so that you don't cut them on your computer later), then again ... more marketing. As for the dynamic range - a controversial issue, although, probably, having a place to be ... (you need to make sure yourself, as you did not ask this question), all other things being equal ...

  • Eugene

    Here are the trees, I constantly forget to put the name in the line ... Quarrels ... :) And then Anonymous is somehow not at all in Feng Shui :)

  • Stanislas

    The article is super. I myself have a good camera even though it has a 24MP and never use them! I shoot all shots at 6-9 for weddings, etc. enough for the eyes….

  • Eugene

    = It was evening, there was nothing to do, and my two cameras decided to measure with megapixels, they decided to measure. =
    “They decided to measure themselves” maybe you can remove it?
    Thank you Arkady for your work.

  • sergeycot

    Now there are quite a few cameras with matrices that have a very large number of pixels on their side.

    Mistake

  • Novel

    Toast having not quite cutting

  • Novel

    So having a not quite sharp lens on the d700 will I have sharper frames than on the d800? Or just, I won’t use the full possibility of sharpness d800 but the frame will not be worse?

  • quickvox

    Yes, not a pleasant trend among manufacturers of photographic equipment. I’m looking now all new models are letting in from 24 megapixels on crop. scary to even think what will happen in five years

  • Oleg

    Greetings
    Tell me if there will be an improvement in image quality if the image size is reduced in the menu? On the Nikon D7000, you can set 3 image sizes in the menu. What principle is used in this case, does the pixel size increase, does the influence of diffraction decrease, or is it just programmatically reducing the size at the output and does not affect the quality?

  • Oleg

    Thank you

  • Ivan

    “In most cases, multi-pixel cameras have a very wide dynamic range and deep color depth, which is very important for accurate color reproduction and post-processing of photos.”

    Vladimir Medvedev says the opposite. They also have more noise, which means that color reproduction is worse.

  • Al

    Another point on high-resolution matrices: a stub designed to reduce the level of movement can add it :)
    As for the rest, getting used to the nuance with a shutter speed (200 and shorter) is quite fast, and you can safely shoot even at 1/100 handheld.
    In general, such a resolution is only necessary for those who later see their pictures in good "interior" print. For the web and A4 on household printers, an old woman at 8Mpx is quite enough.

    Large banners print a lot from what - given that, on average, they are seen from a distance of 7+ meters, fine detail and sharpness is not so important, because no one will see these details except for installers;)

    shl
    And what is the noise level, and why are they so afraid of it?))) On the Great and Terrible Eight Hundred, the pictures at ISO6400 look quite decent. For example, I rarely even reach 3200 ...

  • Andrei

    I had the following question: is it correct to say that, with other things being equal, a camera with a large pixel is less sensitive to minor focusing errors, since a large pixel can absorb a circle of blur and more than a smaller pixel? That is, when using a large pixel, the depth of field will increase and even that which does not fall into the focal plane will be displayed equally in comparison with what has fallen into focus.

    • anonym

      quite right

  • Alexey

    And here is an interesting question: let's say we shoot in JPEG, there is no need for super-detailing in this case, and besides, we remember that in very good cameras, 6 and 12 megs are enough. So when you set the image size to “M” on a camera with, for example, 24MP, its matrix from a technical point of view works adequately, just with 13.5MP (for example), or neither? Arkady periodically writes about the microstructure and operation of different types of matrices, and not everything is simple there. Who thinks what, huh?

  • Alexey

    However, Vadim, Victor and Oleg answered about this :))

  • Karabas-Barabas

    The disadvantages of older models of small-pixel cameras are the imperfect focusing system. Pros, an interesting picture has already been said.
    The advantages of modern multi-pixel cameras are the better focusing system. The picture is not so clear. It depends on what size the matrix is ​​worth - if it is full size, then everything is not so bad, even very good, if the crop is still enough light is not bad, but the difference with ff is still obvious. If there is no light, then full kaput. If you don't shoot, they'll shoot, but the quality ...
    My vedict - for optimal image quality, the camera should have a 35 mm matrix from 12 to 25 megapixels. And for me, as an aviation photographer, to be fast and with good autofocus. Otherwise, apart from static, nothing can be removed in good quality. Naturally, we must forget about whale and medium-range glasses. Only professional optics, preferably high-aperture.
    I had experience of long-term use - Nikon d7000 (glass unit 2.8 screwdriver), Canon 350d, 550d, 5dMark2, 1Ds mark2 - all with L-optics. I want to take 5d Mark3, the ideal, of course, is 1d x. Saychas I use 1ds mark2 and 350d.

  • jinn113

    The canon 300d iso 800 is very noisy. After the death of three hundred bought 550d. On it and iso1600 workers. But the trouble is where three hundred is enough iso 400 five hundred strives to fly to iso1600. Impression is purely subjective since, due to the death of three hundred, there is no way to protest in the same conditions. No one else compared?

  • Andrei

    Good afternoon Arkady! Tell me if it makes sense to switch from Nikon d7000 to Nikon d700 with a mileage of 20000, worth 1400, or is it better to purchase a new Nikon d610.
    Thank you.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      There is a sense, but for the rest they must decide for themselves going out of their tasks (about which they did not write) and opportunities.

  • Maksim

    Hi people.
    Here it turns out. I sat, read and counted the pixel density on the matrices of both DX and FX. And it turns out an interesting thing. see for yourself.
    The density of pixels per square millimeter.
    DX 24 * 16 = 384mm squared
    FX 36 * 24 = 864mm squared
    Next, we divide the number of Mpx by area and this is the result.
    D7100 62500px / per square millimeter
    D800 and D7000 41666px / per square millimeter
    D750 27777px / per square millimeter
    D700 13888px / per square millimeter
    So it turns out that everything is not so scary and terrible with 36Mpx at 800ki.
    And problems with stirring according to calculations should be in theory at 24Mpx in the crop.
    Maybe I'm wrong about something?

  • Aleksanr

    Hello, who will tell you a place in the city of Kiev, where you can scan the film well? Thanks))) well, so that the prices are reasonable)))

  • Andrei

    Something I got confused. According to the link given by you, Arkady, it says that with a decrease in the aperture (up to 8-11), the sharpness deteriorates, and according to the link given there to the test it is. This is a manifestation of distortion, I understand correctly? However, putting the kit lens 18-55, you can observe the opposite picture - when the aperture is closed, the sharpness increases. And in my distant childhood, in the photo circle at home, the pioneers seemed to be taught this way.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Maybe not distortion, but diffraction? Diffraction also depends on the size of the pixel. Just review the materials again.

  • Andrei

    Yes, of course, diffraction (it was sealed up). But in fact, on a high-pixel crop, nevertheless, on what apertures should there be a sharper frame?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      As usual - on averages, for each lens and camera, the F-number value is individual.

  • Andrei

    Thank you for the site, and for the time spent answering us, Happy New Year and Merry Christmas to you and all visitors to the site. Peace and good photos to all of us.
    PS I climbed into Google to understand the diffraction to the end :)

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2011/12/battle-of-megapixels/comment-page-2/

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2011/12/battle-of-megapixels/comment-page-2/