Do more megapixels necessarily mean better pictures?

Question

I currently have a Sony Cybershot 5.1MP camera with a Carl Zeiss lens that I love.

However, I have a few friends with cameras with around 7-8MP that don't produce nearly as nice pictures as my Cybershot. I love my camera but it is a little large, so I am looking for a new high-quality digital camera, but I don't want to necessarily buy one with the most megapixels if that is not going to give me the best quality pictures. So why is it that my 5.1 megapixel camera produces higher quality photographs than a 7 or 8?

Answer 1

Size doesn't matter when it comes to megapixels. As you've found out the quality of the lens has a greater impact on image quality than # of pixels in producing sharp pictures. The Carl Zeiss lens is a top quality lens.

Unless you are doing heavy cropping of your photos (i.e. blowing up a small portion of the pic to 8x10 or higher) you will not notice the difference between 5 or 7 or even 10 mp. If you find yourself doing this often you need to get closer to your subject or zoom in more.

There are other factors that are more important than mp--and lens quality is one of them (probably the most critical). High ISO noise is another (i.e. how much noise is there in the image when ISO (sensitivity to light) is set at 800 or above.

The ability to accurately produce good colors and accurate exposure under a variety of lighting conditions and accurate white-balance are others.

Sony makes great camera's so if you're looking for something smaller stick with a quality lens (Carl Ziess, Leica, Nikkor, etc) and don't worry about MP as long as you have a minimum of 5mp you are fine. Studies have shown that there is no difference between full frame images (i.e. no cropping) up to 8x10 shot with a 5mp, 7mp. or 10 mp camera...everything else being equal.

In fact more MP means larger image file sizes which means you won't be able to store as many on your memory card and they will fill up your hard drive faster (more $$ to buy a new hard drive after a while) and they will take longer to upload to your computer and an online photo site on the 'net.

Answer 2

Amy Kate the more megapixels does not necessarily mean a better picture as MOST on this Website would have you believe. Some even down Consumer Reports. They have shown in July issue that some cameras that have just 5 megapixels gave better image quality than some with 7 & 10 megapixels.
I too have a Carl Zeiss lens by Sony and just love the results.
You might consider the Canon PowerShot A630. Handle it in stores just to see the size. Maybe the Fuji E900, which I just bought and can fit in my shirt pocket.
Lastly and expensive, you may want to stick with Sony and buy a subcompact. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N2.

Answer 3

There are so many good answers above me that I can't add to them. You can use my Flickr site to do your own research and form your own opinion, though.

If you always plan and compose your pictures perfectly, you don't need a whole lot of pixels. These days, I'd say that 5 MP or even 4 MP is fine for the average snapshooter and this can be obtained without unreasonable expense. If you want to allow for cropping, which means enlarging only a portion of your image, the more pixels the better.

Imagine taking a scenic view and then noticing that the middle 20% of the photo would make an even better picture. Suppose you take a picture of a whole group of people and Aunt Clara really, really looks great in the picture, but everyone else looks lousy. If you have the pixels to work with, you can still make a decent print of Aunt Clara that she would be happy to have. If you buy an 8-to-10 MP camera and don't want to TAKE large photos, you can always set the camera to a lower file size. You can never go the other direction, though. Unless the cost is a major issue, buy the camera with more pixels. You will never be sorry that you did, but you might one day be sorry that you didn't.

I have a few photos on Flickr to include in a discussion on how many pixels are enough. Go to my page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/pixels/ Some of the pictures are from a 4 MP or even 3 MP camera, showing you what you might expect without any cropping. I think they are quite acceptable. Some of the pictures are from a 10 MP camera (the swan and the pansies), showing the value of having those large images so that you can crop a smaller image out of the original picture and still end up with a satisfactory image. There is one VGA picture, just to show what you could expect from 640 x 480 pixels - not much.

Ken Rockwell has an interesting article on pixels and the pixel wars: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Having said all that, though, pixels are not the only measure of image quality. The sensor size is important as well as the image processing software included in the camera. (See http://www.flickr.com/photos/7189769@N04/476181751/
You need to read reviews if you want a critical understanding of image quality for particular cameras. Try http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ for more information on the cameras you are considering. Pixels are not the decision maker, but they are the tie breaker, so go for the higher pixel count.

If you are going to buy a new camera because your Sony is a little large, I guess we can rule out an SLR.

Shop for a larger sensor. This data is usually buried somewhere in the manufacturer's site, but it's worth looking for. You will get better images with a larger sensor. The "large" sensor in a point and shoot is called a 1/1.8" (or close to that) sensor. The more common size is called a 1/2.5" and it is about half the size of the 1/1.8".

Go here for some examples, but "Sensor Size No. 2" speaks most directly to your decision.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/sensor/

I own and love a Canon SD900, but you might want image stabilization. I would also recommend a Fujifilm F31fd, based on things I have seen on the review sites. They both have the larger sensor. Of course, the Fuji doesn't have an optical viewfinder and I count that as a two point deduction, but it does produce some excellent images.

Check out this comparison page. Click on "In-depth review" and "Read Owner Opinions" for each camera. Be sure to note that the reviews are many pages long so you don't stop after page one. Check the sample images, also. You can enlarge these to full size images if you click on the file name shown below the picture. You will have to then put your cursor in the white space to the right of the picture and click once. After that, you can pass your cursor over the image and it will turn into a magnifier. Click it as a magnifier once and the image will go to full size and you can really examine the detail or look for artifacts like purple fringing around items in high contrast photos or noise in darker areas of the picture.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=fuji_finepixf31fd%2Ccanon_sd900&show=all

Answer 4

That is a misconception. Marketers tend to take advantage of the ignorance of consumers and advertise more megapixels synonymous with better pictures.

Megapixels are a function of the screen resolution and not the image clarity. The image clarity and finesse depends on the lenses, CCD engine and the image processing engine. 5 megapixels is good enough.

Answer 5

Yes, in general, more megapixels mean you have better resolution. However, it depends on what you are going to do with this better image. Are you going to make 3x5 prints or are you going to blow it up or are you going to crop and then blow it up. If you are going to blow it up, then the higher megapixel camera will help.

You are probably taking better pictures because you know what you are doing. The quality of the picture, regardless of the camera, is only as good as the person taking the picture!!

Hope this helps!

Answer 6

Your observations are correct because the problem with some of these cameras is that they have tried to stuff too many pixels in the same size sensor. This actually drops the quality because each pixel is so small that it misses some light. In point and shoot cameras I wouldn't go over 6 MP. In SLRs the sensors are bigger and so the problem is overcome to a large extent.

Only problem with SLRs of course is their larger physical size.

Answer 7

you have almost answered your own question

the image goes down the lens FIRST, then hits the sensor, crap lens = crap pix. crap lens lots of megapix = lots of crap megapixs

so the lens like any photography is the second most important factor the user being most important.

if your camera is going well and the images are better than your friends who paid for sensor size not lens quality keep the Cybershot. Maybe invest the money in a night school course or something nice.


the misconception about needing lots of meagpixels has been sold by the manufacturers to the average macdonalds photographers who go about preaching it.

a

Answer 8

the more pixels, the better photos you have. so if you can afford to get a really compact camera with a good number of pixels..... do it!...

Answer 9

It depends on the company who makes it and if you want quality you have to pay more money to get what u want

Answer 10

yes, the more megapixals per inch the clearer the picture