Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's

Reply
Thread Tools

ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2009
'Fraid it's too late. The 20 megaxpixel, 1/2.5 sensored camera is
bound to appear.

ABC
Why More Megapixels Don't Make Better Pix
Have a Pocket-Sized Camera? Watch Out for Too Many Megapixels
By CHRIS GAYLORD

April 25, 2009

When it comes to electronics, more is better. Consumers want more
features, more hard-drive space, more cellphone minutes and more
battery life.

But with digital cameras, it's not that simple. Many stores will tell
you that the worth of a camera is measured in megapixels. The more
manufacturers can pack in, the better, right?

Not necessarily, says Amit Gupta, founder of Photojojo.com, an online
newsletter for camera tips and projects.

A high-megapixel count doesn't always equate to better image quality.
Actually, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a
small camera, it can have the opposite effect.

Such a counterintuitive snag mostly affects tiny digital cameras, the
ones compact enough to fit in your pocket.

To keep sizes down, manufacturers place itty-bitty image sensors
inside their point-and-shoot models. These small parts perform well
within a certain range. But when companies try to raise the megapixel
count without increasing the dimensions of the camera, the same size
sensor now has to do more work.

The result are larger but less accurate images, Gupta says. The
overburdened sensor can lose sharpness, struggle in low-light
situations and add "noise" (small blotches or odd colors).

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots, but the
extra room allows for much bigger sensors and often better image
quality per megapixel.

Cameras are rarely advertised on their sensor sizes, which makes the
warning difficult to act on. But the problem usually pops up when
companies release two very similar models, one with more megapixels
and, most likely, a higher price. In those situations, the extra few
hundred dollars doesn't necessarily buy you a better camera.

Sensor technology improves all the time, making the issue of cramped
megapixels less important each year. Improved lenses and anti-shake
features also dampen the effect.

But even if companies could make a flawless 18-megapixel camera the
size of a deck of cards, few people will ever need that much, Gupta
says.

Start With 8 Megapixels

He suggests that shoppers start looking at eight megapixels, consider
10, but think hard before shelling out for a 12-megapixel camera or
higher.

"Six megapixels is great for 8-by-10 prints," he says. "We use a six-
megapixel camera for everything on the site. ... In fact, we're making
a Photojojo book and shooting with the same camera for all of those
pictures."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gary Edstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2009
Being an old geezer, I remember when transistor radios first came out in
the late 1950's / early 1960's. The major advertising claim in those
days was how many transistor's their radio had. There were even cases
where a manufacturer had put in dummy transistors with all 3 leads
soldered together just so that they could up the count.

The manufacturers will make what sells, not necessarily what is best.

Gary

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:40:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>'Fraid it's too late. The 20 megaxpixel, 1/2.5 sensored camera is
>bound to appear.


[snip]

>A high-megapixel count doesn't always equate to better image quality.
>Actually, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a
>small camera, it can have the opposite effect.


[snip]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2009
On Apr 26, 6:40*am, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 'Fraid it's too late. *The 20 megaxpixel, 1/2.5 sensored camera is
> bound to appear.
>
> ABC
> Why More Megapixels Don't Make Better Pix
> Have a Pocket-Sized Camera? Watch Out for Too Many Megapixels
> By CHRIS GAYLORD
>
> April 25, 2009
>
> When it comes to electronics, more is better. Consumers want more
> features, more hard-drive space, more cellphone minutes and more
> battery life.
>
> But with digital cameras, it's not that simple. Many stores will tell
> you that the worth of a camera is measured in megapixels. The more
> manufacturers can pack in, the better, right?
>
> Not necessarily, says Amit Gupta, founder of Photojojo.com, an online
> newsletter for camera tips and projects.
>
> A high-megapixel count doesn't always equate to better image quality.
> Actually, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a
> small camera, it can have the opposite effect.
>
> Such a counterintuitive snag mostly affects tiny digital cameras, the
> ones compact enough to fit in your pocket.
>
> To keep sizes down, manufacturers place itty-bitty image sensors
> inside their point-and-shoot models. These small parts perform well
> within a certain range. But when companies try to raise the megapixel
> count without increasing the dimensions of the camera, the same size
> sensor now has to do more work.
>
> The result are larger but less accurate images, Gupta says. The
> overburdened sensor can lose sharpness, struggle in low-light
> situations and add "noise" (small blotches or odd colors).
>
> Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots, but the
> extra room allows for much bigger sensors and often better image
> quality per megapixel.
>
> Cameras are rarely advertised on their sensor sizes, which makes the
> warning difficult to act on. But the problem usually pops up when
> companies release two very similar models, one with more megapixels
> and, most likely, a higher price. In those situations, the extra few
> hundred dollars doesn't necessarily buy you a better camera.
>
> Sensor technology improves all the time, making the issue of cramped
> megapixels less important each year. Improved lenses and anti-shake
> features also dampen the effect.
>
> But even if companies could make a flawless 18-megapixel camera the
> size of a deck of cards, few people will ever need that much, Gupta
> says.
>
> Start With 8 Megapixels
>
> He suggests that shoppers start looking at eight megapixels, consider
> 10, but think hard before shelling out for a 12-megapixel camera or
> higher.
>
> "Six megapixels is great for 8-by-10 prints," he says. "We use a six-
> megapixel camera for everything on the site. ... In fact, we're making
> a Photojojo book and shooting with the same camera for all of those
> pictures."


Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed
 
Reply With Quote
 
Private
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2009

"Bob Haar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C619FD5F.456078%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Where is the news in this?
>


Slow news day.


 
Reply With Quote
 
NBC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2009

[snip]

More Megapixels=Better Digital Zoom

Some P&S cameras have 10x to 24x optical zooms that you can add 4x
digital zoom too.

Its nice to be able to analyze and frame a 40x or more stabilized image
in a bright 3 inch screen.

Give me More Megapixels!

NBC




 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Edstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2009
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:24:44 -0700, "NBC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>More Megapixels=Better Digital Zoom
>
>Some P&S cameras have 10x to 24x optical zooms that you can add 4x
>digital zoom too.
>
>Its nice to be able to analyze and frame a 40x or more stabilized image
>in a bright 3 inch screen.
>
>Give me More Megapixels!


There is a limit as to what can be achieved with technology in smaller
and smaller sensors. It has to do with the laws of physics,
diffraction, and the particle nature of light. The smaller the pixel
sensor, the poorer a job it is going to do, even if perfectly
manufactured, and no amount of technology can change that.

It's like with telescopes: There is no limit to how much magnification
you can achieve, but beyond a certain point, all you are doing is making
a small fuzzy image into a large fuzzy image. This applies to even
perfectly manufactured optics.

Gary
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2009
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> Gary Edstrom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
>> La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>>>
>>>nuff sed

>>
>> So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
>> really into photography, why not have both?
>>

> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
> use a DSLR each and every time.
>
>

Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into photography",
just pretending to be!

If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the time,
then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that the more
savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete cameras when the
situation warrants it.

If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset of
40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.

QED


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Spanjaard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2009
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:47:58 +0100, Fred wrote:

>> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way
>> to use a DSLR each and every time.

>
> Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into
> photography", just pretending to be!
>
> If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the
> time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that
> the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete
> cameras when the situation warrants it.
>
> If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset
> of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.


And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious'
photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the
best known example of such a small system.





--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2009
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Gary Edstrom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):


>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
>> La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>>>
>>>nuff sed

>>
>> So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
>> really into photography, why not have both?
>>

> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
> use a DSLR each and every time.


Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2009
Gary Edstrom wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:24:44 -0700, "NBC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> More Megapixels=Better Digital Zoom
>>
>> Some P&S cameras have 10x to 24x optical zooms that you can add 4x
>> digital zoom too.
>>
>> Its nice to be able to analyze and frame a 40x or more stabilized image
>> in a bright 3 inch screen.
>>
>> Give me More Megapixels!

>
> There is a limit as to what can be achieved with technology in smaller
> and smaller sensors. It has to do with the laws of physics,
> diffraction, and the particle nature of light. The smaller the pixel
> sensor, the poorer a job it is going to do, even if perfectly
> manufactured, and no amount of technology can change that.
>
> It's like with telescopes: There is no limit to how much magnification
> you can achieve, but beyond a certain point, all you are doing is making
> a small fuzzy image into a large fuzzy image. This applies to even
> perfectly manufactured optics.


Nicely put.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
x.abc vs x['abc'] Gunter Henriksen Python 1 05-15-2009 07:03 AM
ABC inheriting from ABC vsgdp C++ 1 09-24-2005 08:01 PM
Ain't ($foo eq 'abc') the same as ($foo =~ /^abc$/)? Ha - NOT ON MY BOX!!! usenet@DavidFilmer.com Perl Misc 4 06-15-2005 03:06 PM
Is "String s = "abc";" equal to "String s = new String("abc");"? Bruce Sam Java 15 11-19-2004 06:03 PM
HttpModule -- how to intercept urls like http://localhost/abc/def or http://localhost/abc/def/ where abc, def are non virtual dir Jiong Feng ASP .Net 0 11-19-2003 05:29 AM



Advertisments