Do we really need more megapixels?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tod DeBie, Jun 20, 2004.

  1. Tod DeBie

    Tod DeBie Guest

    I've have a Powershot G2 for 2.5 years and am reasonably happy with the
    picture quality. There are a few things I would like better, but more
    megapixels is not one of them. Here is my wish list:

    1. Lower noise at high ISO. It does not have to be as low as a DSLR, but it
    could be alot lower. I know this has to do with the size of the CCD. Why
    can't the put a bigger CCD in?
    2. Faster shot to shot time.
    3. Better and faster autofocus.

    Some of the new digicams are improving on points 2 and 3, but I don't think
    any are approaching what the DSLRs are doing. I'd rather have the
    manufacturers concentrate on these features than adding more megapixels. Is
    it just me?

    Tod
    Tod DeBie, Jun 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <%N4Bc.50297$>,
    says...
    > Some of the new digicams are improving on points 2 and 3, but I don't think
    > any are approaching what the DSLRs are doing. I'd rather have the
    > manufacturers concentrate on these features than adding more megapixels. Is
    > it just me?
    >
    > Tod


    The market equates more megapixels with better image quality, therefore
    it'll be the numero uno priority until people start putting other
    factors ahead of the sheer number of pixels involved.
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tod DeBie

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    The big push seems to be on making:

    1) Smaller P&S with more pixels and features
    2) dSLRs

    Unfortunately, a bigger focal plane to get low noise at high ISO means
    bigger lenses ala those used on dSLRs, and does not fit with 1).

    I'm amazed that folks will pay $1000 for a fancy P&S when they can get a
    Cannon 300D or Nikon D70 in the same price range. Shooting at ISO 1600
    with a dSLR and seeing good results is a great experience.

    Phil

    Tod DeBie wrote:

    > I've have a Powershot G2 for 2.5 years and am reasonably happy with the
    > picture quality. There are a few things I would like better, but more
    > megapixels is not one of them. Here is my wish list:
    >
    > 1. Lower noise at high ISO. It does not have to be as low as a DSLR, but it
    > could be alot lower. I know this has to do with the size of the CCD. Why
    > can't the put a bigger CCD in?
    > 2. Faster shot to shot time.
    > 3. Better and faster autofocus.
    >
    > Some of the new digicams are improving on points 2 and 3, but I don't think
    > any are approaching what the DSLRs are doing. I'd rather have the
    > manufacturers concentrate on these features than adding more megapixels. Is
    > it just me?
    >
    > Tod
    >
    >
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Tod DeBie

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message news:ZT4Bc.29619
    >
    > I'm amazed that folks will pay $1000 for a fancy P&S when they can get a
    > Cannon 300D or Nikon D70 in the same price range. Shooting at ISO 1600
    > with a dSLR and seeing good results is a great experience.
    >


    To be honest, I would not have bought a 300D instead of my Powershot Pro1 if
    it were half the price. Yes, the high-ISO would be great except that it's
    tought to take good pictures when the camera is home on the closet shelf
    (where my film SLR has spent the last 15 years of its life). The 300D is
    friggin' *huge*. Bigger than my old film SLR. And really not cheap at
    that -- buy a 300D and also the lenses to cover 28-200 and then see where
    you are (my Pro1 was $850 total). And see what a load you have to carry
    with those lenses plus the 300D body. No thanks.

    Mark
    Mark Weaver, Jun 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Tod DeBie

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Mark Weaver wrote:

    > "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message news:ZT4Bc.29619
    >
    >>I'm amazed that folks will pay $1000 for a fancy P&S when they can get a
    >>Cannon 300D or Nikon D70 in the same price range. Shooting at ISO 1600
    >>with a dSLR and seeing good results is a great experience.
    >>

    >
    >
    > To be honest, I would not have bought a 300D instead of my Powershot Pro1 if
    > it were half the price. Yes, the high-ISO would be great except that it's
    > tought to take good pictures when the camera is home on the closet shelf
    > (where my film SLR has spent the last 15 years of its life). The 300D is
    > friggin' *huge*. Bigger than my old film SLR. And really not cheap at
    > that -- buy a 300D and also the lenses to cover 28-200 and then see where
    > you are (my Pro1 was $850 total). And see what a load you have to carry
    > with those lenses plus the 300D body. No thanks.
    >


    It's all in what you want. I carried my 300D up 10 km and 1000 meters
    in Greece one morning last month -- kit lens plus 28-135 IS; and I'm an
    old dude. Well worth the effort!

    Phil
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Tod DeBie

    Guest

    In message <%N4Bc.50297$>,
    "Tod DeBie" <> wrote:

    >1. Lower noise at high ISO. It does not have to be as low as a DSLR, but it
    >could be alot lower. I know this has to do with the size of the CCD. Why
    >can't the put a bigger CCD in?


    That would require a much bigger lens, for one thing. Zooms that go to
    low f-stops get pretty expensive when you start raising the sensor size.
    Larger sensors are also much more expensive. Look at the Olympus E-1;
    it's in-between your G2 and a full-sized DSLR in sensor size, and the
    camera and the lenses are pretty expensive,
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jun 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Tod DeBie

    PlaneGuy Guest

    I carried my D30, Gig Ed, 70-200/2.8 two other lenses, a flash, 2
    Teleconverters, a tripod, a ball head, and a couple of litres of water up a
    mountain over summer - that when I started looking for a small camera - will
    probably by a Ricoh Caplio GX this week. (its will be asecond camera - but
    you need the right tool for the job)

    "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message
    news:Ls7Bc.6801$...
    >
    >
    > Mark Weaver wrote:
    >
    > > "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message news:ZT4Bc.29619
    > >
    > >>I'm amazed that folks will pay $1000 for a fancy P&S when they can get a
    > >>Cannon 300D or Nikon D70 in the same price range. Shooting at ISO 1600
    > >>with a dSLR and seeing good results is a great experience.
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > To be honest, I would not have bought a 300D instead of my Powershot

    Pro1 if
    > > it were half the price. Yes, the high-ISO would be great except that

    it's
    > > tought to take good pictures when the camera is home on the closet shelf
    > > (where my film SLR has spent the last 15 years of its life). The 300D

    is
    > > friggin' *huge*. Bigger than my old film SLR. And really not cheap at
    > > that -- buy a 300D and also the lenses to cover 28-200 and then see

    where
    > > you are (my Pro1 was $850 total). And see what a load you have to carry
    > > with those lenses plus the 300D body. No thanks.
    > >

    >
    > It's all in what you want. I carried my 300D up 10 km and 1000 meters
    > in Greece one morning last month -- kit lens plus 28-135 IS; and I'm an
    > old dude. Well worth the effort!
    >
    > Phil
    >
    PlaneGuy, Jun 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Tod DeBie

    Big Bill Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:23:23 GMT, "Tod DeBie" <>
    wrote:

    >I've have a Powershot G2 for 2.5 years and am reasonably happy with the
    >picture quality. There are a few things I would like better, but more
    >megapixels is not one of them. Here is my wish list:
    >
    >1. Lower noise at high ISO. It does not have to be as low as a DSLR, but it
    >could be alot lower. I know this has to do with the size of the CCD. Why
    >can't the put a bigger CCD in?


    A bigger sensor requires a bigger, heavier, better, and more expensive
    lens.
    This kinda negates the main point of P&S cameras as opposed to DSLRs.
    >2. Faster shot to shot time.


    Available now; it taskes a faster processor, and/or bigger/faster
    buffer chip.
    >3. Better and faster autofocus.


    Back to a more expensive lens.
    On the larger P&S cameras (look, for example, at the C8080), buyers
    will pay the bucks for the better lens, with what you ask for, becasue
    it *IS* an 8MP camera.
    Do you want to pay a grand for a 4-5MP camera like the C8080?
    >
    >Some of the new digicams are improving on points 2 and 3, but I don't think
    >any are approaching what the DSLRs are doing. I'd rather have the
    >manufacturers concentrate on these features than adding more megapixels. Is
    >it just me?


    But they are doing just that.
    Look at the current crop of high-end 4-5MP cameras.
    Lok at, for example, the Canon Powershot S1 IS; 3.2MP, 10x optical
    zoom, USM (fast) focusing, $500US.
    No idea on shot-to-shot time, but I'll bet it's faster than my C3030.
    All it takes is money!
    >
    >Tod
    >


    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
    Big Bill, Jun 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Tod DeBie

    leo Guest

    "Tod DeBie" <> wrote in message
    news:%N4Bc.50297$...
    > I've have a Powershot G2 for 2.5 years and am reasonably happy with the
    > picture quality. There are a few things I would like better, but more
    > megapixels is not one of them. Here is my wish list:
    >
    > 1. Lower noise at high ISO. It does not have to be as low as a DSLR, but

    it
    > could be alot lower. I know this has to do with the size of the CCD. Why
    > can't the put a bigger CCD in?
    > 2. Faster shot to shot time.
    > 3. Better and faster autofocus.
    >
    > Some of the new digicams are improving on points 2 and 3, but I don't

    think
    > any are approaching what the DSLRs are doing. I'd rather have the
    > manufacturers concentrate on these features than adding more megapixels.

    Is
    > it just me?
    >
    > Tod


    A larger CCD will need a larger lens to match. It would cost more and
    average consumers won't like it. There's no difference than video camcorder
    market. All the consumer models focus on price and size. They don't do well
    in low light at all. Life is full of compromise. Maybe one day they can make
    a CCD extremely sensitive.
    leo, Jun 20, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Samduhman

    Do I need more than 2 megapixels?

    Samduhman, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,119
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    330
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  3. eNo

    More megapixels means more noise? myth or truth

    eNo, Sep 4, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    353
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    245
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    376
Loading...

Share This Page