Why is more megapixels better

But some say there's a price to pay: lower image quality. Image: When photo noise annoys. Some experts say no. Image quality isn't improving, they say, and some fear it may actually be degrading as the megapixel race escalates.

The basic concern is that smaller pixels on camera sensors means less sensitivity to light, leading to image noise such as off-color speckles or rough edges, worse performance in dim conditions, and the loss of finer tonal gradations such as the subtle shadows of a white wedding dress. Point-and-shoot cameras, with their small sensors, are the chief culprits. Camera makers disagree, saying consumers have an appetite for higher-resolution images--for making larger prints or cropping to focus on specific details--and that image quality has indeed improved overall.

But even if they're correct, they have a growing perception problem among influential camera experts and enthusiasts. Some of the blame can be laid at the feet of consumers, who fixate on megapixels as a measure of quality. It's the same thing that happened with PC processor megahertz and flat-panel TV dimensions. Every consumer believes more is better," said Chris MacAskill , chief executive of SmugMug, a Web site that hosts photos and lets users print them.

Not so fast, experts Canon, which market analyst firm iSuppli estimates sold 20 percent of the A large percentage of it will also end up in the digital world, in the editorial world in a magazine, in a print for a fine art exhibition, or simply printed for my portfolio.

So, I wanted to go back through my work over the last several years and do an analysis of where the vast majority of my images actually did end up being printed, if they were being printed at all. And how did that jive with the amount of money I had invested in increased megapixels?

What I found was that for the bulk of jobs that did require higher-megapixel counts to suit advertisers needs, I was renting medium format Hasselblads or Phase One cameras with higher megapixel counts. They just feel more stable when big money is on the line to me personally. And because the type of clients that actually need that level of quality usually accept the fact that they will have to pay for it, it is a financially neutral situation from a business standpoint.

When it comes to the editorial world, the budgets are far more lean. So, while some editorial assignments do come with an equipment budget, many will not. But, if we use our calculations, we can see that a less expensive 24 MP camera or even one with less megapixels is still going to provide more than enough megapixels for your images to look great in a magazine.

Also, while my business is driven largely through commercial commissions as opposed to fine art print sales, I do occasionally exhibit my work. So, this is one area where I feel like more megapixels really do pay off. Now, whether or not that payoff is worth it to you is a matter of opinion.

It also happened to have been shot with a To be fair, sharpness is not the defining characteristic of this particular image, but of all the responses I got during the shows, no one ever commented on the image not being sharp enough. I just made two prints for a fairly prestigious show here in Los Angeles in April.

The other was shot with an APS-C-sized Both were printed at 16x Laid side by side, both prints look pretty darn good. So, is it worth it to invest in more megapixels? I would say yes if my primary business objective was to regularly exhibit and sell large prints, especially if I was a landscape photographer, for example, and wanted to show every detail of a wide expanse.

The one area where almost everything I shoot has a shot at being printed is in my print portfolio. This is one of my main sales tools and absolutely has to be at its best. My own print portfolio contains prints that are 11x17 inches. Among those prints are images that were created with everything from MP cameras to 24 MP cameras. They all live together in relative harmony.

There are differences in the images. If one were to look really hard, you might notice subtle differences in sharpness between images. But, as I learned during my period of re-education, most of that would be due to technique as opposed to megapixels. So, what is the perfect megapixel count to invest in? From a business standpoint, you also will save money on upfront costs for the camera body as well as backend costs related to storage.

You may print everything and print it all at much larger sizes. Personally, despite my growing affection for 24 MP, I still continue to shoot most of my images at around 50 MP. Largely, this is because I like to crop and create multiple versions of each of my images for use across various platforms. The more I consider the question, the more I wonder if, from a business standpoint, it might make even more sense to limit investment to 24 MP or 50 MP cameras and only rent larger systems on a job-by-job basis.

Furthermore, when a client comes around that does need to print in a larger format, you can always rent the necessary camera for that job, bill it to the client, and come out the other side even without ever needing to make a big investment. You can reduce upfront costs and financial risks while still delivering the high-quality photography your clients deserve. The only thing you miss out on is the fun of endlessly zooming into your images in Capture One to marvel at the fine detail. I'll admit that is fun.

But, is it the best investment? So, what are your thoughts? What do you feel is the ideal megapixel count for the type of work that you do? Christopher Malcolm is a Los Angeles-based lifestyle, fitness, and advertising photographer shooting for clients such as Nike, lululemon, Nordstrom, and Penguin Random House. Check out the Fstoppers Store for in-depth tutorials from some of the best instructors in the business.

Still rocking my original Canon 5D for personal work. I was surprised with how large you can print with That camera was and still is a classic. I remember the excitement of shooting with one of those for the first time. How many actuations you have on that thing? I got mine used and I've never checked the shutter count on it or really, any of my cameras because I've always figured that when it dies it dies.

Beyond a certain point, diffraction will begin to reduce the resolving power of the lens-plus-sensor system, as we have discovered from Imatest tests on many 8- and megapixel digicams.

In many digicams, the image processor automatically sharpens the image by default. Subject lighting will also play a role in image quality, especially with small-sensor digicams. In dim conditions, photographers are forced to increase ISO speeds.

However, with a small-sensor digicam, this will increase image noise, thereby reducing image quality. Exceed your vision with Epson. See www. Please deactive Ads blocker to read the content. Your co-operation is highly appreciated and we hope our service can be worth it. Wild World. Image Archiving. Sidebar Tips Buying. If it is going to be a small camera and you want to be able to zoom into an image without having a zoom lens, then more megapixels may be beneficial.

Just be sure that the camera will work for the lighting and style of pictures you take. After all, if you are shooting indoors and in low light, lower might be better. Megapixels is just one factor in a camera too. There is the quality of the lens, the technology behind the sensor, the ability to focus quickly, use a flash, etc.

All of these play into how the camera works so always compare more than just megapixels. Your email address will not be published. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. What Does Megapixels Mean?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More.