Quote from NikonPro Magazine

In an interview with the man who brought digital colour processing to Nikon still cameras he is quoted as saying: "Developments regarding the number of pixels are already at the stage of maturity". It would appear as though the current MPixel numbers (10~16MPixels) are being thought of as sufficient for the equivalent of what were 35mm style cameras. Whilst I am not surprised at this, I am interested to find that it is now being put 'on the record', and that developments are seen as being in different areas (dynamic range maybe?).

I think that Pixel counts have reached maturity technically. But MP is such an easy marketing tool that I think that the marketing departments in the camera companies are going to keep pushing for more and more MPs.

I hadn't realised that the D2X won the EISA best pro camera award until reading the magazine. http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/artic...story_4067.html

Alex

I agree with Alex, it is going to be a lot harder to advertise a new, more expensive model with the same MP and "only" better dynamic range. Having said that, I sure hope they incorporate some of this technology:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11072

Luiz

I think one of the main reasons for the plateau is that pixels have gotten so small that diffraction is becoming a real problem. The D2x at 12 megapixel APS sensor starts to show softness due to diffraction at F11.

Cheers

James

Consumers finally ended the dpi war in printers when they realized they were just wasting money and expensive ink beyond a point. I think they are savy enough to recognize, eventually, that they don't need 20MP to get good snapshots. Consumers buying replacement digicams are already discovering they don't really get better photos, just bigger files, for the extra money spent. It may take some time, but eventually people figure out how good is good enough. And we're almost there, I think, in terms of pixels. At least for the vast majority of us.

Just as printer companies are now more focused on speed, color quality and print longevity as marketing tools, I won't be surpised to see the camera makers start moving away from megapixels as the chief measure of camera quality.

It was certainly interesting stopping by Fry's on Saturday and watching all the digicam shoppers. I watched and browsed for about 5 minutes and almost bought a Coolpix SQ for $60 but decided not to since it's only 3 megapixels...:-)

Most of the camera shoppers are still comparing the cameras based on Megapixels of course. The next thing they look at is "how many X is the zoom." Finally, they are interested if it has a docking station or now. No one seems to care about the image quality and it doesn't seem to be used as a differentiator as there were no printed photo samples from each camera.

The overwhelming feeling I got was that the shoppers were EXTREMELY confused about which camera to buy now that there are so many similar looking choices.

Cheers

James

Consumers will always focus on the part of the spec that they can get a grip on. Megapixel count is ideal from the marketing point of view, dynamic range will be a lot tougher.

James - do you have any links that cover this defraction issue ?

Paul.

Hi Paul,

Check out Thom Hogan's website and his posts on Dpreview.com. You can calculate the theoretical diffraction limit (it's in microns or nanometers) and then compare to pixel size. Fortunately, Thom has done the calcs for us and then verified with real tests using his D2x and the 70-180 Micro Nikkor.

Cheers

James

I find it interesting that so many people get involved in the pissing contest that is megapixels and then use their (expensive) cameras to shoot jpegs because otherwise the files are so big they take too much time to manage. Hence Charles' Hood's 'jpegs are best' presentation. I believe he uses a D2X. In fact he sent me a picture once to prove some point and as an aside in my reply I commented that I was surprised he shot it in jpeg in the camera. His reply was that he challenged anyone to tell the difference between pictures shot in jpegs and RAW. (I thought I had just done that!)

The fact of the matter is that people want cameras that have better specs than their peers. They then want to use them as conveniently as possible.

It is a pity that we live in an age when people think they can buy talent over the counter. How often do I hear the words, "That's a good picture. You must have a really good camera!"

(I used to have a Wilson tennis raquet but I still played like an octopus with a fryingpan.)

Ahh John, i always love reading your posts....

...I should write for a living!

Actually just read a recent Diver mag (Great White on the cover) i like your rants on here better!!!! ha ha

But ol Monty...have a friend working with me here who is friends with him, when he gets back to Blighty he is going to give him a bit of a what for for the ol soapbox display...

On an aside (I'm not getting involved in the Raw/Jpeg argument - John knows my thoughts!), I have a friend who is a lens designer - I once asked him what he thought that the limit to the 'smaller' type sensor would be in terms of MPixels. He reckoned from rough calculations that about 15MPixels will start to make lens quality control a potential limiting factor. On FF the limit will clearly be higher but given the problems which already exist on edge resolution, a limit will clearly be reached. Diffraction is, as James has pointed out, already another issue and simply increasing MPixels may well yield bigger files which contain no more and potentially less information than something which I can only describe as an "optimal MPixel count for a given sensor size". Whether we have already reached this point must be known by many theoreticians, perhaps someone can share with us their thoughts.

As Alex points out the manufacturers are saddled with MPixel sizes as a marketting tool, but given that consumers have to buy bigger storage cards, faster computers and quickly clog up their hard drives, I have a suspicion that it is in everyone's interest to change the emphasis.

Two of my friend have recently bought EOS350D cameras for land use. Both are delighted, and, as far as I am aware, both are more than satisfied with their output quality. Interestingly both also considered Nikon's D70S and D50, but bought the Canon because of such things as the availability of IS lenses. Now tere's food for thought.

Two of my friend have recently bought EOS350D cameras for land use. Both are delighted, and, as far as I am aware, both are more than satisfied with their output quality. Interestingly both also considered Nikon's D70S and D50, but bought the Canon because of such things as the availability of IS lenses. Now tere's food for thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also the 350D has 8MP and the Nikon's have 6MP. But I am sure they didn't consider that!

Alex

Hi Alex

As it happens the MPixel count was not of prime interest to either of them. One is a graphic designer who works with other people's images and who already had a Nikon film camera! The other has a Coolpix5000 which he uses underwater. Out of the three contenders, the Canon won due to factors other than MPixels. OK perhaps both could be described as 'informed' consumers, but the MPixels were not the be all and end all of the decision. What interested both as well as aspects such as IS was the ability to shoot raw, weight, and advice from other people. One factor which weighed against the Canon was the possibility of file sizes being larger - at least one decision involved the existing ownership of several large capacity CF cards.

Neither camera is to be used underwater!