The megapixel race (article)

Here's an interesting article about shoving more pixels into the same sized chip:

http://www.majid.info/mylos/stories/2004/0.../megapixel.html

I don't really agree with his recommendations, and he also takes a swipe at Fuji (just a heads up, for you S2 users ), but it's still a good basic summary of why more pixels ain't always better (within the same generation of cameras).

All conclusions are premature, since it appears none of the other 8 mpix cams have the bad purple fringe of the sony 828.

The noise problem is not being seen in perspective. When shooting film, underwater, everybody, almost universally, went to ISO 50 slide film.

The noise of even the sony 828 is not bad until ISO 200 and up. For ISO 64 and 100, it is quite acceptable. And others will do better than sony, in this arena.

Finally, I see now a tendency for megapixel bashing, which is silly, since, if you want the features of the very latest digicams, you'll find they are all 8 mpix. I'm talking things the SLR like focus speed, and SLR beating shutter lag, of the sony 828.

I suppose the point should be that using the same processing and light-collecting elements within a camera, more isn't always better. However, new generations can be significantly better.

I think other camera companies will find it hard to beat the image quality of the Sony 828 (which IMO is not that good). Afterall, Sony is using THEIR chip in THEIR camera, with an excellent Zeiss lens.

Cheers,

James

James - I'll bet the 8MP images that come out of the camera look great at screen resolutions, and printed. We'll have to do some print tests to decide, I think (like Michael Reichmann did).

His points are valid, but not accurate unless you assume all other factors remain equal. But they don't.

Will a bigger photosite always result in less noise? No.

Are primes always superior to zooms? No.

Is a Zeiss (made in Japan) lens better than a xxxxx lens? Not necessarily.

Is the quantity of pixels overrated? Highly.

The bottom line is that we can only look at the output to decide the quality, not specs. Everything I read says the Foveon Sigma should be better than a Bayer 6mp camera. I just don't see it.

Megapixels were very important early in digital. With each succeeding gain they become less important to the final result.

Mr. Hogan believes that a reduction in pixel size doesn't necessarily result in reduced performance, because the entire area of the photosite is not utilized (kind of like our brain). Better use of the photosite can offsite the reduction in size. I have no idea if this is real or speculation.

Despite the 8mp and the "Zeiss" lens, and the four color filter, the results from the F828 were just plain poor. But with 8mp you can maintain that exact poor quality to larger print size.