How many megapixels does your camera really need?

[sidd finch]

Good article from Shutterstock blogs by Jo Plumridge

Technology moves fast, and with it, the increasingly relevant question: Can my smartphone replace my camera? The answer may lie in the megapixels. When I consider that my current iPhone has far more megapixels than my first DSLR did, it’s an easy illustration of the shifting parameters. But with the number of megapixels going higher and higher, at what point do they stop being useful and just become a number for show?

Sticker Shock
As a marketing ploy, labeling a device with more mp works wonders. Case in point: When Nokia introduced a smartphone with 41MP, pro photographers were intrigued. (Most of us are using cameras such as the 22mp Canon 5D Mk III or the Nikon D810 with 36MP.) The only cameras currently offering more megapixels use digital backs, such as the Hasselblad H5D–50c, which produces 50MP, and the H5D–200c, which cleverly uses pixel shifting and combines images to produce photos with up to 200 megapixels. However, at upwards of $36,000, these are not everyday cameras.

The Billboard Rule
The original reason for producing DSLRs with a larger megapixel count was simple — to allow for higher-quality images with more details, accurate colors and an improved ability to capture light. Working in a professional setting with large images, I can see the difference in the shots produced by my Canons and the photos produced by my iPhone. Why? Because pro cameras are designed to produce high-quality images that will look fantastic on billboards and in magazines.

Print anything smaller than a standard sheet of paper, however, or just post a photo on a social-media site, and your naked eye won’t be able to tell the difference between a photograph taken at 8MP and one shot at 100MP. And herein lies the first telling point: high megapixels on a smartphone such as the Nokia are unlikely to ever be used to their full effect. People don’t buy smartphones to produce billboard-sized prints.

Sensor Sizing
Of course, megapixels aren’t the only factor in producing high-quality images. The area the image is recorded into — the sensor — also varies in size depending on the equipment. Smartphones are a fraction of the size of a DSLR camera, meaning they can only accommodate a small sensor. A smaller sensor means that each individual pixel has to be smaller, leading to more noise and discoloration. The larger pixels in a DSLR are also able to pick up far more light, leading to more accurate images.

In fact, the most important factor in any photography equipment has nothing to do with megapixels — instead, it’s the lens and the aperture range it can achieve. The aperture of the lens not only controls how much light is let into the camera through the iris, but is also responsible for controlling depth of field (how much of an image behind the point of focus is sharp). A small depth of field will mean that only the subject is sharp, while a large depth of field will make the entire image sharp.

A smartphone’s lens allows for none of these functions; the user is tied to whatever aperture and focal length the manufacturer has set. For this reason, there is often a lack of “depth” in shots taken on a smartphone, which can also be somewhat lacking in tonality. This isn’t to say that great shots can’t be produced on a phone, but there’s always going to be a certain amount of luck involved in this process. Shooting with a DSLR and a decent lens, on the other hand, gives control to the photographer.

Taking all these factors into consideration, in many cases, a high megapixel count isn’t adding much to the photographic experience.

Sidd

[Francesco Carzedda]

I will read the article carefully and slowly.

I too have one interesting contribute from Philip Bloom to share: does one really nedd a 4k?

http://philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/

In little words, it is the filmmaker who makes the good film

[Chris B]

In little words, it is the filmmaker who makes the good film

Absolutely agreed. I do however see that Philip Bloom's article does note that his favourite 4K camera is his favourite because it shoots great HD - I seem to remember a similar comments when HD was talked about as "unnecessary" a few years back. The Shutterstock blog seems a little pot calling kettle black - Megapixels don't matter they say - however you need to have control of the aperture to take proper photos - and that requires a DSLR and a "decent" lens. To be fair to some of the smartphone cameras they (particularly the Nokias) use the extra pixels to reduce noise and to allow digital zoom without artefacts rather than expect you to produce 40 megapixel images.

I was reminded of this from Philip Bloom and another photography site a while back where he was challenged to make a short film using a Barbie Doll Camera with an incredible 320x240 pixel resolution.
http://philipbloom.net/2013/12/21/barbie/ - Shows what can be done.

[Francesco Carzedda]

Philip Bloom welcomed the Canon 5DmkII "era" and he became a filmmaker with the coming of DSLRs.
He likes to write i capital letters: "A CAMERA DOESN’T MAKE YOU ANY BETTER!" and in the mentioned article it refers to those who left their T2i for their new Red.
Magic Lantern software remarkably increased the Canon 5d's quality.
Yes, 4k is great, as long as the camera is handy: Canon 1dc is his favorite.

[Francesco Carzedda]

It is possible to make nice shots with cheap tools, perhaps as it is possible to make nice draws with pencils.

I like very much this shot I made with my Yashica pocket photocam because it enhances granularity and spreads the blue:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEaLta5rJYY[/youtube]

[Ron Hunter]

Really good posts by Philip Bloom, thanks for sharing. I'm interested in 4k because of the ability to downrezz to 1080 and have great detail and color, but there are obviously some tradeoffs and some "gotchas" to consider.

[Francesco Carzedda]

Ron, I think Bloom's suggestion is good: a reflex 4k is the best idea.

I have my own opinion: if your job is to share on Internet, all that fantastic quality will vanish, you and few people very close to you will enjoy.

When my counts get better, I'll invest on accessories for my Canon 600d and hit the target... practising, practising, practising... the target is the path, the destination is the journey

[Ron Hunter]

That is a good point Francesco. Most, if not all, of that great detail and color that 4k-converted-to-1080 offers is lost when using Internet delivery. I forgot about that and I'll keep that point in mind moving forward.

[Francesco Carzedda]

I meant also that with $ 10,000, the price of the Eos 1D, you can buy a dream of stuff for your DSLR.

Perhaps the world of your (for example) 5D mark III is unexplored and you have 7,000 $ in your pocket to have fun with sliders, drones, manipulating with Magic Lantern affording to pay a technician to reset your reflex in case of crash (hehehe), lens from all around the world...

... and when you're comfortable with your technique, yes, buy your Eos 1D at a lower price.

Please understand me, Ron: it is only what I would do, I can't give suggestions, I'm a baby hobbist-filmmaker, I just open alternative scenarios