The Megapixel myth - more is not better

[stubbsy]

I've been reading the to and fro on this for a while, but there has been some interesting debate in the blogosphere on the "myth of megapixels" I stumbled back across this today and figured I'd point you at some interesting reading.

First THIS article by David Pogue appeared in the New York Times in early February. This was followed by THIS article, THIS one and THIS one (all by David Berlind) further "agreeing" with the original post.

At the end of February this led to a counter argument HERE from George Ou and some more discussion that's linked from that last article. If you have the time these are all quite an interesting (and thought provoking) read.

Since I'm not sure if you need to register to view the original NY Times article that I linked above, here's an exerpt:

For an industry that's built on science, the technology world sure has its share of myths... one myth is so deeply ingrained, millions of people waste money on it every year. I'm referring, of course, to the Megapixel Myth.

It goes like this: ''The more megapixels a camera has, the better the pictures.''

It's a big fat lie. The camera companies and camera stores all know it, but they continue to exploit our misunderstanding... a camera with more megapixels usually costs more, and its photos fill up your memory card and hard drive much faster. And more densely packed pixels on a sensor chip means more heat, which can introduce speckles into low-light shots... I created three versions of the same photograph, showing a cute baby with spiky hair in a rowboat. One was a 5-megapixel shot, one was 8 megapixels and one was 13.

I asked 291 Digital, a New York graphic imaging company to print each one at a posterlike 16 by 24 inches... We mounted the three prints on a wall in Union Square in Manhattan (and) asked passers-by if they could see any difference.... Only one person correctly identified which were the low-, medium-, and high-resolution prints. Everybody else either guessed wrong or gave up, conceding that there was absolutely no difference.

[Alpha_7]

Thanks for posting Peter, I've started reading, but thougth I'd let you know I can see the NY times articles ok, and I've never registered, so everyone should be able to read it if they wish.

[Laurie]

im quiet content with 6MP atm.

my photos kick P&S's arse even if they are 10MP!!

[losfp]

I think the conclusion is that both "sides" are right. The conclusion is that pixels are not the ONLY measure of a camera's quality.

[moz]

pixels are not the ONLY measure of a camera's quality.

Yes, because there's also the question of whether it's Nikon or Canon

[lukeo]

I think this war is over, in this day and age if your in this for a profession then you can settle for both.

A reasonable number of megapixels, the pricey pro glass to support it, and the a camera with allot of features that you need.

My 2 cents... and yes in P&S cameras Megapixels is a marketing joke.

[Yi-P]

I place my bet on Nikon D2H vs Casio's 12MP

[Nnnnsic]

A reasonable number of megapixels, the pricey pro glass to support it, and the a camera with allot of features that you need.

Then all a photographer needs is skills.

[Killakoala]

They are all wrong. My 26MP film scans are better than my 4.1MP D2H