What to Fight Over After Megapixels? 596
NewScientist has a quick look at where the digital image crowd is headed now that the megapixel wars are drawing to a close. Looks like an emphasis on low-light performance and color accuracy in addition to fun software tools are the new hotness. "For years, consumers have been sold digital cameras largely on the basis of one number - the megapixels crammed onto its image sensor. But recently an industry bigwig admitted that squeezing in ever more resolution has become meaningless. Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department, said that 12 megapixels is plenty for most photography purposes and that his company will henceforth be focusing on improving color accuracy and low-light performance."
No more megapixels? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe not. (Score:5, Insightful)
The megapixel market isn't running to a close at all.
All this means is "we want to extort people more putting the same CCD into a product and adding new features, maybe adding a megapixel here and there"
Be on the watch for a federal price fixing lawsuit as there are a lot of under the table agreements on price here.
The real "megapixel war" end is around 22 megapixels after which it currently becomes more expensive exponentially, with current technology. Up until that point, don't believe a word about this stuff. By next year for example, that megapixel threshold will go up a megapixel or two. Not that this means they'll try to extort people any less for the same 9-10MP cameras.
I do agree better quality CCD's and soforth are far more important than megapixel, but this "slowdown" by makers of cameras is voluntary.
Re:Maybe not. (Score:5, Insightful)
the special 'u' used for microns;
Its name is mu [wikipedia.org] (a lower case Greek letter).
In response to your original post, I think that they're saying that, although the megapixel count is still increasing, it's becoming less important than other aspects of the camera. A 12 megapixel camera with good low-level-light capabilities may be more attractive to a consumer than a 21 megapixel camera with problems in that arena. Still, I don't totally believe that the mass market will stop just buying the camera with the biggest number. It amazes me how many people will drop $1k+ without bothering to do some basic research on what they're buying. Ignorance is bliss I guess - The handful of people I know that have done this are very happy with what they've got despite the fact that they could have possibly done much better if they'd done their homework.
It's all about the optics again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want... (Score:2, Insightful)
I want the following from a digital camera...
1. Small phyiscal size (I wanna slip it in my pocket).
2. Good image quality
3. Good telephoto lens.
4. ???
5. Profit (sorry, couldn't resist)
Currently I use a Canon G9, but I'm sure they can do better!
Pick 2...and small physical size isn't an option yet
Optical zoom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:16 Megapixels is point of diminishing returns (Score:5, Insightful)
What you want is a cheap DSLR. Even the lower end ones (D-40 / D-90, heck even the ancient D-70) have much more responsive shutters. Digicams are for still lifes. The better DLSR's (like the Nikon D-300) have really stunning low light capability. Of course, it could get better, but compared to film and the older digitals it's truly amazing.
I'm sure the manufacturers will try to stuff all of these things into the digicams, but if you can spend the money and deal with a slightly larger camera, the future is here.
The next number to fight over: Dynamic Range (Score:5, Insightful)
That's as good as anything to get a 1-data-point comparison on camera sensors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range)
Real -quality- factors, such as low light performance, color accuracy, etc, are a lot harder to quantify.
dave
Low-light performance (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone who shoots weddings as a side business, I don't need any more megapixels. For me, it's all about low-light performance. I'd like to be able to shoot in a dim church without having to resort to flash. I currently shoot a Nikon D200, which is 10 megapixels. That is plenty for everything I do, even enlargements. I'm saving up for a D700 which has incredible low-light performance. I've seen shots taken with the D700 (or D3, which has the same sensor) at absurd ISOs like 3200 or 6400 that have as much noise as my D200 has at ISO 800.
More megapixels actually introduces the (relatively small) problem of storage. More megapixels = larger filesize = I need to buy more compact flash cards and long-term storage. But, this isn't a huge problem since storage is relatively inexpensive.
Re:My 2 cents (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe for a 4x6 snapshot. (Score:2, Insightful)
For a 16x20" print at 300dpi, 16MP is woefully inadequate. You'd need about 33 mega pixels. 300dpi is photo quality, btw.
Re:Compression (Score:5, Insightful)
But we're not even close to such a thing. Not by orders of magnitude. Information useful to humans extends down to the limits resolvable by light and beyond into x-rays and so on. Also, as far as "color" goes, into infrared and ultraviolet. That's why whole classes of microscopes and telescopes and long lenses and macro lenses exist; that information is useful and interesting. And there's no reason whatsoever to limit a camera to see what the unaided human eye could see -- that's just silly.
Look at the macro lens market; a good macro lens and a high resolution camera and you pretty much have a microscope, albeit only a moderate one. Check out this little bugger [flickr.com] from my salt aquarium, he's only about 50 thousandths of an inch across. The reason we can see him so well is because of the sensor resolution being high and the lens being nothing at all like the "normal" human FOV/resolution.
Cropping is a big win for pixel count (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell you how many times I've looked at a picture, analog or digital, and wished I could turn a small part into a poster.
Back in the day, that's what they used large-format film for.
Imagine if a movie editor could decide, in post-production, to "zoom 10x closer" in on a subject?
Just because you can't benefit from them when viewing "full frame" doesn't make extra pixels worthless.
Besides, even if you aren't cropping, to emulate the resolution of 35mm at 100 a typical line-pair-per-mm resolution, you'll nominally need 5000 dots per inch, or 33 megapixels. I'd prefer 4x as many to handle worst-case situations. Now, in practice, how many of our photographs wind up as 2' x 3' posters? Not many. If the biggest you will ever enlarge is 1/3 of that, then your resolution can drop to 1/9th. Depending on how demanding you are, you won't need more than 4-16 megapixels to produce a nice 8"x12" print. Consumer- and pro- 16 megapixel cameras are here today.
Re:Compression (Score:3, Insightful)
This is normal. When you double the resolution, you double it in 2 dimensions. (Height and Width) This results in a four-fold increase in data size.
JPEG compression is JPEG compression and RAW data is RAW data. The basis of these formats has not changed in nearly a decade. It's unlikely we're going to be seeing any massive jumps in compression technology any time soon.
A good rule of thumb when building a new computer is to find the largest size hard drive that is affordable, then buy two. e.g. A 1TB drive should be more than enough space to match the lifetime of your computer and camera and won't cost an arm and a leg. (All bets are off once you start storing movies, though...)
If you're using your iPod as a photo album, you're wasting space by storing the original on the device. Use a program like ImageMagik to do a batch resize of the images before transferring them to the device. There's a good chance they'll actually look *better* on the device's screen if they're closer to the resolution of the device. Remember, the images on your camera are like negatives. They're not intended for every day use. They're intended to be processed into something usable first.
Re:I want... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually for professional looking photos, sensor size does matter, again as the result of basic physics. You can downsize the sensor all you want but you can't downsize the wavelength of visible light. Come on Pentax, Mamaiya, Rollie or somebody, please release an affordable digital medium format camera!
Re:Maybe not. (Score:5, Insightful)
integrated GPS for geocoding would be darn handy
How about a built in digital compass that records the direction as part or the filename to help panoramic stitching software, or just because it sounds cool?
How about filenames other than peculiar serial numbers like dsc-12345.jpg? How about an option to use the timestamp as a filename? How about a datestamp and serial number?
How about a shutter response faster than 500 ms? My dads spotmatic and my old K1000 back in the 80s had a shutter response time somewhere around zero (or at least no longer than typical human or video game player reflexes) but my wife's couple year old nikon takes almost a second to take a picture after the button is pressed, almost useless for action shots.
How about a camera that stops shutting off constantly every 30 seconds? Some people take pictures of events that last longer than that, so its just wasting batteries turning on and off over and over. At least put in a menu to shut off the "battery saver" (battery waster, more likely)
How about a tripod mount that isn't made of plastic? Yeah I know the whole cam is plastic, not like the old days, but still, at least some metal threads that won't strip. And make the tripod mount screw deeper than like 3 thread pitch.
What I don't want is cutesy bloatware software for legacy windows boxes... just gimme a SD or CF that plugs into any desktop or wii or laptop anywhere in the world with no weird software install needed.
Also I don't want an irreplaceable and/or unremovable and/or rechargeable battery. I can buy AA batteries anywhere in the world and carry a ridiculous number of spares in my backpack. A rechargeable bettery thats usually discharged or runs out at a bad time or can never be replaced or can't be charged in less than 15 minutes is useless for me. And that applies 10x for mp3 players too. Its not like the "expense" of batteries will bankrupt me compared to the staggering expense of good equipment. And make the camera compatible with 1.2 volt rechargeables not just 1.5 volt alkalines.
I also don't want effort put into stupid sounds that make it sound like an old polaroid when you press the button. I want it silent for wedding/baptism photos or photos of pets/animals/hunting. Or at least a mostly inoffensive beep. Or at worst, an easily found speaker I can tape over. Please god no "ringtones" for the camera shutter sound.
Faster autofocus tracking (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean *really* faster. I recently acquired a professional-grade digital SLR and was astonished to find that the "3d matrix motion sensitive autofocus tracking" or whatever it's called, wouldn't accurately track a dog chasing a ball. The camera would graciously show me the autofocus points of successive frames -- clumps of grass, small pebbles, a trash can, and occasionally the actual subject. It was somewhat surprising to me that, to get accurate focus of moving objects, I could get better results by turning off all the "moving object" settings and rely on my own targeting skills. With all the computer power at our disposal, the durned camera should be able to recognize, not just distance and color and lighting, but the *shape* of the object I first targeted, and then track that object for successive shots as it moves around on the screen.
I've ranted about this on other subjects, but it's worth a small rant here: stop making memory -- in this case the memory buffer -- a selling point to get you to pay for overpriced pro models. Memory is *cheap*. The first major company that puts a substantial memory buffer in all their models, enabling a significant number of continuous frames before writing to the card -- is going to clean up. I have a friend who not long ago bought a pair (his and hers) of high-end snapshot cameras (you know what I mean -- fixed lens but mechanical zoom and nice glass) only to find (while on vacation) that the write speed was so poor as to make them unusable in the field. I know, you can fix this a little with faster memory cards, but ram will always be orders-of-magnitude faster than mass storage. This is a cheap addition that makes a huge difference in the user experience.
Re:Compression (Score:1, Insightful)
No, I'm not confusing anything. The more resolvable sensels there are on a sensor, when combined with any given lens, the more detail — magnification — will end up in the resulting image. This is physics. You can argue over terminology, that is, you may not want to characterize increasing sensel density as "magnification", but the end result of magnification is more detail, and this is also a beneficial end result of higher sensel density.
This is fine to a point, however in practical applications, additional detail capability in the camera's sensor reduces the need for longer lenses and consequently is very useful indeed. If for no other reason than getting more detail on your diatom.
There is a wide range of practical sensor detail that can be engineered into modern DSLRs, and your argument doesn't serve to limit that range at all.
Re:Maybe not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops, didn't mean to post that so soon. I also wanted to say that they've also improved countless other aspects. Better metering, better autofocus, more features tricked down from high end models, large buffers, faster write speeds, etc. Megapixels may have been their big bullet point for the masses, but they've done way more improvements than just that.
Re:Maybe not. (Score:3, Insightful)
People eventually gave up buying computers based on nothing but processor speed.
As technology advances, certain aspects of it exceed any typical expectations from humans. The most desired feature will also be the most developed and advanced at the fastest rate (if possible) because better sells more for this feature more so than for others.
So the most desirable features will be the first to cross the diminishing returns threshold in terms of what people want out of it.
High end digital photographers are a lot more technically savvy (at least in terms of cameras) than high end computer purchasers tend to be. Consumer grade cameras may continue to sell better because of more megapixels for a while, but so-called "prosumer" and pro-level cameras aren't going to be able to push that much longer.
Indeed, a larger sensor means a larger file (by a wide margin) when shooting RAW, and a lot of pros and semi pros are almost put off by larger sensors since these are slower to work with and of course eat more disk space (and pro and semi pro will only shoot RAW). Unlike computer enthusiasts, camera enthusiasts are not looking for an excuse to buy bigger hard drives and a faster computer; their normal hardware is expensive enough as it is.
Personally I'm both a camera enthusiast [flickr.com] and a computer enthusiast [lotgd.net], and I have a few month old Mac Pro 8-core, 8gb RAM, plus a 30" cinema display, plus a 17" Macbook Pro amongst other various gadgets. That's a reasonably high end setup in general, but I own more in camera hardware than I do in computers and gadgets (there are camera bodies alone which cost more than my computer + monitor).
With all that, 12 megapixels are all the file size and disk i/o + cpu time for managing photos that I am interested in. I care way the heck more about ISO noise performance. I have one of the highest rated low-noise camera bodies that exists, and I still can't stand to dial it above ISO 400.
My next camera body, MP count beyond 12 won't matter to me, low light performance, color accuracy, and frames per second - these things are what count to me. Also, "HD Video" which seems to be all the rage in new bodies - give me a break. I couldn't care less.
Re:Maybe not. (Score:5, Insightful)
That pixel count doesn't mean jack if it's loaded with noise, or has been smeared into a blurry mess by noise reduction filters. I'd rather have 10MP and usable ISO 1600, ISO 3200, and ISO 6400 modes where noise is unnoticeable.
Re:Compression (Score:5, Insightful)
The author isn't talking about the 1/1000000 person who's interesting in taking photos of protozoa on the wall of his fish-tank.
This article is about what is needed for average people taking average photos. Most people (99%+) will never print larger than 20x30 inches and most will never even print that big. Even with a 7MP camera with a decent lens, you can print perfectly fine at that size. I've tried myself and have several great examples.
Given that 7MP can produce great results at 20x30, why does the average person need 12MP? Especially when most of the cameras they use have tiny sensors. You may not realize this but there is no point in squeezes more pixels onto a small sensor because all it means is grainier photos and reduced low light quality. As each sensor receives fewer photons.
The only cameras where going > 12MP makes sense are full frame SLR's where there is obviously a good size sensor and lots of light can be let in. These cameras should the be paired with nice big lenses to make the most of the huge sensor.
TLDR version: Most people are taking vacation snaps and photos of their kids/dog. They don't need anything more than 7MP because they don't actually make any prints big enough to see the additional pixels.
Re:Maybe not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the people who would drop a K on the biggest MP number are also most likely to be the ones taking pictures of junior's T-ball games and birthday parties, and probably not people who especially care about the quality of the picture in the same terms that a "prosumer" photog would.
I'm amazed at the number of people I see with an 1K dSLR body and a $300 lens (usually a 50 - 300 zoom); and then complain about the quality of their pictures.
Of course, those are generally the same people that see my setup and say "What a nice camera; I bet it takes great pictures."
I advise people to spend 2/3's of their budget on glass and the rest on a body; especially since glass is an investment beyond the body. I suggest last year's dSLR body at fire sale prices is a better bet since you can always upgrade later; and most year or two old bodies are good enough for most uses. Heck, my original dReb is still a great camera.
Re:Cropping is a big win for pixel count (Score:3, Insightful)
"Back in the day, that's what they used large-format film for."
And that's what you can use a 35mm FF digital camera, or even a 6x4.5 MF camera for today. Expecting super resolutions out of consumer point-and-shoots is unrealistic. You might as well expect to print a poster off a Kodak Disc.
As far as I;m concerned I'd rather have low-light performance good enough to take sharp pictures indoors under average lighting conditions... without using a flash.
Re:Maybe not. (Score:3, Insightful)
I also know professional computer programmers who can barely write:
10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10
If you are a pro photographer and not shooting RAW, you're doing yourself a tremendous disservice. Yes, it's a little harder because the camera makes fewer decisions for you. Some pros will probably leave the camera in fully automatic mode full time too.
If you do any post processing, not shooting raw means you can't correct exposure or white balance after the fact except for a very tiny amount. If you're doing studio work or landscapes, maybe you can get away with this since you can sit there and fine tune your settings as they won't really change once you have them dialed in. But still there's no reason that I can see why you wouldn't want to. Sometimes there are problems you simply can't see on the back of the body, until you get it onto a color corrected monitor.
Personally the only time I'd ever consider it is if I knew storage space was going to be an issue (when shooting an all-day wedding, I used up 32 gig of cards; I was transferring files to my laptop while driving between destinations to make room since I apparently had lost my card reader), or storage time was going to be an issue (shooting fast action sporting events such as hockey can fill your camera buffer even on a new model).
TIFF is different, depending on the camera body. If your body can write high-bit-depth TIFFs, this can be almost as good as RAW. You still don't have quite the same flexibility since the image data is written after post-processing by the camera body, and this post-processing might knock out some shadows or blow out some highlights, etc. But at least it's still a reasonably flexible format compared to JPG.
Now some pro's I know shoot RAW+JPG, because they want to be able to give reasonably color-corrected proofs without taking the time to color correct all the shots.
But seriously, perhaps you can ask one of them (you know so many, surely you'll be able to get in contact with one) what their reasoning is for shooting JPG because this simply doesn't make sense to me, and differs wildly from my own experience with other pro and semi pro photographers.
Re:Maybe not. (Score:2, Insightful)