Megapixels II

Most people buy cameras based on megapixels. The idea is, the more megapixels you have, the more detailed and better quality your pictures will be.

In fact that's not always the case, having more megapixels can actually /reduce/ the quality of your pictures!

I noticed this with my second camera. My first camera was a Canon Powershot, the second was a Fuji E900. The E900 had a 9MP sensor, the Powershot 3MP and 2 or 3 years older. The Fuji's images were consistently fuzzier and lower quality than the Canon's. It SUCKED! And that 9MP camera was pretty damn pricey back in 2006 :/

Interestingly, it turns you just can't have a 9MP sensor in a compact camera without getting fuzzy pictures. Cramming too many Megapixels into a small space makes for low quality pictures. This site even recommends buying 6MP compact cameras tops!!

When you try to fit too many megapixels onto a chip the sensor's pixels start interfering with each other in lower light conditions (i.e. when you are asking more from the sensor, and using higher ISOs).

Of course you /may/ be able to get a good quality picture, but you better be sure that you are outside on a clear day with your subject as still as possible (i.e. limiting yourself to low ISOs). Basically you better be damn sure you know what you're doing!

All things being equal, lower megapixels will give you great pictures with less futz.

Ask yourself why Canon's 10MP 40D is a cut above its 12MP 450D on the food chain? 10MP will let the 40D take better quality pictures in a wider variety of circumstances than the 450D. The 450D is aimed at people who don't know much about photography and use megapixels as a guide to camera quality, the 40D is aimed at those who know more about photography (ht).

Why do some people use megapixels as a guide to camera quality?

1) because megapixels are easy to understand, it's much more difficult to get your head around other things that count, like ISOs, noise, lenses, RAW files, CMOS sensor sizes etc.

2) megapixels /were/ a good guide to camera quality when digital cameras had only 1 or 2 megapixel sensors and took pretty poor quality pictures.

Things have changed, megapixels are more likely to get in your way and make it harder to take good pictures.

Of course there are situations where megapixels can be handy but, as I explained here, unless you need to print large high quality prints and unless you know exactly what you're doing, you're better off not spending your money on more megapixels.

[Update! Wow, read this (the Canon G9 is THE upmarket compact camera):

It's the biggest irony of the compact digital camera market: since the cameras all use very similar sensors (often the exact same sensor) and many even share the same lens assembly, the price difference between the entry-level models and range-toppers such as the G9 simply isn't reflected in a commensurate difference in output quality. And it doesn't matter how much you are prepared to spend; you can't buy your way out of the 'compact camera problem' - a small, noisy sensor is a small noisy sensor no matter what kind of tank you build around it or how many 'professional' features you build into the body.

And this is from a review of a cheapo /6MP/ Fuji F31fd:

It is the perfect illustration of the oft made point that more pixels do not mean better quality; we've compared the F31fd to a whole range of much more expensive compacts going right up to 10MP, and - aside from a little extra resolution at base ISO - it puts most of them to shame. Once you get to ISO 400 there simply isn't a compact on the market that can hold a flame to it.

]