novox77
Leeeroy Jennnkinnns!
This is was on the right track, but not correct. Cramming more pixels on the same physical-sized sensor does not reduce the quality of the image. Yes, it's true that less light reaches each pixel but the decrease is not enough to create a noticeable difference in overall signal/noise ratio. The problem with super dense sensors is that it's a WASTE of extra pixels when the resolution of the sensor exceeds the resolving power of the glass in front of it. Pinhole cameras, like those found on cell phones, have very poor optics, so it's a total waste to cram a ton of pixels on the sensor.
So why do they do it? Because the general public thinks more megapixels is better. It actually costs MORE to produce a chip with more sensors. So the manufacturer counters this by using pixel sensors of lower quality. Which makes the final picture worse.
When you use high-end lenses for full-frame dSLRs (the sensor is the same size as the frame of a 35mm film camera), you only need 6-10mpx to capture the detail that the lens provides. For cameras with crappier optics, you'd need fewer megapixels. Most consumer cameras can therefore get away with only 3mpx and still produce the same quality image as a 10-15 mpx sensor.
So because of the general public's stupidity, we have no choice but buy cameras with way too many megapixels, which does nothing to improve image quality and forces us to find more storage space.
