• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

More megapixels is better...

O

Othan1

Android Enthusiast
Or not. Just wanted to post something that I always found interesting when comparing cameras on specs alone. You know the Hubble telescope we have floating up there taking those awesome photographs of space? Well, it wasn't even 3 mega-pixels:

"Each of the four CCDs contains 640,000 pixels. The light collected by each pixel is translated into a number. These numbers (all 2,560,000 of them) are sent to ground-based computers, which convert them into an image."

HubbleSite - WFPC2

It's something I try to keep in mind when buying cameras or phones. Pixels aren't the end all-be all of photography. Don't get stuck on MP envy; it's not how big, it's how you use it.

I'm very happy with my smaller mega-pixel Epic and no longer feel the need for carrying a spare camera around. Three batteries and my phone make a great recording device on trips.
 
+1 Othan1

To be honest, unless your developing the pictures on a high resolution scale, paper or anything, the difference between a camera screen or computer screen when taking the pictures on a 5MP or 8MP is unnoticeable to the human eye.

When thinking about Mega Pixels to buy a camera you don't think on how cool the pictures will look, you need to think on the end media that will be receiving it; case in point: you have a 13MP picture, and you upload it to facebook, do you really think it retains the 13MP properties???? they have to downgrade it (or they even will ask you to downgrade it) or else they would run out of HD space.
Now you print that picture with a high resolution professional printer (ones they use to print wedding albums or even magazines) and then you start noticing things you didn't see before on a low MP camera.

Anything over a 3 or 5 MP on a phone its just publicity stunt in my opinion, unless you are really using the full capacity it was designed for.
 
Mega-Pixels is really just an advertising ploy used to sell cameras (or phones with cameras). What will really determine image quality is the quality and form factor of the sensor (same number of pixels over a larger area will mean better image quality) as well as the optical quality of the lens system.

The micro-format sensors and tiny lenses on cell phone cameras simply do not lend themselves to outstanding image quality; an equal mega-pixel camera with an APS-C sensor and DSLR lens will consistently shoot much better photos.

But, knowing how to use a camera and work with its limitations can really help.

Looking at the Epic vs. EVO comparison photos I would say raw image quality is pretty similar, but the Epic is doing a significantly better job at white balancing - actually it looks to be doing about as well as my Canon EOS 50D does at auto white balancing (which is still pretty mediocre).

Clark
 
Over and over, we hear that more megapixels are not better. People think this is a recent revelation, but it's been reported in the mainstream press since at least 2007 (and I recall hearing the argument a few years before Pogue and others began making it).

The point is certainly worth revisiting when megapixel density is disproportionate to other aspects of the camera -- lens, sensor (number of photosites), etc. -- and it's true that more megapixels can equal more noise. But if megapixel count were completely irrelevant, then why would professional photographers want a higher megapixel count that was proportionate to other necessary features?

The argument seems to apply best to low-end point and shoots and smartphones and worst to higher end DSLRs. If you know what you're buying, then a higher megapixel count isn't a bad thing any more than higher gigahertz for a CPU processor are unimportant when the buyer has enough information about that particular processor to know what the number means.

Perhaps the reason people are making the argument here is because the iPhone 4's 5-megapixel camera tends to test better than the Evo's and so, by inference, might the Epic's. If that's your real point, then I'd get off the megapixel merry-go-round right now. The megapixel argument's been made and established repeatedly for years and is irrelevant to the actual issue you're raising. At this point, anyone who claims the Evo's camera is better because it has eight megapixels is either incredibly sheltered (it happens), a troll or can't be arsed to do research. Sadly, most people would rather rant than read.

It's pointless to make claims that either camera being being discussed -- the Evo's or the Epic's -- is better unless you are testing both in the field, are referencing a specific review or article that did do tests or have access to more information about both cameras.

Personally, I'm always suspicious of eight-megapixel resolution in smartphones because the sensor is unlikely to be up to the task (unlike the Canon S90, for example). That's a reason not to care about eight megapixels as a smartphone feature, but not to suggest it is real evidence against the quality of the Evo's camera.
 
"Epic vs. EVO: the cameras | DroidDog Android Blog"


"wow the Evo looks like a 5 year old flip phone camera compared to the Epic..the difference between them is night and day. Just goes to show that everyone is hung up on the mega pixel hype.."

Best Quote on in the comments.. I totally agree.

One guy so was determined that the EVO was still so much better because it does so much more then the Epic. :rolleyes:
 
Bomix said:
"wow the Evo looks like a 5 year old flip phone camera compared to the Epic..the difference between them is night and day." Best Quote on in the comments.
Click to expand...

Why is that quote more reputable than the kinds of claims people make for the Evo's camera? And how exactly does a camera lens look like a flip phone (i.e., a clamshell), let alone, a five-year-old clamshell?
 
Flaspeneer said:
Why is that quote more reputable than the kinds of claims people make for the Evo's camera? And how exactly does a camera lens look like a flip phone (i.e., a clamshell), let alone, a five-year-old clamshell?
Click to expand...


because if you go to the link, theres comparison pictures, and if you were to say the Evo's pictures and video look better after seeing them, you're just lying to yourself. and i think they meant the pics look like an old flip phones pics, not the lens itself
 
cruiser771 said:
if you were to say the Evo's pictures and video look better after seeing them, you're just lying to yourself. and i think they meant the pics look like an old flip phones pics, not the lens itself
Click to expand...

1. Or you might still prefer photos and vids by the Evo to those of the Epic for legitimate reasons and not be "lying to yourself." I myself might own and prefer my Epic to the Evo in everything but upload speeds, GPS and pre-customized UI, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accuse Evo users of delusional thinking or other unexpressed character flaws.

2. I realize that's what the QP meant, but when people call something the "best quote" on the internet or a single thread or even in a comments queue, said quote had better be written well to qualify for the honor.
 
It's all about the optics. The benefits of more megapixels is lost when you're shooting through inferior cameras. Sure, with great optics you'll see more detail with higher megapixel sensors. But on cell phone cameras there is only so much you can do.
 
rambo47 said:
It's all about the optics. The benefits of more megapixels is lost when you're shooting through inferior cameras. Sure, with great optics you'll see more detail with higher megapixel sensors. But on cell phone cameras there is only so much you can do.
Click to expand...

And with sensors that aren't up to the task of using eight megapixels, the result will often be smeared action and noisier darkness. If you doubt it, test drive a Canon SD940 (12mp). The industrial design's cool, but I've never taken blurrier shots in my life.
 
Canon is pushing the limits of practicality with its mid-sized APS-C format cameras as well: the EOS 50D's 15MP sensor will actually take blurrier photos under some circumstances than the older 40D's 12MP sensor.

A camera is a system, and all components - sensor, lens, image processor, ect - serve an important function. For mega-pixels, once you pass a certain point (around 8MP, IMO) you won't notice the difference most of the time. As an experienced photographer, I like having more mega-pixels mostly so that I can crop an image as needed and still be able to make quality prints at 8x10 and larger - not because they always make for a better image.

Clark
 
Bad news about the EOS-50D, Clark. I've been afraid to read the S95's specs for fear they made that camera worse than the S90.

(And just so you know: I don't own an SD940.)

Since you're a professional photographer, allow me to ask the question (if you don't find it beneath you):

Have you ever compared the cameras in the Evo and Epic? If so, what were your findings? And just for fun, did you also compare them to the iPhone or Droid's camera?
 
I've not had the opportunity to actually sit down physical examples of the Epic and EVO or iPhone and Droid. Really my only experience in the matter is examining the photos that were linked to earlier in this thread - and as I posted earlier the Epic and EVO look pretty similar except for a much better white balance on the Epic.

I don't generally pay much mind to the quality of photos my phone can take, I see it entirely as a just-for-fun shooter when I want to snap a photo of something and don't have an SLR handy. If I actually care about the quality of a photo I have several thousands of dollars of DSLR gear I use. :)

Clark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom