Excerpted from The New Paper online - http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,62767,00.html?
CONTRARY to popular belief, it is not always good to have more megapixels.
For several years now, people have been eagerly buying the latest digital cameras as the resolution jumped from one megapixel to another.
A quick look at our news archives showed that just three years ago, three megapixel cameras were the creme de la creme for consumers.
The past six months have seen that number jump to an impressive eight megapixels - 'enough resolution for A3 or larger prints!', say some camera advertisements.
Well, it is not always wise to go for the most megapixels if you are looking for a compact camera.
For one thing, these 8MP consumer cams are not cheap - usually between $1,500 and $2,000.
And higher resolution does not always equal higher image quality.
I'm going to get a little technical here so bear with me, but it is worth the headache to understand the whole megapixel matter.
At the heart of every camera is the light-absorbing surface that captures that image that comes through the lens.
In film cameras, it is the film negative, and in digicams, it is the image sensor.
LESS GRAIN
Film photographers all know that the larger the negative, the better the image quality.
Large format (203mm x 254mm) and medium format negatives (60 by 45mm) are larger than a 35mm (36 by 24mm) film negative and can reproduce images with less grain and better tone and resolution.
Why?
Because the photo lab makes prints by enlarging these negatives, so a 35mm film roll needs to be enlarged several times more than a medium format negative, and so must the granular specks that make up each image.
Even now, large and medium format film are used to shoot high resolution posters and billboard advertisements.
The same logic applies to digital cameras - the bigger the image sensor, the better.
Now digital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras have image sensors that are just slightly smaller than a 35mm negative, or even the same size.
Compact digicams have image sensors that are much, much smaller.
The eight megapixel Canon Powershot Pro1 and Sony F828 have a sensor that is 8.80 x 6.60 mm, and lower-end cameras have even tinier ones at 5.27 x 3.96 mm!
When manufacturers squeeze more and more pixels onto such small surfaces, the one side effect I've noticed is that the pictures become progressively more 'noisy'.
Even at low film sensitivities, I found some of the 8MP compact digicams producing really noisy images.
Another thing about small sensors is that their dynamic range, or ability to capture a wide range of contrast, is always less than their larger siblings.
CLEANER IMAGES
Compact cameras are also unable to throw backgrounds out of focus well because the small lenses just cannot provide the required 'depth of field'.
In a nutshell, a digital SLR is able to capture images that are cleaner, have more shadow details and three-dimensionality than a compact camera, even if they had the same number of pixels.
The difference in image quality becomes glaringly obvious if you like to enlarge your photos.
Of course, I am not saying that consumer digicams are lousy.
For portability and convenience, they are nothing short of amazing.
I use a 4MP Canon camera that has churned out hundreds of sharp and vibrant photos for this paper for the past year.
However, I cannot enlarge these photos beyond A4 size without becoming unhappy.
Digital SLRs are the choice for professionals but I can tell you carrying a 15kg bag full of heavy lenses, batteries, flash and camera body for several years definitely took a toll on my body.
Such cameras are awfully expensive too, ranging from about $2,000 to over $14,000 (accessories not included).
Hey, you cannot have the perfect digicam but just don't get taken in by the megapixel mumbo-jumbo.
CONTRARY to popular belief, it is not always good to have more megapixels.
For several years now, people have been eagerly buying the latest digital cameras as the resolution jumped from one megapixel to another.
A quick look at our news archives showed that just three years ago, three megapixel cameras were the creme de la creme for consumers.
The past six months have seen that number jump to an impressive eight megapixels - 'enough resolution for A3 or larger prints!', say some camera advertisements.
Well, it is not always wise to go for the most megapixels if you are looking for a compact camera.
For one thing, these 8MP consumer cams are not cheap - usually between $1,500 and $2,000.
And higher resolution does not always equal higher image quality.
I'm going to get a little technical here so bear with me, but it is worth the headache to understand the whole megapixel matter.
At the heart of every camera is the light-absorbing surface that captures that image that comes through the lens.
In film cameras, it is the film negative, and in digicams, it is the image sensor.
LESS GRAIN
Film photographers all know that the larger the negative, the better the image quality.
Large format (203mm x 254mm) and medium format negatives (60 by 45mm) are larger than a 35mm (36 by 24mm) film negative and can reproduce images with less grain and better tone and resolution.
Why?
Because the photo lab makes prints by enlarging these negatives, so a 35mm film roll needs to be enlarged several times more than a medium format negative, and so must the granular specks that make up each image.
Even now, large and medium format film are used to shoot high resolution posters and billboard advertisements.
The same logic applies to digital cameras - the bigger the image sensor, the better.
Now digital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras have image sensors that are just slightly smaller than a 35mm negative, or even the same size.
Compact digicams have image sensors that are much, much smaller.
The eight megapixel Canon Powershot Pro1 and Sony F828 have a sensor that is 8.80 x 6.60 mm, and lower-end cameras have even tinier ones at 5.27 x 3.96 mm!
When manufacturers squeeze more and more pixels onto such small surfaces, the one side effect I've noticed is that the pictures become progressively more 'noisy'.
Even at low film sensitivities, I found some of the 8MP compact digicams producing really noisy images.
Another thing about small sensors is that their dynamic range, or ability to capture a wide range of contrast, is always less than their larger siblings.
CLEANER IMAGES
Compact cameras are also unable to throw backgrounds out of focus well because the small lenses just cannot provide the required 'depth of field'.
In a nutshell, a digital SLR is able to capture images that are cleaner, have more shadow details and three-dimensionality than a compact camera, even if they had the same number of pixels.
The difference in image quality becomes glaringly obvious if you like to enlarge your photos.
Of course, I am not saying that consumer digicams are lousy.
For portability and convenience, they are nothing short of amazing.
I use a 4MP Canon camera that has churned out hundreds of sharp and vibrant photos for this paper for the past year.
However, I cannot enlarge these photos beyond A4 size without becoming unhappy.
Digital SLRs are the choice for professionals but I can tell you carrying a 15kg bag full of heavy lenses, batteries, flash and camera body for several years definitely took a toll on my body.
Such cameras are awfully expensive too, ranging from about $2,000 to over $14,000 (accessories not included).
Hey, you cannot have the perfect digicam but just don't get taken in by the megapixel mumbo-jumbo.