
Why we've reached the end of the camera megapixel race - soundsop
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/03/why-weve-reached-the-end-of-the-camera-megapixel-race.ars
======
ojbyrne
"If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame
models,"

I think (hope) that the next arms race will be sensor size. I drool over a $35
k/50 megapixel/36x48 mm sensor Hasselblad --
<http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx>

Never underestimate the ability of seemingly out-of-reach technology products
to come down in price and go mainstream. Whenever I hear phrases like "for the
casual user," or "most people" I think - there's a market that's ripe for
disruption.

------
spyrosk
Although I can't find the article anymore (I'm almost certain that it was
posted here) I remember reading that, as far as small handheld cameras are
concerned, there appears to be a limit to the number of megapixels they can
have without suffering from "digital noise". It appears to be around 6 MP.
Above that "ideal" area noise reducing algorithms have to be employed to keep
the quality relatively stable. This phenomenon is caused due to the small area
of the lens (sorry if this term is not correct for digital cameras) and the
electronic properties of the light sensitive board.

The above applies only to small handheld cameras, larger/more expensive
models, ie DSLR's, do not suffer from this.

~~~
gaius
The real measure of resolution is not megapixels but line-pairs/millimetre,
and no matter how good your sensor is, a good quality lens can deliver about
90 lp/mm and you won't get that in practice without a good tripod. On a 36mm
sensor that translates to about 6MP. That's why Foveon can deliver such great
images even tho' their sensor is "only" 3MP - they are getting the most out of
what the lens delivers. Shooting handheld, at 3MP you've got all the
resolution you're going to get, the thing that matters more now is contrast,
colour fidelity and saturation, sharpness.

------
whughes
Storage will not be a major factor in the megapixel race. We're already seeing
16GB SD cards, and with the introduction of SDXC and the prevalence of high-
capacity iPhones and other media devices that size will only go up. Megapixel
increases are slowing, so they'll likely be surpassed by storage increases,
making storage limits a minor consideration in the future.

------
JacobAldridge
I believe the focus on megapixels did the digital camera world a disservice.
When mobile phone cameras were introduced, phone makers were able to cram in
the pixels and market the phones as comparable with purpose-built cameras.

Had camera makers focussed on other measurables (like lens quality, perception
depth) camera phones would have remained a novelty, or at best a useful phone
app. More cameras would have been sold, and these could have been higher-end
sales as well.

------
callmeed
I don't think we've reached the end–at least not for consumers.

Fuji was making point-and-shoot cameras with lower megapixels but superior
image quality since '05 ... they still got their butts kicked by canon, nikon,
and others.

If Joe Consumer is looking at two equally priced cameras in Best Buy, he'll
probably choose the one with more megapixels.

~~~
jbert
> Fuji was making point-and-shoot cameras with lower megapixels but superior
> image quality since '05

Could you provide some references for this, please?

Not because I disbelieve you, but for the opposite reason. I have an aging
low-megapixel Fuji which appears to take better pictures than much 'better
spec' cameras owned by my friends. I'd like a replacement, but I don't want to
lose image quality.

~~~
aoeu
If you're looking for a new camera I've found the following sites to be
useful.. <http://www.dpreview.com/> <http://www.dcresource.com/>
<http://www.cameralabs.com/> <http://www.imaging-resource.com/>
<http://www.photographyblog.com/>

------
vaksel
Megapixels is like the only thing users compare cameras by. So they won't be
going away, even though 99% of those users will never shoot above the typical
640x480 pic size.

~~~
whatusername
On what grounds do you base the 640x480 claim? Most people that I know shoot
at the highest res..

Also - the few photos I still get emailed seem much much slower to download
than a 640 shot. :

