Megapixel Saturation Is Coming?

There's consumer level, there's prosumer level, and there's
professional level. At what point will the consumer level be saturated
with over megapixelization?

It was 3 megapixels in 2002, 6 megapixels in 2004, 8 megapixels in
2005, 10 megapixels in 2006. At the rate we're going, we'll be seeing
20-megapixel cameras for entry level DSLRs before 2010. 10 megapixels
is already overkill for non professionals. But 20 megapixels? What
sort of insane father would regularly print crystal clear 24X16 baby
pictures for inspection/scrutiny at a 12-inch viewing distance?

What's even more relevant is that printer technology is seriously
lagging behind the camera megapixels. We're at a point now where
consumer-level DSLRs are churning out pictures bigger than
consuer-level printers can possibly handle.

At some point, I think entry-level DSLRs will reach a glass ceiling for
megapixels the way consumer level cars have reached a glass ceiling for
speed. Sure, we now have the technology to mass produce 160 mph cars
for retail... but why make 'em if nobody needs 'em?

The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the
camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster
computers why not have more megapixels? The biggest benefit to having
more megapixels to me is the ability to crop pictures more and still get
a good printable image. As long as memory capacity is affordable and
computers are fast enough to handle the images then I don't care if
there is an affordable 50 mp DSLR. Besides, all these cameras give the
user the option to lower the resolution so if you think 6 mp is plenty
then set the camera for it.

wrote:
There's consumer level, there's prosumer level, and there's
professional level. At what point will the consumer level be saturated
with over megapixelization?

It was 3 megapixels in 2002, 6 megapixels in 2004, 8 megapixels in
2005, 10 megapixels in 2006. At the rate we're going, we'll be seeing
20-megapixel cameras for entry level DSLRs before 2010. 10 megapixels
is already overkill for non professionals. But 20 megapixels? What
sort of insane father would regularly print crystal clear 24X16 baby
pictures for inspection/scrutiny at a 12-inch viewing distance?

What's even more relevant is that printer technology is seriously
lagging behind the camera megapixels. We're at a point now where
consumer-level DSLRs are churning out pictures bigger than
consuer-level printers can possibly handle.

At some point, I think entry-level DSLRs will reach a glass ceiling for
megapixels the way consumer level cars have reached a glass ceiling for
speed. Sure, we now have the technology to mass produce 160 mph cars
for retail... but why make 'em if nobody needs 'em?

wrote:
There's consumer level, there's prosumer level, and there's
professional level. At what point will the consumer level be saturated
with over megapixelization?

It was 3 megapixels in 2002, 6 megapixels in 2004, 8 megapixels in
2005, 10 megapixels in 2006. At the rate we're going, we'll be seeing
20-megapixel cameras for entry level DSLRs before 2010. 10 megapixels
is already overkill for non professionals. But 20 megapixels? What
sort of insane father would regularly print crystal clear 24X16 baby
pictures for inspection/scrutiny at a 12-inch viewing distance?

What's even more relevant is that printer technology is seriously
lagging behind the camera megapixels. We're at a point now where
consumer-level DSLRs are churning out pictures bigger than
consuer-level printers can possibly handle.

At some point, I think entry-level DSLRs will reach a glass ceiling for
megapixels the way consumer level cars have reached a glass ceiling for
speed. Sure, we now have the technology to mass produce 160 mph cars
for retail... but why make 'em if nobody needs 'em?


The additional resolution offers creative lattitude with cropping that doesn't
exist with the smaller resolution offerings. Sometimes, in an effort to get a
shot [as opposed to losing it], composition might suffer or be a little off;
having the additional resolution to fix this is wonderful. Sometimes, I go
through old photos and find that a photo that I once thought was hum drum
average turns out to be beautiful with a little cropping and cleanup.
Resolution is just an additional tool for artistic creativity. In short, I
would rather have it than not have it.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...
The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the
camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster
computers why not have more megapixels?

The biggest benefit to having more megapixels to me is
the ability to crop pictures more and still get
a good printable image.


Michael,
I'm not sure that this is true. I think there's a point where your crop is
overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true with an
extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens and
cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain?
Regards,
Marcel

"Celcius" wrote:

I think there's a point where your crop is
overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true
with an
extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens
and
cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain?

The photo lacked either sufficient resolution or sufficient sharpness to
support the crop you tried.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

"Marc Sabatella" wrote in message
. ..
"Celcius" wrote:

I think there's a point where your crop is
overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true
with an
extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens
and
cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain?

The photo lacked either sufficient resolution or sufficient sharpness to
support the crop you tried.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/


Thanks Marc,
I should think so.
But am I right to assume that too much cropping might result in same?
Thanks,
Marcel

Marc Sabatella wrote:
"Celcius" wrote:

I think there's a point where your crop is
overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true
with an
extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens
and
cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain?

The photo lacked either sufficient resolution or sufficient sharpness to
support the crop you tried.


The lack of resolution can be caused by a sensor which isn't capable of the
resolving power required for that photo or it can be caused by the lens not
being able to give enough detail to the image so that it can be cropped as
desired. There are many bad zooms that reach 300mm on the high-end, so it is
a real posibility it is the lens, or there was simply an attempt to crop
beyond the resolution the sensor was capable of ... or both.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/



--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Celcius wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...
The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the
camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster
computers why not have more megapixels?

The biggest benefit to having more megapixels to me is
the ability to crop pictures more and still get
a good printable image.


Michael,
I'm not sure that this is true. I think there's a point where your crop is
overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true with an
extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens and
cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain?

As the other posters have explained it sounds like you reached the
limits of resolution for that particular photograph. That was likely
due to lack of focus and/or image sensor resolution.

I think the issue that will limit the megapixel count on cameras will be
available light and the limiting factors of current lens technology.
But then there might be technology developments that overcome these
obstacles.

"Celcius" wrote in message
...

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...
The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the
camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster
computers why not have more megapixels?

The biggest benefit to having more megapixels to me is
the ability to crop pictures more and still get
a good printable image.


Michael,
I'm not sure that this is true. I think there's a point where your crop is
overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true with an
extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens and
cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain?
Regards,
Marcel

The interesting part of this argument is that although its universally
understood that manufacturers are driving the megapixel race and there is no
benefit the same newsgroup are complaining about how pentax is lagging so
far behind with a mere 6mp in even their yet to be released models.

Personally exposure accuracy, flash accuracy and an improvement in auto
white balance are the only things that will tempt me to buy a new dslr. AT
current rates 50,000 pictures will still take me 25 years while i spread the
use of my two dslr (300D and 20D). Of course extended dynamic range a la
fuji is the next holy grail. Maybe affordable full frame.

ian wrote:
"Celcius" wrote in message
...
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...
The public will determine when the mega pixel race is over more than the
camera makers. With the advent of cheap flash memory and ever faster
computers why not have more megapixels?
The biggest benefit to having more megapixels to me is
the ability to crop pictures more and still get
a good printable image.

Michael,
I'm not sure that this is true. I think there's a point where your crop is
overdone and the photo lacks clarity. I believe this might be true with an
extremely good lens and sensor. I once took a photo with a 300mm lens and
cropped the subject with poor results. Perhaps someone can explain?
Regards,
Marcel

The interesting part of this argument is that although its universally
understood that manufacturers are driving the megapixel race and there is no
benefit the same newsgroup are complaining about how pentax is lagging so
far behind with a mere 6mp in even their yet to be released models.

Personally exposure accuracy, flash accuracy and an improvement in auto
white balance are the only things that will tempt me to buy a new dslr. AT
current rates 50,000 pictures will still take me 25 years while i spread the
use of my two dslr (300D and 20D). Of course extended dynamic range a la
fuji is the next holy grail. Maybe affordable full frame.

I would like to see noise in low light situations addressed. A
flashless perfect exposure with no noise at 1/100 shutter speed in
candle light would be nice.