I suppose even those of us that fly fish and are shutterbugs get caught up in the more is better craze when it come to Mega Pixels. You know that thing about more Mega Pixels = better resolution = better photographs. To hear the manufacturers talk one would think that you need a huge Mega Pixel count to take great photographs. Simply not true. Sure the more Pixels that image sensor has the higher the resolution should be but I put it to you that lens quality and optical zoom are every bit as vital to image quality as are Mega Pixels. A couple of pros put it to me like this:
A camera with a lower mega pixel count, say about 6 mega pixels, but a good quality lens with an optical zoom of 5x and up will give you excellent results up through the 16x20 print range comparable to, if not better than, a higher mega pixels camera with a poor zoom and lens quality.
Consider the following photos. One was taken with a 6.1 mega pixel camera with a decent brand name lens and the other with a10 mega pixel camera with a generic lens. Both are DSLR cameras so zoom is entirely dependent on the lens.
Photos removed by author!
The first image was taken with the 6.1 mega pixel camera, hand held, good zoom lens and without any image stabilization/shake reduction, tripod or remote shutter release.
The second image was taken with a 10 mega pixel camera, generic macro fixed focus lens, on a tripod with a remote shutter release.
Use the tripod and shutter release on the 6.1 Mega Pixel camera and the shot will be every bit as good if not better than the higher meg camera due to the quality of the lens.
What does all of this have to do with fly fishing? Well, no matter what type of camera you buy, DSLR or Point & Shoot, avoiding the Mega Pixel craze while concentrating on optical zoom and lens quality will save you more money to spend on fly fishing gear and trips.
You are 100% correct. You can actually get a “superior” quality image on a 3 megapixel camera if you are only printing an 8x10. The optical resolution of the zoom on the camera/lens is a critical factor in image quality. Thanks and Best Regards…
I totally agree. There was a thirty year hiatus between my manual SLR and my present DSLR. The DSLR’s are here to stay with incredible resolution, even at 6 megs. How much greatER can GREAT get in this age of unstoppable technology
In my opinion, the quality of the photographer is the primary factor in whether a photo is good or great. An average photographer with the best camera in the world is still an average photographer.
Although luck plays a role, as always.
The quality of the lighting is also important. If your light is terrible, even the best camera won’t help much.
The quality of the glass in the lens is key. I have a photo on my wall at work, 24X36 inches, taken with a 1.3 mp Sony camera several years ago. If you get right up to it, you can see the pixels, but if you step back and look, it is as clear as crystal. The lens was a Zeiss. The one I shoot with now has a Leica lens in it. This does not mean that you have to spend a fortune and get a DSLR and name brand lenses to get great shots. There are a lot of non-SLR cameras out there with superior optics.
However, given two otherwise identical cameras, I would choose the one with more megapixels over fewer. It gives you more room to crop and while you can take higher res pics and make them lower res, you can’t do much in the other direction. But I am not willing to pay top dollar just to upgrade to a couple more megapixels every time a new model comes out. That is silly unless you are a professional photographer, and even if you are…
For most of us, mexapixels have gone beyond the point of reasonableness. I shoot with an 8mp camera these days, but the pics that go up on the web or get sent to people are cropped and shrunk to 1024 X 768 anyway. Less for here.
Learn how to use your camera. Learn how it focuses, how to get it to do what YOU want it to do, and how to frame the shot you want.
I use a 10 mp DSLR and as well as a 10 mp waterproof. On the Nikon D80 DSLR, most of the time, the image format is on LOW!!!
Then 99% of the time, like when I send images to LF here, I resample them down even more.
I like the “high end” camera 'cause I can burst off +100 images at 3 per second so have lots of choice when I start building albums. (so the “luck factor” gets a leg up)
Lens quality is the deal breaker/maker for me. I use the stock Nikkor zoom (18-70mm) for all around, then a 'el cheapo 70-300mm for work from a tripod. I use a good quality polorized filter too.
Lastly, one of my most usefull accessories is a decent monopod - light enough to always have it on me and strong enough to hold up the whole rig on those technical shots.
A bunch of mega pixels and great glass are the best combination. Getting the most out of them is another matter altogether.
DG’s point about “how to frame the shot” is at the heart of all great pics - but with more pixels you can shoot a broader image and crop / enlarge an area to improve the framing / composition and the maintain clarity of enlarged images.
Chris’s point on shooting “bursts” is another place more pixels can help improve the ultimate picture. Don’t know how fast is too fast and how much is too much, but for amateurs we have probably already passed it ??
Some Photoshop editing that Barry did on a couple pics that I recently posted was another eye opener. I probably won’t get into that part of it because I just post pics for effect, not to display professional looking photographs, but it is amazing what can be done in the digital world that couldn’t be done in the film world.
Good points about lens quality and for that matter camera quality vs pixel count. Recently while shopping for another digital camera for the family the guy at the camera store went even further to say that not all pixels are created equally. If the size of the sensor is relatively small and they jam a whole bunch of pixel on that size of sensor, the possibility of noise is extreme. I have an older Canon G3, which is only 3 MP but shoots wonderful shots. We have many digitals in the family. 3mp, 5 mp, 7 mp and two 10 mp cameras.
I think that many buyers think that all Megapixels are created equally and it is more about the quality of the sensor in the camera. Read the reviews on places like Digital Camera Reviews and others. If I am buying something that cost $20, I don’t put much research into it, but I am always amazed at people that lots of money on a camera and put about the same effort into that as choosing which burger to order at the fast food store. Knowledge is consumer power.
The problem with more mp is the introduction of ‘noise’. Beside sensor and glass the key to quality images is knowing exposure and composition. After that calibrate your monitor and printer and you will increase the wow factor of your displayed image.
That has nothing to do with the mega pixels. The 6.1 meg picture was shot under hot halogen lighting sometime after the 10 meg shot. By that time the flower had dried out a bit and I did not spritz it again.
This photo was photo today with the 6.1 meg camera in natural outdoor lighting. I am including the exif data:
Creation date: 4/21/2009 14:06
Camera: PENTAX K110D
Lens: smc PENTAX-FA J 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 AL
Focal length: 80 mm (equiv. 120 mm)
Aperture: F9.5
Exposure time: 1/250"
ISO speed rating: 200/24?
Program: Auto PICT
Metering Mode: Pattern
White Balance: Auto (Daylight)
Focus Mode: AF-S
Noise Reduction: Off
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Creation date: 4/21/2009 14:12
Camera: PENTAX K110D
Lens: smc PENTAX-FA J 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 AL
Focal length: 68 mm (equiv. 102 mm)
Aperture: F8
Exposure time: 1/500"
ISO speed rating: 200/24?
Program: Scene Mode
Metering Mode: Pattern
White Balance: Auto (Daylight)
Focus Mode: AF-S
Noise Reduction: Off
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
An inexpensive tripod and wired remote release were used for these photographs. EXIF and camera data was obtained by using the free version of photome. You can get it here:
This camera, lens, infra red remote shutter release and Sunpak uv lens filter will be going up for sale shortly. I will probably put it one ebay but may post it here on the forsale board first.
I am quite please that all of you took the time to respond and the responses show a great knowledge. That’s what I love about this site. The willingness to share enriches all of you in ways that money cannot buy!
Another great point was brought up that more mega pixels generate more heat in the ccd sensor. That means more noise and a longer turn around time from shot to shot if you are doing long exposures or bulb exposures.
I should point out that the purpose of this thread is not to promote the sale of my camera! Plain and simple it is intended to show that a person does not have to plunk down mega dollars for huge mega pixels to get high quality results from their gear.
Megapixels is only a measurement of size, not quality. Just as a 35mm negative in a quality film camera (i.e. Nikon) can produce a much higher quality picture when using a high quality lens and high quality film when compared to a cheap box camera with cheap, but larger, 2 1/4 film and a crappy lens. Even with the same film the the 35mmm will be better.
However, if you take a high quality film camera using 2 1/4 film (i.e Hasselblad) with a high quality lens and film you will get a high quality that can be printed to a much larger size than the 35mm negative.
So a higher number of megapixels in a camera that is equal quality (lens, electronics, etc.) with a camera of lesser magapixels, has the advantage of increasing the possible size of the print and maintaining the quality in the larger print.
Personally, subject matter is much more important to me than the “quality” of a photograph. A "lousy photo is still a lousy photo no matter what lens or megapixels are involved. A million dollar camera does NOT make great photographs, the photographer is left with that task.
I have known from past posts that you are going to sell the camera someday. You don’t need to advertise and you know it. We all know you are not setting us up to sell it. You stated a long time ago you were going to sell it. I and a bunch of others are patiently waiting to see it on the for sale board. Hope I win the derby. You aren’t going to have any trouble selling it. In fact had you not mentioned it on this thread…I was going to post and ask when it was going to be up for sale.
Just waiting…
Jimbo
“if you would like to speak to an illegal alien…please press 1”
I have to say that I totally agree with you, but I’m not sure your example is an apples to apples situation. I can’t get the EXIF info for the first picture, but for the second picture the aperture is 2.8. The DOF/Bokeh is starting to come out, making the container a bit fuzzier, etc… Makes the picture seem less sharp in certain areas.
I’m going to guess that the first picture was somewhere in the 7.0 aperture vacinity.
