High megapixel cameras
Discussion
Hi all. With the introduction of the latest Nokia phone (with Carl Zeiss optics) which has a remarkable 41mp I was wondering just what these are like when zoomed in?
i.e. If I had a 10mp camera with a 4 times optical zoom am I going to get the same level of detail as zooming in 4 times on a 40mp camera image?
Does it work like this or am I being a simpleton?
i.e. If I had a 10mp camera with a 4 times optical zoom am I going to get the same level of detail as zooming in 4 times on a 40mp camera image?
Does it work like this or am I being a simpleton?
How do you mean 'when zoomed in' ? If it's an optical zoom then you're getting all the pixels regardless of the amount of zoom I think - if you mean cropping an image once taken then that's different 
I think the other factor which is important the size of the sensor - some older DSLRs have many fewer pixels but would give better images I think.
I think the other factor which is important the size of the sensor - some older DSLRs have many fewer pixels but would give better images I think.
DibblyDobbler said:
How do you mean 'when zoomed in' ? If it's an optical zoom then you're getting all the pixels regardless of the amount of zoom I think - if you mean cropping an image once taken then that's different
I think the other factor which is important the size of the sensor - some older DSLRs have many fewer pixels but would give better images I think.
Sorry....yes I mean croppingI think the other factor which is important the size of the sensor - some older DSLRs have many fewer pixels but would give better images I think.
Crafty_ said:
Don't those phones do some sort of funky oversampling to give an "effective" 41mp ? I'm not familiar with the way it works but am led to believe there are some shenanigans going on.
No, the sensor really is 41mp but the images are downsampled to something like 8mp to give fantastic quality images. It also allows the phone to have a "lossless" digital zoom as it can crop from the 41mp image to create a 100% 8mp image without having to upscale.DibblyDobbler said:
I think the other factor which is important the size of the sensor - some older DSLRs have many fewer pixels but would give better images I think.
This. My medium format digital back produces much nicer 22 mp images than my 5D3 22 mp images as the sensor is twice as large (48x36 as opposed to 36x24). The sensor genuinely will capture a lot more detail than most sensors, however, there is a catch; the lens. If you compare a picture, taken in good light, with a 20 MP DSLR, the DSLR will resolve a bit more detail. In terms of resolving power, the Nokia is a bit below the level of a decent micro 4/3rds camera (16MP - like the Olympus OM-D EM5 or the Panasonic GX7).
DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have much more expensive lenses and we are now coming to a point where the image quality is affected by the lens. It would be somewhat true to say that the nikon D800e out resolves a lot of the cheaper lenses. If the Nokia had a more precision engineered lens, it would resolve more detail.
The Nokia, however, is only competitive in GOOD light. Where more expensive cameras come into their own is their ability in low light, subject isolation (blurred backgrounds, that sort of thing), sports and much better manual control.
This Nokia is great for taking snap shots and holiday photos like landscapes. If you want professional looking dramatic shots, a DSLR or a mirrorless camera will give you more options and produce better images.
DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have much more expensive lenses and we are now coming to a point where the image quality is affected by the lens. It would be somewhat true to say that the nikon D800e out resolves a lot of the cheaper lenses. If the Nokia had a more precision engineered lens, it would resolve more detail.
The Nokia, however, is only competitive in GOOD light. Where more expensive cameras come into their own is their ability in low light, subject isolation (blurred backgrounds, that sort of thing), sports and much better manual control.
This Nokia is great for taking snap shots and holiday photos like landscapes. If you want professional looking dramatic shots, a DSLR or a mirrorless camera will give you more options and produce better images.
It uses pixel oversampling, so it's not really 41 mp. (Well it is and it isn't). Sensor, though larger than others in similar devices is still small. Lastly, consider how much was spent on the lens!
So to answer the OP - it's likely to be better than the competition, but won't be great.
41mp is a number they want to shout loud so lots of people buy it.
Below is a 100% crop from my 36mp DSLR camera (this is +/- 1% of the image).... but the camera has a very large sensor and the lens cost a lot of money!
So to answer the OP - it's likely to be better than the competition, but won't be great.
41mp is a number they want to shout loud so lots of people buy it.
Below is a 100% crop from my 36mp DSLR camera (this is +/- 1% of the image).... but the camera has a very large sensor and the lens cost a lot of money!
Personally I think 10MP is more than enough.
In fact all of my wedding photos were taken on a 6MP Konica Minolta (remember them) DSLR and look fine when printed at a decent size.
As others have pointed out Mega Pixels have very little to do with quality these days, it was only in the early days of 1,2,3 megapixel cameras could you immediately tell which was which.
That said, the more data you have the more your noise reduction algorithm has to work with so I would expect this mobile phone to produce less noise than other typically rubbish mobiles.
My advice, get an old Nokia phone to use as a phone and a camera with a large sensor to use as a camera.
In fact all of my wedding photos were taken on a 6MP Konica Minolta (remember them) DSLR and look fine when printed at a decent size.
As others have pointed out Mega Pixels have very little to do with quality these days, it was only in the early days of 1,2,3 megapixel cameras could you immediately tell which was which.
That said, the more data you have the more your noise reduction algorithm has to work with so I would expect this mobile phone to produce less noise than other typically rubbish mobiles.
My advice, get an old Nokia phone to use as a phone and a camera with a large sensor to use as a camera.
GetCarter said:
It uses pixel oversampling, so it's not really 41 mp. (Well it is and it isn't). Sensor, though larger than others in similar devices is still small. Lastly, consider how much was spent on the lens!
So to answer the OP - it's likely to be better than the competition, but won't be great.
41mp is a number they want to shout loud so lots of people buy it.
Below is a 100% crop from my 36mp DSLR camera (this is +/- 1% of the image).... but the camera has a very large sensor and the lens cost a lot of money!
I know you've logged that the image is c.1% of the full image but is there any chance of posting the full picture (even at a low res) just to hello 'see' or feel that more easily?So to answer the OP - it's likely to be better than the competition, but won't be great.
41mp is a number they want to shout loud so lots of people buy it.
Below is a 100% crop from my 36mp DSLR camera (this is +/- 1% of the image).... but the camera has a very large sensor and the lens cost a lot of money!
As someone who used to lug around 5"x 4" view cameras and shoot on 6 x 12 cm and 6 x 9 cm, but only had digital cameras and scanners (inc. a hugely expensive Nikon that would be rubbish now, I guess) in the early generations of just affordable (maybe 15 years ago) I'm fascinated to know just how good digital is compared to film (of that size) now?
MysteryLemon said:
10-14mp seems to be the sweet spot for APS-C sized sensors. Why manufacturers are pushing 16,20 or more mp from APS-C cameras is beyond me. You don't gain quality from squashing more pixels into a sensor. You lose it. Images will become less sharp and noise will be more evident.
I would agree. With the same lenses I am sure that (at the low ISOs at least), my 400D took better looking photos than my 7D which was 18 MP (vs the 10 MP 400D). It seemed harder to get good sharp photos out of the 7D and it really showed up how soft the Sigma 10-20mm was in the corners and edge of the frame. I think the problem was I just didn't have lenses good enough to feed the sensor. I have a 16 MP NEX 6 now, but I still wish they'd have made it a 12 MP or even 10 MP sensor. Its not like the current crop of NEX E-mount lenses are good enough to make use of the 16 MP sensor it has now, I think the 24 MP in the NEX 7 is even more of a waste. I found out just how good the sensor is in the NEX-6 when I tried the lens adapter with a Carl Ziess 24-70mm F2.8. You'd think these photos came from a different camera, the sharpness and the colours are a world apart from what comes out of the camera with one of the dedicated NEX lenses. I have personally never taken or worked with photos so sharp and so full of clarity! They're trying to beat physics with these mirrorless systems and their small lenses and they just can't do it. You need big bits of high quality glass!
AnonSpoilSport said:
I know you've logged that the image is c.1% of the full image but is there any chance of posting the full picture (even at a low res) just to hello 'see' or feel that more easily?
As someone who used to lug around 5"x 4" view cameras and shoot on 6 x 12 cm and 6 x 9 cm, but only had digital cameras and scanners (inc. a hugely expensive Nikon that would be rubbish now, I guess) in the early generations of just affordable (maybe 15 years ago) I'm fascinated to know just how good digital is compared to film (of that size) now?
I've just e mailed you a link to a 'squashed' 35mb jpg.As someone who used to lug around 5"x 4" view cameras and shoot on 6 x 12 cm and 6 x 9 cm, but only had digital cameras and scanners (inc. a hugely expensive Nikon that would be rubbish now, I guess) in the early generations of just affordable (maybe 15 years ago) I'm fascinated to know just how good digital is compared to film (of that size) now?
Anyone else wants the link, just ask.... unless your name is Robin b
dBTW it's still uploading here - slow uploads from my home.
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 27th August 12:34
GetCarter said:
I've just e mailed you a link to a 'squashed' 35mb jpg.
Anyone else wants the link, just ask.... unless your name is Robin bd
BTW it's still uploading here - slow uploads from my home.
Thank you. No theft of image intended! Just wanted to be able to put the detail in context. Anyone else wants the link, just ask.... unless your name is Robin b
dBTW it's still uploading here - slow uploads from my home.
Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 27th August 12:34
Cheers
budfox said:
Quoting huge pixel counts is nothing more than a marketing technique from a manufacturer who wants to sell you something.
Agreed, ive just got a Nikon D3200 that has 24MP but im struggling to see the point really, I think theres a setting where you can crop it back to something like 12mp but ive not played around with it enough to tryNice camera for the price though
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff