Megapixels and the future
Discussion
Now I know most of us dont shoot stock, have perfectly adequate cameras and I state the obvious when I say "more megapixels" is of course bottom of the list of points to consider when buying a new camera.
But to the average Joe, more megapixels means his camera will be better, and as marketing companies strive to sell more cameras (and camera phones) the megapixel count will surely continue to grow. and grow. and grow.
How many megapixels do you suppose the next generation of photographers will have, both in terms of cameras and phones. I say next gen, meaning 5-25 years down the line.
But to the average Joe, more megapixels means his camera will be better, and as marketing companies strive to sell more cameras (and camera phones) the megapixel count will surely continue to grow. and grow. and grow.
How many megapixels do you suppose the next generation of photographers will have, both in terms of cameras and phones. I say next gen, meaning 5-25 years down the line.
UKBob said:
Now I know most of us dont shoot stock, have perfectly adequate cameras and I state the obvious when I say "more megapixels" is of course bottom of the list of points to consider when buying a new camera.
But to the average Joe, more megapixels means his camera will be better, and as marketing companies strive to sell more cameras (and camera phones) the megapixel count will surely continue to grow. and grow. and grow.
How many megapixels do you suppose the next generation of photographers will have, both in terms of cameras and phones. I say next gen, meaning 5-25 years down the line.
But to the average Joe, more megapixels means his camera will be better, and as marketing companies strive to sell more cameras (and camera phones) the megapixel count will surely continue to grow. and grow. and grow.
How many megapixels do you suppose the next generation of photographers will have, both in terms of cameras and phones. I say next gen, meaning 5-25 years down the line.
5 years - 20Mpix would probably be common and 50Mpix in high end SLR's - ignoring large format.
25 years - will we still be wasting our time with pixels ?
Anyway - why is more better for average joe - with average computer - with average storage capacity - and no way of using said megapixels ?
The increase of megapixels in low cost cameras is because lower resolution cameras are probably more expensive or even totally unavailable, simply due to the advance of technology . . . it's almost certainly not driven by average joe's needs or even what average joe probably wants.
High end cameras are not bound by the same rules I think.
$0.02
Fd
Fd
I think we're beginning to see somewhat of a plateau in the megapixel race. No longer do camera makers appear to be wanting more pixels at any cost, it appears they're now focussing just as much on the quality of the pixels.
I somewhat agree with Fergus' prediction, though and not entirely sure we'll get quite that high. For 35mm, when it comes to pixels the 1ds2 has been the market leader for some time. What's that - 16.7mp? And it's been on the market for 3 years?
I'd predict the mk3 being circa 25mp+. Give that a 3ish year shelf life, and a similar jump again thereafter...
The next '30D' being circa 12-15mp, with a shelf life of 12-18 months?
I somewhat agree with Fergus' prediction, though and not entirely sure we'll get quite that high. For 35mm, when it comes to pixels the 1ds2 has been the market leader for some time. What's that - 16.7mp? And it's been on the market for 3 years?
I'd predict the mk3 being circa 25mp+. Give that a 3ish year shelf life, and a similar jump again thereafter...
The next '30D' being circa 12-15mp, with a shelf life of 12-18 months?
I agree with what fergus is saying, but perhaps I didnt explain my point about why average joe "needs" more, ie Average Joe is led to believe that more megapixels IS better by the manufacturers as the number one USP, in order that he buys their product rather than that of the competition.
Given that:
1) Average joe doesnt buy 1DSmk2's or anything like it, they dont come into the equation.
2) 99.something percent of the photos average joe actually takes wont end up printed on anything bigger than 6x4.
Yet average joe still feels he needs something better than his "really-nice" 3mp camera, and the proof comes when you listen to just about any average joe talking about his camera, his comments are *always* along the lines of "yeah, its the new 8mp compac" or "well, its only got 4mp, but its good enough for now"
The fact is, his 3mp camera of yesteryear was perfectly adequate for his needs.
Given that:
1) Average joe doesnt buy 1DSmk2's or anything like it, they dont come into the equation.
2) 99.something percent of the photos average joe actually takes wont end up printed on anything bigger than 6x4.
Yet average joe still feels he needs something better than his "really-nice" 3mp camera, and the proof comes when you listen to just about any average joe talking about his camera, his comments are *always* along the lines of "yeah, its the new 8mp compac" or "well, its only got 4mp, but its good enough for now"
The fact is, his 3mp camera of yesteryear was perfectly adequate for his needs.
Andy M said:
I think we're beginning to see somewhat of a plateau in the megapixel race. No longer do camera makers appear to be wanting more pixels at any cost, it appears they're now focussing just as much on the quality of the pixels.
I cant see any evidence of this in the DSLR range, although it does feel as if things have slowed perhaps a little. And the opposite seems true in the compact lineup, who are going great guns, heck.. there are comacts out there which have more megawotsits than my 30d (checks specs for dust spots and signs of rose tinting)
Edited by UKBob on Sunday 12th November 15:17
dilbert said:
Sounds to me that you need someone who understands something about semiconductor manufacturing.
Ultimately the growth cannot be constant. This is said with one caveat, and that is that your camera remains the same size.
Ultimately the growth cannot be constant. This is said with one caveat, and that is that your camera remains the same size.
That's a very fair point . . . and I said what I said on the basis that 20 years ago the things we do today were pure fantasy . . . as will what we do in 20 years time . . . you cannot base predictions on your best knowledge of today . . . unless you wanna be wrong . . . ;-)
Fd
fergusd said:
dilbert said:
Sounds to me that you need someone who understands something about semiconductor manufacturing.
Ultimately the growth cannot be constant. This is said with one caveat, and that is that your camera remains the same size.
Ultimately the growth cannot be constant. This is said with one caveat, and that is that your camera remains the same size.
That's a very fair point . . . and I said what I said on the basis that 20 years ago the things we do today were pure fantasy . . . as will what we do in 20 years time . . . you cannot base predictions on your best knowledge of today . . . unless you wanna be wrong . . . ;-)
Fd
Maybe, but then who knows. Might the most demanding photographers be using film again?
dilbert said:
fergusd said:
dilbert said:
Sounds to me that you need someone who understands something about semiconductor manufacturing.
Ultimately the growth cannot be constant. This is said with one caveat, and that is that your camera remains the same size.
Ultimately the growth cannot be constant. This is said with one caveat, and that is that your camera remains the same size.
That's a very fair point . . . and I said what I said on the basis that 20 years ago the things we do today were pure fantasy . . . as will what we do in 20 years time . . . you cannot base predictions on your best knowledge of today . . . unless you wanna be wrong . . . ;-)
Fd
Maybe, but then who knows. Might the most demanding photographers be using film again?
Doubt it . . . if you have sufficient resolution then film is entirely simulatable (??) . . . but I don't think that with DSLR's we're anywhere near the required resolution yet . . .
Fd
Polarbert said:
olf said:
I had a bugger of a job trying to buy a 4mp point and shoot canon ixus.
"That models obselete sir, you want this new 5mp one..."
"No I don't".
"Yes you do".
Right, bye then.
"That models obselete sir, you want this new 5mp one..."
"No I don't".
"Yes you do".
Right, bye then.
Why don't you?
Why don't I what? Spell it out for me. I'm feeling a bit stupid and want to make sure I should take this the wrong way before I unload.
Er, to go (sort of) back on track, anyone think the ISO race is starting to come up alongside the Megapixel race? Fuji are starting to push their cameras with 1600-3200 ISO (compacts) - I'm sure it won't take much of the marketting departments to tell Joe Public that faster 'film' speeds mean less of that thing that ruins most of his/her photos - camera shake...
Anyone have any view on this?
As for semiconductors, I think the same was thought of processors in PC's, but they'll find a work around, it probably won't be by just more and more dense cramming of pixels alongside one another.
Anyone have any view on this?
As for semiconductors, I think the same was thought of processors in PC's, but they'll find a work around, it probably won't be by just more and more dense cramming of pixels alongside one another.
franv8 said:
Er, to go (sort of) back on track, anyone think the ISO race is starting to come up alongside the Megapixel race? Fuji are starting to push their cameras with 1600-3200 ISO (compacts) - I'm sure it won't take much of the marketting departments to tell Joe Public that faster 'film' speeds mean less of that thing that ruins most of his/her photos - camera shake...
Anyone have any view on this?
As for semiconductors, I think the same was thought of processors in PC's, but they'll find a work around, it probably won't be by just more and more dense cramming of pixels alongside one another.
Anyone have any view on this?
As for semiconductors, I think the same was thought of processors in PC's, but they'll find a work around, it probably won't be by just more and more dense cramming of pixels alongside one another.
I think the military are already turning camera shake in conjunction with CCD's to their advantage.
I bought a Sony DSC T10 the other week. One of the smallest zooms you can get.
It will fit in my wallet!!
That is 7.2MP and the photos out of it are very good.
The video function is impressive aswell.
www.jessops.com/Store/s36139/0/Digital-Compact-Cameras/Sony/Cyber-shot-T10-(Black)---EXCLUSIVE-TO-JESSOPS/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&CatId=236&comp=y
Shame It's dropped £20 in the last couple of weeks in store
It will fit in my wallet!!
That is 7.2MP and the photos out of it are very good.
The video function is impressive aswell.
www.jessops.com/Store/s36139/0/Digital-Compact-Cameras/Sony/Cyber-shot-T10-(Black)---EXCLUSIVE-TO-JESSOPS/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&CatId=236&comp=y
Shame It's dropped £20 in the last couple of weeks in store
olf said:
Polarbert said:
olf said:
I had a bugger of a job trying to buy a 4mp point and shoot canon ixus.
"That models obselete sir, you want this new 5mp one..."
"No I don't".
"Yes you do".
Right, bye then.
"That models obselete sir, you want this new 5mp one..."
"No I don't".
"Yes you do".
Right, bye then.
Why don't you?
Why don't I what? Spell it out for me. I'm feeling a bit stupid and want to make sure I should take this the wrong way before I unload.
Why don't you want the 5mp version?monkeyhanger said:
I'd rather have a 4Mp 1DMk1 than a 10Mp 400D.
I'll take quality over quantity any day.
I'll take quality over quantity any day.
Well, having owned both (and counting the 1D mk1 as my all time favourite camera) I think the image quality of the 400D pees all over the 1D, more resolution, much less noise, great colour. Going purely by image quality I'd rate my current cameras :
5D
400D
1D mk2
Now, introduce almost any other criteria and you have a different story!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff