When it comes to digital cameras - SIZE does matter!

[scottvelez]

Interesting news article on why the SIZE of the pixel is more important than the NUMBER of pixels.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3958138&p1=0

Now you know why some of those *small* Nikon 2.7mp sensors routinely trump your 4 and 5MP shots from the point and shoot cameras (Coolpix 5400's, G5's, etc).

When it comes to digital cameras, it's the SIZE of the pixel that matters, not the number of them.

[.243racer]

thats why i like my digital rebel:thepimp:

[fergs]

Holy shite that's incredible - there's a link in the article where you can install a viewer to look at images from mars from the camera referenced in the article. the amount of detail blows my mind.

[white ri0t]

I was a little wary of installing that viewer, but if fergs did it, it must be safe!

[Broken Fusion!]

Originally posted by fergs
Holy shite that's incredible - there's a link in the article where you can install a viewer to look at images from mars from the camera referenced in the article. the amount of detail blows my mind.

just insane hey... so big and empty

[fergs]

Originally posted by Broken Fusion!
just insane hey... so big and empty

i was talking about the amount of detail in the photo as you continue to zoom in

[scottvelez]

Yes, the detail in those shots is amazing.

Some of the large panoramas are a bunch of shots 'stitched' together, but that just makes the images larger with a wider field of view. The detail you are seeing has nothing to do with 'stitching'. It's just a high quality 1Mp sensor and really high quality lens ;-)

That's why everyone should spend 90% of their "camera" budget on a good lens, not a fancy tricked out camera body.
The difference a good lens makes will be visible in your pictures. The difference between a $50 and a $2500 camera body makes no difference and is not visibly detectable.

[Broken Fusion!]

Originally posted by fergs
i was talking about the amount of detail in the photo as you continue to zoom in
i was talking about mars!

[eeyun]

Originally posted by scottv


That's why everyone should spend 90% of their "camera"
budget on a good lens, not a fancy tricked out camera body.


D'oh. I know that now :( I wish I'd known that when I bought my camera!

[white ri0t]

Something like 2000 images a day are coming back from Mars, how come we only see the same ones over and over :(

[Ned]

Donut (he he) forget that pixel depth is key as well. Especially in a remote sensing application.

Depending on data needs, 8bit is usually sufficient and definitely most efficient for bulk analytical/number crunching purposes.

But if you are dealing with detailed ground images to find a needle in a haystack (eg: things such as mineral deposits or central American dope fields using hyperspectral imaging platforms) you need the depth to achieve the numeric variability.

Keep in mind that file sizes get gruesome when you hop into the deep end of the pixel pool.


And here I was calling SeanD a beaker yesterday, LOL!

[Islandrider]

ive noticed that my 2 MP Canon is better quality than some 4 MP cameras. Does Canon measure thier megapixels differently?

[scottvelez]

Originally posted by eeyun
D'oh. I know that now :( I wish I'd known that when I bought my camera!

heh.. heh.. heh.. I've been saying the same thing over and over for years... how come nobody ever listens to me?? ;-)

scott

[Loopie]

I'm with BF on this one:)

[g1mpy]

fuck theres no aliens... thats shitty...

[MiKeY]

So Scott I'm curious about something then. My girlfriends pretty big into photography, and wants to get the Canon Rebel Digital, she's already got the Canon rebel SLR equivalent, but wants the digital camera for the fact that she doesn't need the film. She's already got two other lenses (I believe ones 300mm and ones 100mm or something). So she's already got some nice lenses and shit, but is it even worth it to buy the digital body? Because from what you're saying, and what the article says what I can gather is that the digital body with 5.0 megapixels or whatever it is, will only end up giving her crappier quality images, and she's planning on dishing out big dollars for the camera so if it wouldn't even be worth it then I want to try to discourage her from it.

[BullitBomb]

fuck theres no aliens... thats shitty...


baahahah tru dat....maybe they are on the other side??'

Love this remote sensing stuff.

[fergs]

Originally posted by MiKeY
So Scott I'm curious about something then. My girlfriends pretty big into photography, and wants to get the Canon Rebel Digital, she's already got the Canon rebel SLR equivalent, but wants the digital camera for the fact that she doesn't need the film. She's already got two other lenses (I believe ones 300mm and ones 100mm or something). So she's already got some nice lenses and shit, but is it even worth it to buy the digital body? Because from what you're saying, and what the article says what I can gather is that the digital body with 5.0 megapixels or whatever it is, will only end up giving her crappier quality images, and she's planning on dishing out big dollars for the camera so if it wouldn't even be worth it then I want to try to discourage her from it.


It's worth it if she doesn't plan on needing film anymore. One point that has probably been lost somewhere in this thread is that the manufacturing cost for creating a sensor like the one used in the camera on the Mars rover is well beyond what a pro-sumer would be willing to pay. The sensors in decent cameras today are sufficient for a lot of things, but it's best for you to be the judge:


http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/downloads/fruits.jpg

[MiKeY]

Thanks Fergs. I think she plans on using film occasionally for the more important pictures, but she wants digital so that she can tell when she's gotten a good shot or not. She wants to come out and shoot a lot more of my riding, but doesn't want the costs of the film and stuff to be a big bother, so I think that's one reason she wants the digi.

[Chump]

That is a really cool read. Thank god for the Photo gurus here you learn something new everyday!

Steve

[scottvelez]

Originally posted by MiKeY
So she's already got some nice lenses and shit, but is it even worth it to buy the digital body? Because from what you're saying, and what the article says what I can gather is that the digital body with 5.0 megapixels or whatever it is, will only end up giving her crappier quality images

Not necessarily. Digital can provide some nice images, but like fergs said, you don't get something for nothing. The NASA stuff may only be 1MP, but it's a damn fine 1MP and costs way more than you or I would ever spend!! If you want the really good stuff, you have to pay.

For example, do not expect a $600 4mp camera to produce the same kinds of images as the Nikon $4000 2.7mp camera does. It just isn't possible. Probably the best way to explain it is to compare digital cameras to home stereos. You can buy a 800 Watt system for $179 at Canadian Tire, or a 250 Watt system for $8000.... what do you think will sound better? Sure, the 800 Watt $179 system provides more bragging rights when you're talking to your friends, but *everyone* also knows it sounds like shit ;-)

Anyway, back to photography.

Manufactures push megapixels because the consumers tend to base their buying decision on the megapixels and nothing else.
e.g. Company A has a very good quality 3MP camera.
Company B has a shitty quality, tuperware body and a Twist Tie strap with 5MP.
Which one do you think people buy? ;-)
Most people do not base their buying decision on quality. They only base it on the number of megapixels, so manufactures would be stupid to product high quality, low megapixel cameras. They make more profit pushing low quality, high megapixel cameras!! Not only do they cost less to produce, people buy more of them! It's a win-win for the camera companies.

It's not the number of pixels that really matter, it's the size of the individual photosites. The smaller the photosites, the more 'noise' they generate. More noise, less color fidelity and more limits on the high ISO settings. Small point and shoot cameras rarely have ISO values above 400 or 800 because the image quality starts to suck so bad. Digital SLRs usually have a larger sensor, larger photosites and are less susceptible to noise - all of which provides a better quality image.

Read http://www.pctechguide.com/19digcam.htm for some more info.

Digital cameras are great, just don't expect everything for nothing. The digital Rebel is basically a 10D with some firmware changes that limit features. The important thing is the sensor and the associated electronics which are basically unchanged from the 10D. For $1500, it's a good deal. Way better than spending $1000 on a point and shoot where you have a small sensor and can't change lenses.

Hope that makes sense. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so I may have left something out. see ya.

scott