# Megapixels



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

I hate to admit it but I am one of those poor deluded photographers that thought more Megapixels meant a better depth of resolution when taking photo's .. only to find out last night that the difference is really just the picture size.

I thought that I would be able to get better shots of lit up buildings at night only to find out that there is very little difference in the way that the picture appears between my 4.3 & 10.2 megapixel cameras .

Don't think I a not happy with my new point and shoot, I am extremely happy, in fact I'm over the moon. I am just realising though that somewhere along the line I have misunderstood some basics ..

Megapixels decide just how large your picture will be

Having a faster iso means that you have more chance of getting those dark shots without a tripod or freeze fast moving subjects at daytime.

My 4.3 megapixel allows me to zoom in "close" at x3 magnification whilst the x3 mg on the 10.2, due to a larger picture size, means that I get a closer shot but not as much of the subject (at the same distance) fills the screen. 

I have just realised that using the zoom will give me a better rendering on the 4.3 because I have more of the screen filled with a lighted subject. In comparison the 4.3 does better than the 10.2 since the latter has less subject in the picture. this means that the problems I had with overexposed lit subjects on a night background are still present with my new camera .. only now I don't have enough zoom to perhaps take many pictures and stitch them together to make one .. 

Example 1 showing the differnce in size between a 4.3 megapixal photo and a 10.2 (on 5MB limit picture size) both pictures resized to 1024x768.

*Nikon Coolpix 4300 (4.3 Megapixels)*










*Sony DSC-TX5 (10.2 Megapixels )*










The second picture, in reality, is much larger than the first and the content can be seen to hold the same scene as the first picture whilst encompassing a greater area, ie more of the LIVE SCENE has been captured in the second photo because of the larger scanning area.

As far as light content is concerned .. 

*Nikon 4300 *










*Sony DSC-TX5*










In the second picture I may have been using zoom .. I forgot to note it.
Colouring between the photo's is very similar and I have better definition (possibly because using the zoom) of the Acropolis and the columns.

*Nikon 4300 *










*Sony DSC-TX5*










The above shots show the difference in how much of the scene is captured, shows the effect of "over-exposure" on brightly lit parts of scenes and gives a good comparison of what to expect from reasonable quality point & shoot cameras. 

Here are some differences using the zoom on the brightly lit area of the Acropolis ..

*Nikon 4300 *










*Sony DSC-TX5*










The difference in colours is more to do with the area being sensed for exposure than the camera's ability to capture the scene, especially when considering that I had to hold both cameras steady, above head height, on railings to take the photo's. The Nikon has a wider base than the Sony which is quite slim, adding other difficulties.

The rendering of the brightly lit areas in the two pictures is comparable and the faster 3200 iso of the Sony obviously helps take a clearer picture . the Nikon photo was taken at iso 400 f=4.9 , 2 sec's whilst the Sony was iso 3200, f=4.6, 1/6 second.

at max zoom the Nikon gave this nice result .. unfortunately, I didn't take the same shot with the Sony .. something else I need to go back & do ..










I started to take a panorama with zoom but my hands became too tired to hold the camera still (must finish off my projects for clamps !!! and external battery power) and these photo's also appear to support my theory that colouring has more to do with where the sensor falls rather than the cameras ability to capture the colours.

*Nikon Coolpix 4300*



















then I couldn't hold steady and lost my anchor point ... :upset:










It's quite obvious to me that the Sony is a great addition to my gear and the photo's above are just a taster of what is to come .. however the Nikon isn't obsolete yet since the photo's prove that with the right accessories it's still a damn good toy.

I only wish I had (someone with) a DSLR too, in order to take similar photo's of similar areas on the same evening and compare the results ..

Final shots for comparison .. ideally all the photo's should have been taken using a tripod and quickfit bases, something that I must do next time I go out with BOTH cameras, ensuring that the tripod stays in the same place and only the camera pops in and out .. 

*Nikon 4300 *










*Sony DSC-TX5*


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

That's one of the things I picked up on, when I was reviewing the different cameras prior to selecting my new Fuji Finepix'. Fuji have given up designing higher-pixel sensors, opting to develop the lens-mechanisms and electronics instead.

Some very good comparisons there DF, well done ray:


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

you are essentially correct in saying increased MP only gives you larger pictures 

What you may find though, as you go with newer cameras as they go up in MP size (and cost) they quite often use better quality lenses so images may be sharper and suffer less distortion and colour aberration. Also the more expensive the cameras get the more features they have to allow you more control over the images you make - some will have aperture controls, ISO controls and possibly shutter speed as well. 
The other feature the more expensive P&S cameras (as well as DSLR's) have is much better choice of picture quality - which is usually (particularly so in DSLR's) compression settings - the amount your jpeg's are being compressed in camera. This allows for a second way (the first is resolution - pixel dimensions) of controlling image quality and also file size - how many images fit on a card.
Check that you have your camera set to its highest settings in both pixel dimensions and quality/compression - they never are the default settings :laugh:


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

Will the Sony save the images in the Raw format?
I don't believe the Nikon will but without the jpeg compression you may get even more definition from the final images.


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

wrench97 said:


> Will the Sony save the images in the Raw format?
> I don't believe the Nikon will but without the jpeg compression you may get even more definition from the final images.



From what I have seen so far Sony don't give that option .. There is a mod that I picked up on some time back to "tweak" the firmware on the Nikon and allow it to save in RAW format .. however with a max of 2GB usable space on a CF card, I figured that the card might fill up quickly. There is also the problem that if anything goes wrong whilst tweaking the camera's firmware, I would end up with good memories and no camera.

I'm still learning the new camera, I am very pleased with it but, as with the Nikon, it will be a few months before I have played sufficiently enough as to know what it;s good & bad points are. 


As said above, I came to the conclusion that all the money is in the lenses and mechanisms for taking the shots. The higher megapixels allow for more information as surface area to be stored in a photo, the iso allows a better quality shot to be taken at "faster slow speeds". 

Definitely better pictures being taken, just need more accessories to assist taking the photo's .. :laugh:


----------

