(Hasselblad H3DII-50MS Pictured)

It’s an on-going question, how many megapixels do you need?  Everyone has their own opinion on the matter.  Some say, it’s all in the optics.  Others say the more megapixels the better picture quality.  Like many actual truths, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Let’s make this clear.  I’m not a fan of folks claiming higher megapixels equate to better image quality.  There are even those who make the huge leap by saying having a camera with more MP’s actually makes for a better photographer.

I say what a bunch of hooey!  Photography, like many art forms, is a mix of practice, eye, and talent.  For a geek like me, the two great fun parts of photography are the practice and knowing that you can use the same equipment as the pros.  Sure, I can get a top of the line Nikon or an awesome Sigma camera just like the pros, but can I afford one is a totally different matter.

So let’s go ahead break apart the MP question from myth and reality.

Answer this question:  What’s the best camera available?

Give up?  It’s not a Big Red, Sigma, Nikon, or Canon (okay, I’ll throw Sony/Minolta into that mix).  It’s mother nature.  That’s right, your own eye.  Nature got it right for us the first time.  And here’s where the MP myth begins to fall apart.

You’ll hear sales people tell you, oh yeah, this camera right here take great crystal clear images just like what you see with your own eye.

Really? Hmm…so how many MP’s does your eye have then?

A few folks have applied some seriously good logic and reasoning to determine that the human eye actually has the equivalent of 576MP.  That’s right…5-7-6.  You probably have a 5, 7, or 6 megapixel camera in your pocket, but 576?  Some of the best DSLR’s out there have 22-25MP.  You’d need 20+ to just equal the resolution that you perceive everyday.

I’ve also heard people tell you, this camera takes better than film resolution.  Let’s look at that shall we?

Same logic being applied here, but you’ll find the answer pretty accurate.  Almost all professional photographers pretty much agree that conventaional 35mm film is somewhere in the 22-25 MP.

Even better resolution in older cameras still.  The ones taken using photographic plates.  Compare today’s cameras which have max resolutions on their CCD’s/CMOS chips of something around 9000×9000 pixels, and photographic plates still provide better resolution.  So much so, that today people doing surveys or applications where higher resolution is required use multiple CCD’s in an array to come close to old school photographic plates.

So how many MP’s do you really need?

If you’re gunning for human eye, then 576MP’s.  Can’t afford that?  Then something in the 22-25MP range will run you $1200-$3000+.

The best advice I’ve ever gotten is to buy the best that you can reasonably afford.  Obviously, we can’t all spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment, but sometimes a few hundred (more like $150-$200) will be more than enough.

In that range, you’re looking at 7-12MPs.  Don’t be fooled into thinking that the pocket camera you’re buying with 12MP’s is going to take as clear a shot a DSLR like a Nikon D-80 (clocking in at 10MP’s).  The difference here is the optics.  The lens on Nikon is just going to be better.  It’s larger diameter allows more light to be captured in a single shutter snap, as well the overall quality of glass and sensor being used, will provide a better quality image.

As with anything digital, quality isn’t always in the hardware.  It’s important to recognize the source of your shot, garbage in-garbage out.

Wow…that’s a lot of considerations, but there’s a lot that goes into taking a really good quality photo.  Much more than I’ve laid out for you.  In my opinion, a pocket camera that’s reasonably priced will get the job done for the average consumer 99% of the time.  A nice prosumer camera with good optics and nice zoom capabilities, will do it 99% of the time for folks that aren’t really sure about a DSLR, but want something better than average.  If you belong in the next class up beyond that and can swing it, go for it.

There are plenty of great entry level DSLR’s out there that are priced really well and come with a decent kit lens.  But, know that if you go into DSLR land, you’re not going to get zoom or some of the wide angle features on a pocket camera.  You’ll be paying extra for those lenses.

The higher MP count will certainly provide your photos with better overall clarity and the images will be much sharper if you intend on blowing something up or future editing.  Take a look at the following four samples.  I’ve provided some zoomed in pictures as reference.  In the first shot, you can make out a parking garage for bicycles.  Zoomed in the bikes become even more visible and it’s also apparent there’s a little boat tour going on under the bridge too.  This is Amsterdam, right outside Central Station.  And who knows what’s going on there.

Definitely some quality issues when zoomed in.

The next pairing shows TRU in Times Square, the giant ferris wheel should give it away.  Zoomed in, you can make out the NFL display and people looking at the display, along with a very visible female employee right above them.  The clarity is much better and sharper.

The first two pairings were taken with a pocket 2MP camera, Minolta Dimage series.  The second pairing was taken with a Sony 5MP, DSC-F717.  One that I still love and use actively today.  Much better picture quality, but it’s not just MP’s here.

The 5MP shots were taken with UV and Polarizing filters and lens the Sony is a Carl-Zeiss.

Optics here play a huge part in better picture quality.  All four shots, I took my time in composing and setting up.  I’m no pro, but I’m pretty pleased with the pictures that I took.  Of course, what you don’t see are the 5-10 shots of each scene that were just utter garbage.

Would a higher MP count camera take better pictures?  Maybe and maybe not.  Like the old addage goes, guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people.  The best camera in the world isn’t going to take away from an enthusiast or a professional taking the time to compose and take the shot to provide you with the image of what they’re seeing.

What photography is about is art.  If you have a good eye and tweak the camera and understand lighting and how it’s captured, then fantastic you’ll take good pictures some of the time and great pictures once in a while.  For us, we’ll just get lucky by taking a whole lot of shots.  Digital is great for that.  Doesn’t cost you anything to look at the 100’s of shots you’ve taken.  Where film, it does.

Back when analog photography was prohitbitively expensive, it really was appreciated as fine art.  No one really understood it, except maybe the photographer, but it wasn’t just about taking the shot and moving on.  It was much more.  It was about how you mix chemicals to develop the film, and what you mix and treat the film with.  Make a mistake here and there, and you’ve created something you might not even want to wallpaper with.  It was and continues to be serious stuff.

Above all else though, photography is an art.  Having the right equipment will increase your chances of capturing a stunning image, but you won’t take a breath-taking picture everytime.  It’s just the way things are.  Even pros take multiple shots of the same scene to get it exactly right.  Of course, when all else fails there’s photoshop to help you out.

Look, I’m not saying a $50 5MP camera from Toy-R-Us will be taking the next Pulitzer Prize winner. Chances for that are pretty slim, but it could happen.  What I am saying is that 9 times out of 10, you don’t need to be spending $1,200 on a 15MP camera to take a really good picture and one you’re really really happy with.

(Editor’s note: However, this blog would be extremely grateful if someone at Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji Film, or Sigma sent us a really high MP camera to test and review for them)

For some awesome reviews of cameras, check out one of our favorite sites:  www.dpreview.com

Share on Facebook