12-megapixel pictures as sharp when enlarged as 18-meg pictures?

On 2012-06-16 10:53 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
I came across a Web site that implies that a 12-megapixel camera
(such as the Canon Power Shot SX260 HS) can take pictures that are as
sharp as cameras with higher resolutions.

Is this true?

On the Pocketlint.com Web site
(http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/58...-camera-review)
in the "Mega Megapixels?" section, it says:

"With the megapixel race reaching new heights in recent releases,
it’s interesting to see Canon pop a 12.1-megapixel sensor into the
SX260 HS. And if that doesn’t sound particularly high in resolution
then, well, that’s ‘cos it’s not.

"But for good reason: the more conservative number of pixels on the
sensor surface means that more light can reach each of those pixel
and, in turn, you ought to get better image quality thanks to a
better source signal. Add to this that the sensor’s wiring is to the
back of the construction - known as "back-illuminated" - and there’s
an extra brownie point on the imaging front."

And then in the "Verdict" section, the review again implies that the
Canon camera' 12-megapixel resolution gives pictures as sharp as
cameras with higher resolutions:

"But image quality is among the best you’ll find in such a camera.
The decision to use a lower resolution 12.1-megapixel sensor pays in
bucket loads: shots are sharp and the conservative ISO 100-3200 range
is useable throughout. There’s some chromatic aberration in shots,
but otherwise the punchy colours and decent exposures are tip top and
are the camera's biggest attraction."

I'm considering buying the 18-megapixel Sony Cyber Shot HX20V to get
pictures that are sharper than the 12-megapixel Canon Power Shot
A1200 that I now use, and I don't see the benefit of trading one
12-megapixel camera to buy another 12-megapixel camera.

It seems to me that an 18-megapixel camera should give sharper
pictures when the pictures are enlarged than either my current Canon
A1200 or the Canon Power Shot SXs60 HS who's review I quoted from
above.

A lot of things contribute to the quality of an image - just as a lot of
things contribute to a reduction in quality.

When camera makers attempt to run up pixel counts, esp. on sensors that
are pretty small, the noise increases at each site and subtracts from
the quality.

Further, the difference in resolution between a 12 and 18 Mpix camera is
not all that much - the difference in their square roots - so about 22%
"better" resolution in the 18 Mpix. Then reduce that by the increased
noise (less easy to specify) of the 18 Mpix. Not enough to worry about
- it would not show in any print up to 15 x 10 inches, never mind screen
displays.

All other things being equal (and they are close), given the choice with
those sensor sizes, I'd definitely opt for the 12 Mpix camera. The Sony
does have some small advantages (slightly faster lens (f/n) and higher
ISO capability) but they might not add up to much in the end. The Canon
has a higher shutter speed - not likely important though.

Also look at the lens characteristics. Which is faster (the f/n) where
n being as small as possible is desirable). Zoom ratio. A very high
zoom ratio (optical) should be looked on as something that will soften
images (typically at the long end). The 20x zoom of these compacts
seems suspicious to me. (as a reference "professional" zooms on SLR's
are typically less than 3x though some go a little further). But as
they're both the same in that respect it's a wash.

I suggest you look at dpreview as well to get more information before
you buy. It has a side-by-side mode that is useful in fleshing out
advantages of one or the other.

And note that my cameras are Sony (ex-Minolta) but in your case I'd lean
to the Canon unless I saw factual evidence of better results with the Sony.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-16 13:51 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
Thanks, Alan and Bruce.

On digitalversus.com
(http://www.digitalversus.com/digital...sus-table.html)

The Sony 18-megapixle (Cyber-shot HX20V got a five-star rating.

The Canon 12-megapixel (Powershot SX260 HS) got a four-star rating.

A bit odd considering the negatives they point out wrt the Sony.

That's not a site I know - I'd rather use dpreview - it may be biased
but at least the bias is relatively clear.

And the Canon Powershot A1200 that I use now got a two-star rating.

I want a compact, lightweight digital camera with at least ten times
optical zoom and that gives sharper pictures because some of my
customers complain that some of my enlargements that I made with my
Canon A1200 are too fuzzy.

"Fuzzy" ness may come from things other than the camera - that is to say
technique.

If you are making photos for customers you should consider a more
appropriate camera with a larger sensor:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/10/07/sensorsizes

In a nutshell, the larger the sensor the better for a given number of
pixels.

Consider even a DSLR with an APS-C sensor. Even with a "cheap" 10:1
zoom it should outshine any of the cameras you mention.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-16 14:36 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:


That's not a site I know - I'd rather use dpreview - it may be
biased but at least the bias is relatively clear.

DP Review doesn't mention the sensor size when I compare
side-by-side.
(http://www.dpreview.com/products/com...Dir=ascending).

It certainly does give sensor sizes in the side-by-side. It's near the
bottom of the "Sensor" section on a line called "Sensor Size".

All three of those cameras are ' 1/2.3" ' (6.17 x 4.55 mm)


Consider even a DSLR with an APS-C sensor. Even with a "cheap"
10:1 zoom it should outshine any of the cameras you mention.

Such as? Remember, I'm looking for a compact, lightweight camera
that gives pictures much sharper than the Canon A1200 camera I have
now, has at least ten times optical zoom and costs no more than
$400.

Understood - however you said your customers complained about your fuzzy
images. That could be technique and it could be camera performance.

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you to look beyond your
stated needs - just in case.

(I have a Canon Powershot SXis20, but the camera is it's so big and
heavy I'm too lazy to carry it around with me and therefore I keep on
losing photo ops, so the size and lightness are priorities for me (as
well as ease of use 'cause I'm not good at technical things).

Those are good enough reasons - unless your customers keep complaining.


Thanks for the reference page about sensors. I printed the page for
reference.

Why print it? Just bookmark it.



--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-16 14:59 , Robert Montgomery wrote:

Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?

I could but I don't know offhand which ones meet your zoom needs.

The Nikon CoolPix P7100 is slightly larger, and 7.1x zoom. A little
over your budget. 10 Mpix

The Canon Powershot GX 1 is excellent. But about double your budget
(also only a 4x zoom).

The Sony DSC-RX100 is very nice. less than $800. 3.6x zoom.

My advice is you get to dpreview and hunt.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-16 14:49 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
What? The sensor sizes of all three cameras I'm comparing are the same!

Put another way, it means the Sony packs more pixels per mm^2, meaning
the noise may be higher.


(ensor size: 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm)).

I'm still confused. How can I tell which camera will make clearer, sharper, less fuzzy enlargements?

I'd say the difference between the 18 Mpix Sony and 12 Mpix Canon are
probably not perceptible in general use. You could probably print to
15x10 inches with both and get the same result.

Me? I'd opt for the 12 Mpix Canon even though I'm a "Sony" user for DSLR's.


The Sony does have some nice "other" features, such as automatic
panorama capture and "3D".

It also can focus closer if you want to photograph small objects.

And it has a higher ISO range for photography in darker situations.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-16 11:36:14 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-06-16 13:51 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
Thanks, Alan and Bruce.

On digitalversus.com
(http://www.digitalversus.com/digital...89-12945-versu
s-table.html)

The Sony 18-megapixle (Cyber-shot HX20V got a five-star rating.

The Canon 12-megapixel (Powershot SX260 HS) got a four-star rating.


That's not a site I know - I'd rather use dpreview - it may be biased
but at least the bias is relatively clear.

DP Review doesn't mention the sensor size when I compare side-by-side. (htt
p://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_sx260hs
&products=sony_dschx20v&products=canon_a1200&sortD ir=ascending).

Consider even a DSLR with an APS-C sensor. Even with a "cheap" 10:1
zoom it should outshine any of the cameras you mention.

Such as? Remember, I'm looking for a compact, lightweight camera that give
s pictures much sharper than the Canon A1200 camera I have now, has at leas
t ten times optical zoom and costs no more than $400.

You are looking for a $1 tool to do a $100 job.
A budget entry level DSLR is going to do the job for you, but you are
"Big" averse.

If you want a reasonable compact to get good reasonably sharp results
going to a high MP sensor is not your answer. I would suggest looking
for a used Canon G11/G12, the Canon S100, the new G1X with a larger
sensor is going to be twice your price limit.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/can...acts/canon_g11
http://www.dpreview.com/products/can...acts/canon_g12
http://www.dpreview.com/products/can...cts/canon_s100

A used G11, or used or new G12 is going to give you quality images with
10MP which you will be able to get nice 13x19 prints for less than your
$400 limit.

http://www.keh.com/search?store=came...price=0&r=SE&e

or
http://tinyurl.com/6sw8g8c

Here are some of my 10MP G11 images the first is full size and the rest
are resized for web viewing.
#1 is 4500x3375 and reduced to 3.3 MB
http://db.tt/vEhAO8o9
#2 is the same image resized for web at 352 KB 1280x960
http://db.tt/8HXhPs7A
#3 is a tough low light shot 1280x867 @ 281 KB
http://db.tt/aZmJ7702
#4 is just a shot I like 1280x867 @370 KB
http://db.tt/Tyil3Frx
#5 shot with in camera flash 1280x968 @ 275 KB
http://db.tt/gqax6Ero



(I have a Canon Powershot SXis20, but the camera is it's so big and heavy I
'm too lazy to carry it around with me and therefore I keep on losing photo
ops, so the size and lightness are priorities for me (as well as ease of u
se 'cause I'm not good at technical things).

Lazy seems to be your problem here. ;-)


Thanks for the reference page about sensors. I printed the page for refere
nce.

Robert Montgomery


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:59:16 -0700, Robert Montgomery wrote:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:47:50 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-06-16 14:36 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:


It certainly does give sensor sizes in the side-by-side. It's near the
bottom of the "Sensor" section on a line called "Sensor Size".

All three of those cameras are ' 1/2.3" ' (6.17 x 4.55 mm)

Thanks, Alan. I see it now.

Consider even a DSLR with an APS-C sensor. Even with a "cheap" 10:1
zoom it should outshine any of the cameras you mention.

Such as? Remember, I'm looking for a compact, lightweight camera
that gives pictures much sharper than the Canon A1200 camera I have
now, has at least ten times optical zoom and costs no more than $400.

Understood - however you said your customers complained about your
fuzzy images. That could be technique and it could be camera
performance.

I try to hold the A1200 steady, but there's no image stabilization.

Also, some pictures I crop and then blow them up in Photoshop and print
those, so that makes those pictures fuzzy.

(I have a Canon Powershot SXis20, but the camera is it's so big and
heavy I'm too lazy to carry it around with me and therefore I keep on
losing photo ops, so the size and lightness are priorities for me (as
well as ease of use 'cause I'm not good at technical things).

Those are good enough reasons - unless your customers keep complaining.

Thanks for the reference page about sensors. I printed the page for
reference.

Why print it? Just bookmark it.

I made two bookmarks as well (Under Cameras and Photography) but I have
so many bookmarks it may be easier to find the printed page that I put
into one of my binders.

Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?

Robert Montgomery

Have you considered or looked at the Panasonic G3 - it's micro 4/3 and
has gotten good reviews though it's a bit more than you had indicated.

On 2012-06-16 14:00:22 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

Thanks, Alan.

What size of sensor should I look for that would give much sharper pictures
than the ones we've discussed, which are "Sensor size: 1/2.3� (6.17 x 4
.55 mm)".

My advice is you get to dpreview and hunt.

Okay.

And what's an example of a desirable zoom ratio to get sharp photos?

Zoom ratio is not going to get you sharp images. Good technique, a
larger sensor, and good glass will do it. What you really need is to
step up and buy the tools you need. A DSLR, entry level, about 10-12
MP, new or used and some decent glass. If you are going to limit
yourself to $400, you are not going to get the job done without making
some compromises.


A 7.1 times zoom is not enough for me, and $800 is double the maximum I'm p
repared to pay.

Why do you think you need the massive zoom ratio?
What exactly is it you are shooting that you need such a long lens?


I hvae a five times zoom now in the Canon A1200, so it would be a downgrade
to buy a Sony DSC-RX100 with its puny 3.6 times zoom.

Robert

Not necessarily, a greater zoom ratio does not equate to better quality
images. 8-15 times zoom lenses are a compromise and do not always
produce great images. With a compact camera I would stick to the 3.5-5
times zoom range.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?

Also, I've been wondering: if it's sensor size that affects image quality,
why do advertisers advertise the number of megapixels of cameras in their
camera summaries, instead of sensor size?

because most consumers look at the number of megapixels as the sole
metric of quality, not the size of the sensor or anything else about
the camera, such as noise, colour accuracy, lens quality, etc.

On 2012-06-16 14:37:31 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:40:54 PM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-06-16 14:59 , Robert Montgomery wrote:

Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?

Also, I've been wondering: if it's sensor size that affects image
quality, why do advertisers advertise the number of megapixels of
cameras in their camera summaries, instead of sensor size?

Robert

....because the uninformed consumer thinks bigger is better when it
comes to megapixel numbers. It is all marketing. However, having more
megapixels on a small sensor can improve the quality of an image to a
point, beyond which noise becomes problematic. Once you start using
physically larger sensors 4/3, APC-S, or Full Frame, the handicap of
the stuffed small sensor is less problematic.

The questions remain;
What are you shooting that needs this long zoom range?
Are you producing images for web, or print?
If print what is the largest size print you intent to make, and on what
printer?

--
Regards,

Savageduck