This is Steve Jobs were are talking about. I have a feeling he will lead not follow. What if EDGE is like analog roaming, included for where there is no other service. Perhaps he is planing a 4G implementation. From what I read 3G isn't so much high tech as the use of a second line which is too expensive in USA, whereas 4G is new technology. If this is true (please correct me if this is wrong) then it would be par for the course for Steve to use something ahead of the game. I have to assume 4G roll out is coming to the USA since it doesn't require two lines and Europe can upgrade. I have no clue if I am talking crap, it's not my area of expertise but I bet Steve is up to something good.
And you want to talk about "low cost 3G"? I pay under ¥1,000 per month for my 3G SoftBank cell phone now. Free calls to other SoftBank phones within Japan until 9pm. Hard to beat that. In fact, you can only "enhance" that -- with an Apple iPhone. So hopefully Apple will partner with SoftBank and not overpriced Docomo or AU when they do finally decide to make it over here.
Almost a year ago there were widespread rumors of Apple teaming up with SoftBank for the iPhone.
An Apple 3G iPhone is going to be complex because it *should* be able to support 2G when not in 3G areas. This means quad-band 2G GSM and quad-band 3G HSDPA (UMTS) : "HSDPA quad band doesn't mean that phone is a GSM / GPRS / EDGE quad band" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_band )
Wait. There are 3G (UMTS) phones that cannot fallback to a GSM network? I thought every phone did that.
No doubt these prices are the envy of the world. (Or rather will be, as most of you here were not even aware of SoftBank until I mentioned it. But again, that's in part due to Vodafone having been bought out by SoftBank here in Japan not too long ago.)
And for the fellow who is wantiing a 3.2MP camera in his phone, SoftBank offers a model now with 5MP. It's a different world over here.
I can't change my username, and if I could I certainly wouldn't do it for a noob like you.
Bugger!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I take it you are not aware of the Megapixel myth? Well you are a noob.
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Noob is as noob does. I happen to have a deaf freind, and he finds texting quite adequate. He has also told me he thinks video conferencing on a mobile phone is stupid, as like most people. Sitting somewhere in public or standing on the street anywhere talking to your hand is the most ridiculous things ever and the connection is never really as good as is should be. Give me a break you idiot. Thank God Apple had the sense you clearly don't have, otherwise the iPhone would probably be petrol powered too.
What is a noob, what do they look like and what is their normal habitat ? - you have piqued my interest, I shall load some film in anticipation of your reply.
Wrong! - at least talking to your hand there is a recognisable recipient for your conversation - walking around with a blue tooth headset talking to thin air - now that is spooky!
Petrol - you'll be kicking yourself if Apple start using a micro fuel cell powered with butane.
I'll give you a break when you stop, directly or by implication, deriding and belittling people who might have a desire and use for features which you happen not to.
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
What is a noob, what do they look like and what is their normal habitat ? - you have piqued my interest, I shall load some film in anticipation of your reply.
Wrong! - at least talking to your hand there is a recognisable recipient for your conversation - walking around with a blue tooth headset talking to thin air - now that is spooky!
Petrol - you'll be kicking yourself if Apple start using a micro fuel cell powered with butane.
I'll give you a break when you stop, directly or by implication, deriding and belittling people who might have a desire and use for features which you happen not to.
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
They have some hundred years to catch up with the lenses.
Seriously, megapixels are only so useful. Your eyes' effective resolution are not that great, (Can you see the individual pixels on your display from half a metre away? I can't.) so the megapixel are only useful to a certain point. And no one will use a fixed lens phone to shoot larger pictures, since the lens quality sucks, which probably becomes more evident as resolutions increase.
Wait. There are 3G (UMTS) phones that cannot fallback to a GSM network? I thought every phone did that.
GSM and UMTS are different technology. Although most UMTS phones use GSM that's because they have GSM circuitry. DoCoMo phones in Japan only include UMTS (WCDMA) so they're not usable outside Japan except in areas with UMTS coverage in the 2100 MHz band.
On the other hand Softbank phones include tri-band GSM (900, 1800, 1900) so they are usable on those GSM frequencies and the 2100 MHz UMTS band.
UMTS is currently used on the following bands (in either WCDMA or HSDPA fully compatible speeds/technology):
2100 MHz ? Japan, Europe, every other place not specifically mentioned using UMTS.
1700/2100 MHz ?*T-Mobile. Note, not compatible with world 2100 MHz band.
They have some hundred years to catch up with the lenses.
Seriously, megapixels are only so useful. Your eyes' effective resolution are not that great, (Can you see the individual pixels on your display from half a metre away? I can't.) so the megapixel are only useful to a certain point. And no one will use a fixed lens phone to shoot larger pictures, since the lens quality sucks, which probably becomes more evident as resolutions increase.
So, why more megapixel?
Nicely said. Peoples perception of the value of Megapixels when it comes to the quality of a camera's photos is grossly obscured. To give anyone who reads this an example, I had a 5MP camera that got stolen, which took pictures that are clearly better quality than the 10.1MP camera I have now. If the ratio of the iPhones photos was the same as your computers screen, it's quite possible that photos taken with the iPhone would be perfectly usable as quality computer wallpapers for that computer.
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
What is a noob, what do they look like and what is their normal habitat ? - you have piqued my interest, I shall load some film in anticipation of your reply.
Wrong! - at least talking to your hand there is a recognisable recipient for your conversation - walking around with a blue tooth headset talking to thin air - now that is spooky!
Petrol - you'll be kicking yourself if Apple start using a micro fuel cell powered with butane.
I'll give you a break when you stop, directly or by implication, deriding and belittling people who might have a desire and use for features which you happen not to.
nice
i thought a noob is something u you put on a sprout
They have some hundred years to catch up with the lenses.
Seriously, megapixels are only so useful. Your eyes' effective resolution are not that great, (Can you see the individual pixels on your display from half a metre away? I can't.) so the megapixel are only useful to a certain point. And no one will use a fixed lens phone to shoot larger pictures, since the lens quality sucks, which probably becomes more evident as resolutions increase.
So, why more megapixel?
i'm a shutter bug, i take hundreds of photos every holiday, the more megs i capture the better the quality of zoomed in and cropped photos, and i can enlarge em too.
Wait. There are 3G (UMTS) phones that cannot fallback to a GSM network? I thought every phone did that.
Yeah, I guess I was being a little silly. Apple would have to massively frack-up to release a 3G-only with no 2G GSM fallback iPhone. Not out of the realm of Apple, they could be like, WTF, you've got 3G and WiFi, that's ENOUGH!!
But yeah, that's unlikely. The point I guess I was trying to make is, GSM quadband 2.xG with EDGE, the phone will then have to include, for 3G, quad-band 3G (UMTS) as well. On top of WiFi and Bluetooth.
My SonyEricsson v600i has only 2100 UMTS 3G support (Vodafone Australia) though where I am now, outside Australia, I am signed on to the network only on the fallback tri-band GSM. You can't believe how long the battery is lasting now that I am not on a 3G network. 5x longer at least.
But my global roaming is limited, because it is only tri-band 2.xG GSM GPRS/EDGE and 3G 2100 UMTS.
I do sincerely hope, and I think Apple will deliver, a full global spec 3G iPhone for outside the US, which will be quad-band UMTS 3G on top of the quad-band GSM. Also saves the headache of having to have different models for all the different 3G bands outside the US.
Within the US I think look to see rev.A iPhone operate pretty much exclusively 2.xG GSM + EDGE on AT&T/Cingular for mid-2007 to mid-2008. The US can get away with this because rather than 3G, WiFi access is very very well covered for a ton of US cities, offices, homes, cafes, public areas, etc... though of course WiFi is not always free in public hotspots.
With UK + Western Europe, 3G would be well established so quad-band UMTS 3G with specific/ more than one(?) carriers per country would be the go there.
For Asia Pacific, mainly Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore, Australia (ok, and New Zealand) again hopefully Apple's Europe 3G iPhone can work in all these locales as well, because 3G is a major push in these countries especially from the start of 2008.
Nicely said. Peoples perception of the value of Megapixels when it comes to the quality of a camera's photos is grossly obscured. To give anyone who reads this an example, I had a 5MP camera that got stolen, which took pictures that are clearly better quality than the 10.1MP camera I have now. If the ratio of the iPhones photos was the same as your computers screen, it's quite possible that photos taken with the iPhone would be perfectly usable as quality your computer wallpaper pictures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iconsumer
i'm a shutter bug, i take hundreds of photos every holiday, the more megs i capture the better the quality of zoomed in and cropped photos, and i can enlarge em too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
So, why more megapixel?
It's a mixture of factors. Firstly is marketing. 6 megapixels at $399 looks like a better deal than 5 megapixels at $399.
Secondly, as iConsumer mentions, it *is* better to have more megapixels because (a) your enlargements will be clearer and (b) you can crop to a smaller portion of a picture and still have decent resolution.
Thirdly, the caveat as Ireland mentioned is, megapixels is only one part of the story. You have to look at the quality of the CCD, the quality of the pictures, and the quality of the lenses and imagery as seen through the final RAW/JPEG stuff.
There's also the "ISO" issue which is very touchy/ dodgy because cameras can claim to have "ISO 400" or even "ISO 800" but you get a ton of digital noise in dark scenes.
Also again, "B mode" does not work well in CCDs, again depending on the camera engine etc. because instead of collecting more light the CCD can end up collecting more electronic noise.
For consumers, basically they're after compactness, optical stabilisation, good megapixel count (marketing thing), and good optical zoom. Beyond that they can't really tell the quality of the imagery.
For prosumers and enthusiasts, up to the pro level, what's important is a high level of megapixels for as iConsumer said, cropping, blowing up to large prints, high-resolution sources for graphic design work, plus good CCD + digital engine, good lens options, dust-elimination, optical stabilisation, for digital SLRs. Also colouration and white balance control is very important for digital SLRs. I just can't stand the typical "harsh white and blue-ish" look of consumer digicams. What happened to film grain, film stock, colour variations, fine subtle colour "looks" and all that with the 35mm film SLRs? Yes, the high-end digitalSLRs have these areas covered. Still a big gap in price compared to consumer stuff.</rambling>
I wish it was shot at 7.2 megs or more so i could zoom in and see the clear winner
but then again cell phones are a different kettle of chips
The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.
With more MP you will take a larger picture but that does not automatically translate into a picture with more sharpness or detail. You need a proper lens that can resolve that detail and digital processing that can maintain that detail.
MP numbers don't linearly translate as to what is better or worse. Two sensors with the same number of pixels don't necessarily provide the same quality.
The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.
Respectfully, this is almost entirely untrue.
While each pixel records less incident light in a higher-megapixel camera, the sensor as a whole picks up just as much light. At small sizes, the noise is irrelevant. At large sizes, more detail will always trump a blurry image, even if that detail does have some noticeable noise.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "faster lenses" and how they're relevant here. Are you referring to shutter speed?
Digital processing can only go so far: you can't make up information. Cameras (afaik) already filter out "dark noise" (noise caused because sensors pick up heat as well as light). The only other significant noise is photon noise, which is unavoidable—light is chaotic.
Quote:
With more MP you will take a larger picture but that does not automatically translate into a picture with more sharpness or detail. You need a proper lens that can resolve that detail and digital processing that can maintain that detail.
Even cheap plastic lenses have quite a bit of resolving power. That said, in the short term, lenses will always be sharper than the sensor.
You're right about the digital processing, at least on cellphones. I'm always pissed off that my RAZR decides to save all photos with the lossiest, blockiest JPEG compression possible.
Quote:
MP numbers don't linearly translate as to what is better or worse. Two sensors with the same number of pixels don't necessarily provide the same quality.
Sort of. You're right in general, that megapixels are really only one element of what makes a good camera (hopefully dynamic range will be next).
However, more megapixels, properly handled for in terms of lenses and processing, is always better, unless file size is an issue.
While this line of discussion is quickly getting off-topic, I will say this: most digital "consumer level" cameras are junk. I've not seen a serious competitor to my Canon PowerShot G5 to date, and the G5 is far from new! The manufacturers are putting out the first technology the see to grab dollars. They are not putting out better quality. They keep adding more MP's to tiny little CCD's. The average consumer is mislead in thinking this is better than older cameras, so they shell out the cash. I've got friends here in Japan that shell out the cash for almost every new model of a given brand they like, but the quality isn't getting better despite those pixels and fancy NR engines. The solution is NOT better processing to filter the noise, nor is a better lens. The solution is a bigger CCD -- which is what the pro cameras have. This is why a 5MP cell phone is largely irrelevant to me. The CCD is so tiny anyway, by the time you get to 5MP or higher, you lose pixel data to noise. For more information on the subject, direct your browser to the following site:
The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.
With more MP you will take a larger picture but that does not automatically translate into a picture with more sharpness or detail. You need a proper lens that can resolve that detail and digital processing that can maintain that detail.
MP numbers don't linearly translate as to what is better or worse. Two sensors with the same number of pixels don't necessarily provide the same quality.
yes yes , we all know that more mp's doesn't necessarily mean better quality photos,
BUT IT USUALLY DOES
camera manufactures are always improving their products,
so mp's go up
data transfer rate goes up
sensor density goes up
features go up
etc etc
i see an improvement in mp's (which is the only advertised measure of it's " performance ") and know that there are improvements to handle the extra megs
Comments
This is Steve Jobs were are talking about. I have a feeling he will lead not follow. What if EDGE is like analog roaming, included for where there is no other service. Perhaps he is planing a 4G implementation. From what I read 3G isn't so much high tech as the use of a second line which is too expensive in USA, whereas 4G is new technology. If this is true (please correct me if this is wrong) then it would be par for the course for Steve to use something ahead of the game. I have to assume 4G roll out is coming to the USA since it doesn't require two lines and Europe can upgrade. I have no clue if I am talking crap, it's not my area of expertise but I bet Steve is up to something good.
And you want to talk about "low cost 3G"? I pay under ¥1,000 per month for my 3G SoftBank cell phone now. Free calls to other SoftBank phones within Japan until 9pm. Hard to beat that. In fact, you can only "enhance" that -- with an Apple iPhone. So hopefully Apple will partner with SoftBank and not overpriced Docomo or AU when they do finally decide to make it over here.
Almost a year ago there were widespread rumors of Apple teaming up with SoftBank for the iPhone.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...e.html?RSS=RSS
It's all over the internets.
An Apple 3G iPhone is going to be complex because it *should* be able to support 2G when not in 3G areas. This means quad-band 2G GSM and quad-band 3G HSDPA (UMTS) : "HSDPA quad band doesn't mean that phone is a GSM / GPRS / EDGE quad band" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_band )
Wait. There are 3G (UMTS) phones that cannot fallback to a GSM network? I thought every phone did that.
http://mb.softbank.jp/mb/en/price_plan/
No doubt these prices are the envy of the world. (Or rather will be, as most of you here were not even aware of SoftBank until I mentioned it. But again, that's in part due to Vodafone having been bought out by SoftBank here in Japan not too long ago.)
And for the fellow who is wantiing a 3.2MP camera in his phone, SoftBank offers a model now with 5MP. It's a different world over here.
I can't change my username, and if I could I certainly wouldn't do it for a noob like you.
Bugger!
I take it you are not aware of the Megapixel myth? Well you are a noob.
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
Noob is as noob does. I happen to have a deaf freind, and he finds texting quite adequate. He has also told me he thinks video conferencing on a mobile phone is stupid, as like most people. Sitting somewhere in public or standing on the street anywhere talking to your hand is the most ridiculous things ever and the connection is never really as good as is should be. Give me a break you idiot. Thank God Apple had the sense you clearly don't have, otherwise the iPhone would probably be petrol powered too.
What is a noob, what do they look like and what is their normal habitat ? - you have piqued my interest, I shall load some film in anticipation of your reply.
Wrong! - at least talking to your hand there is a recognisable recipient for your conversation - walking around with a blue tooth headset talking to thin air - now that is spooky!
Petrol - you'll be kicking yourself if Apple start using a micro fuel cell powered with butane.
I'll give you a break when you stop, directly or by implication, deriding and belittling people who might have a desire and use for features which you happen not to.
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
What is a noob, what do they look like and what is their normal habitat ? - you have piqued my interest, I shall load some film in anticipation of your reply.
Wrong! - at least talking to your hand there is a recognisable recipient for your conversation - walking around with a blue tooth headset talking to thin air - now that is spooky!
Petrol - you'll be kicking yourself if Apple start using a micro fuel cell powered with butane.
I'll give you a break when you stop, directly or by implication, deriding and belittling people who might have a desire and use for features which you happen not to.
Google noob.
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
They have some hundred years to catch up with the lenses.
Seriously, megapixels are only so useful. Your eyes' effective resolution are not that great, (Can you see the individual pixels on your display from half a metre away? I can't.) so the megapixel are only useful to a certain point. And no one will use a fixed lens phone to shoot larger pictures, since the lens quality sucks, which probably becomes more evident as resolutions increase.
So, why more megapixel?
Wait. There are 3G (UMTS) phones that cannot fallback to a GSM network? I thought every phone did that.
GSM and UMTS are different technology. Although most UMTS phones use GSM that's because they have GSM circuitry. DoCoMo phones in Japan only include UMTS (WCDMA) so they're not usable outside Japan except in areas with UMTS coverage in the 2100 MHz band.
On the other hand Softbank phones include tri-band GSM (900, 1800, 1900) so they are usable on those GSM frequencies and the 2100 MHz UMTS band.
UMTS is currently used on the following bands (in either WCDMA or HSDPA fully compatible speeds/technology):
2100 MHz ? Japan, Europe, every other place not specifically mentioned using UMTS.
1700/2100 MHz ?*T-Mobile. Note, not compatible with world 2100 MHz band.
850/1900 MHz ? Cingular and Rogers.
850/1900/2100 MHz ?*Telstra in Australia.
They have some hundred years to catch up with the lenses.
Seriously, megapixels are only so useful. Your eyes' effective resolution are not that great, (Can you see the individual pixels on your display from half a metre away? I can't.) so the megapixel are only useful to a certain point. And no one will use a fixed lens phone to shoot larger pictures, since the lens quality sucks, which probably becomes more evident as resolutions increase.
So, why more megapixel?
Nicely said. Peoples perception of the value of Megapixels when it comes to the quality of a camera's photos is grossly obscured. To give anyone who reads this an example, I had a 5MP camera that got stolen, which took pictures that are clearly better quality than the 10.1MP camera I have now. If the ratio of the iPhones photos was the same as your computers screen, it's quite possible that photos taken with the iPhone would be perfectly usable as quality computer wallpapers for that computer.
Bugger!
You are right, I haven't heard of the myth - do please explain it. I mostly shoot slide film - lots and lots of MP ;-) I have noticed that pro digital cameras are getting more and more of those MP thingies with each iteration - why do they keep doing that?
What is a noob, what do they look like and what is their normal habitat ? - you have piqued my interest, I shall load some film in anticipation of your reply.
Wrong! - at least talking to your hand there is a recognisable recipient for your conversation - walking around with a blue tooth headset talking to thin air - now that is spooky!
Petrol - you'll be kicking yourself if Apple start using a micro fuel cell powered with butane.
I'll give you a break when you stop, directly or by implication, deriding and belittling people who might have a desire and use for features which you happen not to.
nice
i thought a noob is something u you put on a sprout
They have some hundred years to catch up with the lenses.
Seriously, megapixels are only so useful. Your eyes' effective resolution are not that great, (Can you see the individual pixels on your display from half a metre away? I can't.) so the megapixel are only useful to a certain point. And no one will use a fixed lens phone to shoot larger pictures, since the lens quality sucks, which probably becomes more evident as resolutions increase.
So, why more megapixel?
i'm a shutter bug, i take hundreds of photos every holiday, the more megs i capture the better the quality of zoomed in and cropped photos, and i can enlarge em too.
Wait. There are 3G (UMTS) phones that cannot fallback to a GSM network? I thought every phone did that.
Yeah, I guess I was being a little silly. Apple would have to massively frack-up to release a 3G-only with no 2G GSM fallback iPhone. Not out of the realm of Apple, they could be like, WTF, you've got 3G and WiFi, that's ENOUGH!!
But yeah, that's unlikely. The point I guess I was trying to make is, GSM quadband 2.xG with EDGE, the phone will then have to include, for 3G, quad-band 3G (UMTS) as well. On top of WiFi and Bluetooth.
My SonyEricsson v600i has only 2100 UMTS 3G support (Vodafone Australia) though where I am now, outside Australia, I am signed on to the network only on the fallback tri-band GSM. You can't believe how long the battery is lasting now that I am not on a 3G network. 5x longer at least.
But my global roaming is limited, because it is only tri-band 2.xG GSM GPRS/EDGE and 3G 2100 UMTS.
I do sincerely hope, and I think Apple will deliver, a full global spec 3G iPhone for outside the US, which will be quad-band UMTS 3G on top of the quad-band GSM. Also saves the headache of having to have different models for all the different 3G bands outside the US.
Within the US I think look to see rev.A iPhone operate pretty much exclusively 2.xG GSM + EDGE on AT&T/Cingular for mid-2007 to mid-2008. The US can get away with this because rather than 3G, WiFi access is very very well covered for a ton of US cities, offices, homes, cafes, public areas, etc... though of course WiFi is not always free in public hotspots.
With UK + Western Europe, 3G would be well established so quad-band UMTS 3G with specific/ more than one(?) carriers per country would be the go there.
For Asia Pacific, mainly Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore, Australia (ok, and New Zealand) again hopefully Apple's Europe 3G iPhone can work in all these locales as well, because 3G is a major push in these countries especially from the start of 2008.
Give me QuadBand 3G or Give Me Death !!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me..._give_me_death
Nicely said. Peoples perception of the value of Megapixels when it comes to the quality of a camera's photos is grossly obscured. To give anyone who reads this an example, I had a 5MP camera that got stolen, which took pictures that are clearly better quality than the 10.1MP camera I have now. If the ratio of the iPhones photos was the same as your computers screen, it's quite possible that photos taken with the iPhone would be perfectly usable as quality your computer wallpaper pictures.
i'm a shutter bug, i take hundreds of photos every holiday, the more megs i capture the better the quality of zoomed in and cropped photos, and i can enlarge em too.
So, why more megapixel?
It's a mixture of factors. Firstly is marketing. 6 megapixels at $399 looks like a better deal than 5 megapixels at $399.
Secondly, as iConsumer mentions, it *is* better to have more megapixels because (a) your enlargements will be clearer and (b) you can crop to a smaller portion of a picture and still have decent resolution.
Thirdly, the caveat as Ireland mentioned is, megapixels is only one part of the story. You have to look at the quality of the CCD, the quality of the pictures, and the quality of the lenses and imagery as seen through the final RAW/JPEG stuff.
There's also the "ISO" issue which is very touchy/ dodgy because cameras can claim to have "ISO 400" or even "ISO 800" but you get a ton of digital noise in dark scenes.
Also again, "B mode" does not work well in CCDs, again depending on the camera engine etc. because instead of collecting more light the CCD can end up collecting more electronic noise.
For consumers, basically they're after compactness, optical stabilisation, good megapixel count (marketing thing), and good optical zoom. Beyond that they can't really tell the quality of the imagery.
For prosumers and enthusiasts, up to the pro level, what's important is a high level of megapixels for as iConsumer said, cropping, blowing up to large prints, high-resolution sources for graphic design work, plus good CCD + digital engine, good lens options, dust-elimination, optical stabilisation, for digital SLRs. Also colouration and white balance control is very important for digital SLRs. I just can't stand the typical "harsh white and blue-ish" look of consumer digicams. What happened to film grain, film stock, colour variations, fine subtle colour "looks" and all that with the 35mm film SLRs? Yes, the high-end digitalSLRs have these areas covered. Still a big gap in price compared to consumer stuff.</rambling>
I agree
eh.. it looks like a photo finish, can't really tell though cause its blurry,
i wish it was shot at 7.2 megs or more so i could zoom in and see the clear winner
but then again cell phones are a different kettle of chips
I wish it was shot at 7.2 megs or more so i could zoom in and see the clear winner
but then again cell phones are a different kettle of chips
The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.
With more MP you will take a larger picture but that does not automatically translate into a picture with more sharpness or detail. You need a proper lens that can resolve that detail and digital processing that can maintain that detail.
MP numbers don't linearly translate as to what is better or worse. Two sensors with the same number of pixels don't necessarily provide the same quality.
The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.
Respectfully, this is almost entirely untrue.
While each pixel records less incident light in a higher-megapixel camera, the sensor as a whole picks up just as much light. At small sizes, the noise is irrelevant. At large sizes, more detail will always trump a blurry image, even if that detail does have some noticeable noise.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "faster lenses" and how they're relevant here. Are you referring to shutter speed?
Digital processing can only go so far: you can't make up information. Cameras (afaik) already filter out "dark noise" (noise caused because sensors pick up heat as well as light). The only other significant noise is photon noise, which is unavoidable—light is chaotic.
With more MP you will take a larger picture but that does not automatically translate into a picture with more sharpness or detail. You need a proper lens that can resolve that detail and digital processing that can maintain that detail.
Even cheap plastic lenses have quite a bit of resolving power. That said, in the short term, lenses will always be sharper than the sensor.
You're right about the digital processing, at least on cellphones. I'm always pissed off that my RAZR decides to save all photos with the lossiest, blockiest JPEG compression possible.
MP numbers don't linearly translate as to what is better or worse. Two sensors with the same number of pixels don't necessarily provide the same quality.
Sort of. You're right in general, that megapixels are really only one element of what makes a good camera (hopefully dynamic range will be next).
However, more megapixels, properly handled for in terms of lenses and processing, is always better, unless file size is an issue.
http://www.dpreview.com/
The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.
With more MP you will take a larger picture but that does not automatically translate into a picture with more sharpness or detail. You need a proper lens that can resolve that detail and digital processing that can maintain that detail.
MP numbers don't linearly translate as to what is better or worse. Two sensors with the same number of pixels don't necessarily provide the same quality.
yes yes , we all know that more mp's doesn't necessarily mean better quality photos,
BUT IT USUALLY DOES
camera manufactures are always improving their products,
so mp's go up
data transfer rate goes up
sensor density goes up
features go up
etc etc
i see an improvement in mp's (which is the only advertised measure of it's " performance ") and know that there are improvements to handle the extra megs