improving picture quality of hi res-small sensor cameras...

hi!

I have this question, request you to enlighten me on this topic... more megapixels packed into the same sized sensor reduces quality, due to a weaker signal and more noise... in this regard, will switching to a smaller picture size(by the user,from the settings menu) help to improve the picture quality?? will it enable the user to extract better quality pictures from the same sensor?? awaiting your reply... thanks...

Thanks James... And I would also request you to share with me your opinion about the comparative picture quality of two cameras- Canon A650IS and Canon G9. As per the specs, the two appear EXACTLY the same in internal features, ie, the lens and the sensor. So as far as the image quality is concerned, should there be ANY difference at all between the two? I am not asking about the performance, features ar anything, just the image quality under various shooting conditions...

For picture quality, I think there's too much MP here to work with. Let me explain. I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering – a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany – the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they don’t have a “dog in this hunt,” they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.

The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.

Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."

In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.

OK, James
If you are going to push 6MP cameras, you're going to have to tell us model numbers. Currently available cameras in the high end P&S catagory where abhi is shopping start at 7MP. There are no A rated non-SLR cameras on this website at 6MP. I hear where you are coming from, and if I could buy a 4-6MP camera equipped like a top end P&S camera, I would be at the store in the morning. All the 6MP cameras are second rate now. I don't want a used camera (though the Canon Pro1 caught my eye for a moment at $1800 like new).

I'm not pushing anything, Larry. I'm pointing out the science that has been done by reputable companies on the shortcomings of cramming more megapixels onto a tiny CCD chip. The solution is to use the chips DSLRs use. And that's coming. Meanwhile, users need to understand that more isn't necessarily better.

And just because the ratings slack off on a camera doesn't mean it's a bad camera. Take the Fuli A610 for instance. 43 reviews, average star rating of 4.42 of 5. 6 reviews here at DHQ give it a solid 5 starts out 5. I don't consider that "second rate."

Just remember that with age, comes a drop in the ratings. I remember many "A" cameras on this list that drop over time due to lack of availability. Doesn't mean they're "second rate."

And there's no need to be combative about it. You have an issue with Imaging's conclusions, attack the conclusions.

hello- I know nothing of lab tests, technological terms, and digicam engineering to produce the best images .. What I do know is what I see ,in my Canon G 9 at 12.1 mp ( a goodly number we can assume) NO digicam I have owned previously took any kind of recognizable snap in the tele DIGITAL mode, and I have a 7.1 MP very nice A710is by canon, as the highest MP rated digicam previous to my Canon G 9 . I have been using the G -9 since the 3rd week in nov.,2007,and have taken at least 500 shots with it.. Tried all kinds of shooting and had various nice photo ops.. The G-9 out performs the less MP digicams I have owned. it is a reserve power thing ( something like a 4 cyclinder auto against at 6 cyclinder auto) The reserve higher MP capacity shows up under stressful photo ops. For the regular photo ops , there is little differamce. It is when there is LOW light, Distant tele opportunities ( and you can go 24X with the G-9 combining the 6x optical and 4x digiital)-- In extreme conditions, pushing the G-9 where no other previous digicam i owned performed, the G-9 performed admirably. Low light, digital stretch, Auxiliary converter lens added , Motion at a stage show ,no flash allowed. A darkened room wedding with flash, landscapes w/ haze in the air , finite Macro copying of old photos-- The G 9 did it all , effortlessly. Mt Olympus SP -350 could not possibly do the tricks my G 9 did. I tried , but NO GO.. So, in conclusion, when thew dust settles , it can not HURT to have MORE megipixils. I would assume there is a OPTIUMUM amount of MPs , that is ENOUGH , and I am sure you can get by with a minimum count. What I have seen,subjectively is a increase in Flexibility in other than perfecxt photo ops . I do not enlarge past 5x7 and all the snaps I am proud of ,are very decent color rendition, saturation, crispness, and well defined shots. I shoot in VF (very Fine) and would recommend that for the G9 even thou you will get less photos per SD memory card - so , just change to a spare. Shooting with the G-9 is a constant source of pleasure when you see photgraphic results, here to fore NEVER seen with any other of my long long history with cameras.. I have been a TYROL ( would be wanna be photog ) since a small boy, and have run the gammit of photo equipment , including my much loved ,but uncooperative Nikon FE 2 ( long gone) . Now in the autumn of my life I have found a digicam which suits me well-- A little gem of a snap producer , that consistantly suprises me with its agility and willingness to comply with BAD lighting and lighting fall off ( such as in long digital tele shots and limited flash range photo ops) I MUST believe the 12.1 MP has something to do with the outstanding results ,not seen with lesser MP digicams I have owned ... I can not really join the converstion as to the technical merits of more MPs, all I can say is it WORKS for me, and I betcha alot of other tyrols out there as well..hal 5141

Sorry. I really did not mean to be combative, and I apologize for even sounding that way.
I'm not challenging the Image Engineering folks either. They seem to really know what they are talking about. So, I reread their page again and am reminded that they recommend a 3MP count for the typical 1/2.5" sensor, and 4MP for 1/1.8" sensors. 6MP really only applies to the 2/3" sensor as was used in the Canon Pro 1.
I did note their one line qualifier, "We calculated how many pixels have space to be in a sensor if one pixel has a size of 3 µm which we believe to be a minimum size for good image quality at higher sensitivity levels (>ISO 400).
" (bold added by me). That fits well with the experience we are having that our cameras do very well at ISO 100, not too badly at ISO 200, and deteriorate above that level.
I think I'm just frustrated because that puts us in a real bind since all the "decent" cameras are certainly more than 3-4MP now. I'm glad to hear the companies are serious about enlarging the sensors. And I'm glad I like to shoot outdoors where lighting direction is the "problem" and not lighting level.
Ultimately, it seems it always boils down to how good we are at working around our cameras' weaknesses no matter the cause. For example, I'm enjoying the 12MP G9 probably because I don't shoot in low light at high ISO's and don't notice whatever noise is there because I only view on the computer on a 17" screen. (And I don't shoot weddings!).
Thanks again for your feedback. I always like to learn more about this fascinating hobby.
And I still think you could give us a list of 4-6MP cameras you like. ;)

Well, as always, your mileage may vary. Personally, I wouldn't go below 6MP simply because I like to enlarge to 8x10 once in awhile. As such, I think the Canon SD800IS would be a good choice.

And if you spend most of your time taking pictures in optimum conditions (daylight, etc), then by all means, get the camera that best fits your needs. And Hal, if you're happy with the quality of the pictures you get, more power to you. I'm just going with the latest research. It may be that I'll revise my p.o.v. if I'm convinced otherwise. But until an counter argument is presented that's as persuasive as Image Engineering's, I've gotta go with what makes sense to me.

BTW for the record, I shoot with an 8MP SP560UZ and I do see the issue that I.E. mentions often. But for a longer zoom, you have to make tradeoffs.

Hal,
Remember,the quality that you see in the G9 is not simply the outcome of using higher megapixels on the same sensor, so its not right to attribute the quality to the huge number of megapixels used... We,ve come a long way since when 3megapixels was considered state-of the-art and things has changed... Along with increasing pixel counts MANY other things have changed also...sensors have improved, focusing, image stabilization, the "auto" features, evrything has been worked upon and improved by the manufacturers...and these things combined give you the arguably best quality picture currently available on a P&S, the quality of the G9...
Had all THESE technologies been implemented on a lower megapixel camera, the image quality would not be as dissatisfactory as you are getting from your OLD models... And just because G9 gives WAY better pictures than your previous camera(with outdated technology), u cannot use this output as a direct comparison between low-res and hi-res sensors...
All other factors remaining same, had the number of pixels on the G9 been lesser, you would have certainly got EVEN better picture, better quality, brighter and MOST IMPORTANTLY, less noisier(As Larry pointed out, u won't understand this difference under good lighting conditions, simply because the amount of light, that is, the SIGNAL, is available in an adequate amount)...
The only advantages of using more pixels(OTHER factors remainig SAME) could be better resolution(not recognizable until viewed big-sized...) and the ability to take larger sized prints and crops... However, these must not come at the cost of other important factors(and to keep them similar, the ONLY way is to increase the sensor size...). This is where the manufactureres are doing the WRONG thing, they are simply abandoning quality and joining a "RACE"... The MEGAPIXEL race...

Thanks once again James...
I too, would to go for a low-res camera, but they simply aren't made these days... And the old models, even if available, would require me to settle with an outdated(but providing first-rate quality in photos...) camera by sacrificing today's advanced technology which comes in the form of improved sensors and processors, more powerful lenses, better ergonomics and design and build, better flashes and displays and viewfinders, more accesories, and of course loads of useful in-camera features like Image Stabilization, Face Detection, Red-Eye removal, and a wide range of inbuilt shooting and scene modes... And yes, something below 6MPs do seem TOO low...And for ALL the 8,10,12 MP models, the noise is almost the same, they are all EQUALLY bad :( (Probably due to the slightly smaller sensors on the lower MP models)... At least the higher MPs will give me a bit of extra detail...
So currently there's nothing such as a "good deal", the best I can do is avoid the worst ones and select the one that is LESS worse...
I am SOOOOOO eagerly waiting for someone to manufacture those big-sensor models, and SOON... But till then, I don't know... I really wish I could buy a P&S, but ultimately, going for the costlier, BIGGER, heavier, less-portable, less user-friendly, less usable, and less-featured angel might be my destiny... :)

Patience is required here, Abhi. The good news is that according to recent news articles, many camera companies will be incorporating the CCD chips they use in their SLR lines (which give no shutter lag) into their point and shoot cameras. These larger CCDs will solve the noise/resolution problem, IMHO.

So look for it within the next few years.

hello- yes , i think i am aware that t he G-9 works well because of much innards advanced technology- and NOT just because it has 12.1 MP -- Yet,The fact still remains unassailable, that the G -9 has performed better than my Canon A710 is , than my Panasonic DMC TZ-3 , and my olympus SP 350 -- If you do not want to say it is because the G-9 has MORE MP than the other 3 digicams that is A-0k-- Technology advances w/ the release of many new P and S digicams ( not all of them) I have been made to their photographic abilities. I have been into FUN photography for a very long time , strictly as a tyrol( would be, wanna be photog)-- And go by subjective results. The G-9 has out performed any other Camera I have owned in the past. PERIOD - it is not perfect, I am far from perfect as a photog ,BUT it has given be results I am happy with.Of course the ERASE FEATURE inherent to all Digicams , is a big PLUS , in saving only the nicest of shots. The ones w/ decent resolution , good composition, and inpact on the viewer-- Good photo ops are seldom destroyed by the lowest end digicams, regardless of the lack of features , small sensors, and less MPs. By the same token ,it certainly doesn't hurt a good photo op to be able to shoot at optimum conditions. Let me give you a example , that just happened to me-- I had my Panasonic DMC TZ-3 and my Canon G-9 along w/ me this past week week end when we visited a friend w/ a 5 month old cocapoo puppy. The dog was a whirling devish, jumping, moving, cavorting, generally misbehaving , and staying still for what seemed like micro second intervals.. Both the TZ-3 and G - 9 have some shutter lag. BUT I painstakingly sat on the floor and persistantily took shot after shot alternating the 2 P and S digiacams .. Well I could not catch The little rascal, no matter how I tried with the TZ-3 - I panned, I waited w/ the shutter half way down, I went into PETS scene mode , I used flash to stop the action, I increased the ASA , tried everything I could think of , BUT could NOT catch the shot I wanted of TOOEY ( the apt name for this little bundle of movement) ---Now with the G-9 I had better luck- set to flash, in the PET scene mode , and using the half way down method of holding the shutter in place, I did get some really nice snaps. It was not a scientific comparsion of the 2 very nice digicams - it was just trying to make the best of a very fast moving subject offering little chance for a posed photo op....I was close by , so had both digicams set at about 50mm ( usually a clear area for most lenses , where they will work effortlessly , say , compared to a long tele shot) All things being equal- the G-9 was more fun to use, its shutter lag a little less pronounced then the TZ-3 , the results photographically were more satisfying. I took about 20 snaps with each of Little FLYING TOOEY- and reviewed them after- There was a distingt Atroitness in the G-9 being able to capture the ACTION , MUCH better than the TZ-3 could- I tried to be fair, with this,as I said previously , most unscientic side by side test. The two standard rules I had for shooting with both digicams was -THE DOG SHOULD BE MOVING and His EYES visable to me at the time I finally pushed the shutter down all the way-- two equalizing factors to my strictly subjective mind. Well, I seldom caught TOOIE's eyes( many times he was out of the photo all together) in many of the TZ3 snaps-- but I got them ( in focus) at least 75 % more w/ the G-9-- The 20 odd photos w/ each Digicam, produced a very clear winner-- in fact there was" no contest" in this particular photo shoot-- the $150 or more in cost of the G-9 over the TZ -3 , makes you compare apples to oranges..Not fair to the TZ -3 .. So, for what it is worth , you can ascertain , the technology in the G-9 addresses close up action w/ alacrity..hal5141

Yes James, I have heard that too... But I think that will take a lot of time...
anyway, do you remember the sources where you got this info from? I would like to check out the artcles... for getting a rough idea about the release dates of such models...

Hal, you've said all this before. And I appreciate your devotion to the camera that gives you the results you look for. If it works for you, it works for you. Period.

However, it's simple physics and math. The more megapixels camera manufacturers cram onto a tiny 1/6" CCD, the less sensitive it becomes and the greater the noise at higher ISOs and in low light. Now, this may not be an issue with the kinds of pictures you take, I don't know. But until camera manufacturers figure out a way around this light desensitization issue at High MP, it's going to continue and get worse.

Thankfully, there are signs of improvement and the G9 does have a larger CCD as part of those signs. But the price is what causes me to look at an SLR solution which doesn't experience that issue since the chips are far larger. Other good signs are that according to recent news articles, many camera companies will be incorporating the CCD chips they use in their SLR lines (which give no shutter lag) into their point and shoot cameras. In addition, [url=http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/02/kodak-reinvents.html]Kodak has created a new pixel arrangement that adds panchromatic pixels to the usual red, green and blue for greater light sensitivity. It's redesigned CMOS chips also analyzes the pixels in the opposite way it used to providing sharper images in low light.

So look for it within the next few years.

hello- one thing is absolutely certain - PLANNED OBSOLSCENCE is the name of the game in digicam manufacture. The G-9 will be as outmoded as VHS , 45 speed vinyl records, , cassettes,e tc etc AS all are replaced by more modern electronics... THAT does not mean the replaced items do not work.. They do.. So, that is the ultimate equallizer. Older Digicams with small microprocessors, small MP count , and less than todays cutting edge innards, still take photos, and if the subject matter is good, they will be interesting photos. ---You can disect , their performance in any way possible, you can degrade them because of noise as you enlarge and increase ISO , you can always find fault with digicams w/ less features-- BUT in the long run , If you have a GOOD photo op , in the hands of a decent phtrographer, nice results are optained, rerardless of the equipment being used..AND James, please do not believe I believe the G 9 is a universal panacea in the world of digicams - I do not believe that at all- my experiences are too limited to even go down that path-- We trust guys like you to give us the straight dope in a understandable way.. AND to always be affable and even handed. hal5141

Oh I'm not saying that at all, Hal. If it works well for your style and needs, then by all means, it's the best camera at the moment for you.

You are right on about planned obsolescence, though. Let's not forget that film cameras still take fabulous pictures.

And as for electronics, they're often obsolete as soon as they hit the market!

I am new here and I tend to agree with all of you in one way or the other. Like Hal says the G9 isn't perfect for every shooter but it's feature specific for people like me who have lots of other cameras such as DSLRS, SLRS, medium formats,Range finders and yes some 6MP P&S cameras. I needed a camera like the Canon G9 that has taken "drop dead" beautiful pic in optimum conditions and gave me the close-up indoor flash shot I haven't been able to get until the other night. The camera takes beautiful pictures and I can have RAW Shots with a P&S....wow.
Mr DeRuvo and the techo boys are also correct, cramming that many pixels in such a tiny sensor will cause the photos to crap out on the higher ISO end of the scale. but then all the P&S do this. It seems that G9's tend to do it better though. We all live with compromises and tradeoffs everyday. I am personally enjoying the G9 and the good group of people I found participating in this forum. Take a bow everyone you guys deserve it. Thanks for letting me put my two cents in.

Best Regards,

Howard

Guys,
This is NOT about the G9, please have a look at the original question, I think we are going off the topic...
The G9 is a TOP camera, it's a REALLY GREAT camera, and we know that... eevryone knows that, and there's no doubt about that...
Please don't misunderstand me, I never intended to under-estimate the G9's capabilities... :)
Its just that we are discussing something else here... :)
Anyway, it was nice to have so many people's responses...
-Abhi.

abhi- your question was under the G-9 header - that is why you got so much G-9 input-- It was a general question, and you got some some very good answers from James and Larry-- exaustive answers-- which we should all be happy with , in that, lots of info was put forth - it is up to us to digest and retain what we wish , and discard the rest. This is a great thread when it sticks to the headers,for the most part. We all tend to digress and possibly go off on tangents ,when speaking PHOTOGRAPHY -- love of the hobby does that to you..hal5141

I agree with Hal. We may have gotten off the freeway once or twice, but we certainly haven't strayed off road into anything removed from the topic, just around it. In the end, the question was, will setting the camera for smaller resolution help. The answer is no. Essentially, the image is reduced to the set quality after it has been processed by the CCD. As such, the light still goes through those pixels, only that after some basic processing steps pixels "thrown out" to make the image to the desired setting and size. This process is called "Choking" and that will cause Artifacting and noise. Additionlly, you'll also loose details of the recorded image.

Some cameras have written into their firmware a process called "binning," which merges the signals of multiple pixels to make larger pixels. Usually at a 4-1 ration. This will essentially turn a 12-megapixel camera into a 3-megapixel camera. And that gives you the opposite problem of too many pixels on the chip ... you now have too few and as such, will run into artifacting instead of noise.


As I mentioned, I'm sure the G9 is a great camera in conditions below ISO 800. But it's important to know what to expect going in. And for the price, you should.