Fixed Lens Point-and-Shoots and the Megapixel Myth
- This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Feb 23, 2006 at 1:19 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Why Not Fixed Lens Point and Shoots?
Fixed lens point and shoots are a direct result of “megapixel marketing.”
Zach;
Thanks for the information.
I wonder if even a 6MP DSLR is suited for regular magazine work. A 10″ x 6.5″ image doesn’t cover a full page bleed, and that’s with absolutely no cropping. You’ve only got to crop 1/20th of the image on opposing ends to lose a full inch off the long dimension, and it gets a lot worse on the shorter dimension.
For a magazine shooter, it seems like a poor investment.
At least a 10MP pro camera buys you a full page bleed with cropping, and it at least offers the potential for a page-and-a-half lead photo. To be honest, I think it will be a couple years before any low-end DSLR or “prosumer” digital is up to everyday use for magazines or corporate use.
You hit it on the head with the size of the CCD; for the high-megapixel consumer cameras, it turns out they suffer from a lot more “noise” than their “pro” counterparts with lower megapixel counts but larger CCDs. Noise is most apparent in broad, evenly toned areas (like a blue sky).
Of course, let’s face it — the real appeal of digital over film for anyone selling pictures is the ease with which you can fix mistakes in the computer. Underexposure, a little blurring, poor contrast, etc., are all quickly remedied and the editor never knows.
A local stock photographer has moved to digital for all his non-strobed work because he can fix all his mistakes and no one knows the difference. He suggests he gets 20%-30% more usable images, which — to a stock shooter — is a pretty sizable improvement.
Thanks for keeping this discussion alive. The camera market has always been awash in hype, but with advent of digital, it’s worse than ever.
Tom Chandler
Zach;
Your point about the “reality” of publishing and printing is well taken, but I think it’s important to distinguish between the somewhat movable production standards of a trade/hobbyist magazine and the higher standards used by other potential buyers of someone’s photography — including high end magazines, corporate, books, etc…
In one sense, that’s why I’m tempted to title this post “The myth of the sub-10 MP “Pro” DSLR. AA might be willing to use interpolation or run reduced resolution photographs, but higher-end magazines like Northwest Fly Fishing definitely aren’t interested.
In addition, large-format output would be a problem (posters, etc), and really high-quality printing methods (like 200-220 dpi waterless systems) at decent sizes would require more than a low-rez DSLR could provide.
Photographers really need to receive “downstream” revenue from their work to survive, and low resolution digital limits that revenue stream.
Or hell, one day you might want to produce a large format photo book like Ian and Charity Rutter are doing, and it would be a shame to have a lot of really nice pictures size-limited because of a low-rez camera.
Digital is clearly the way to go as there’s nothing more terrifying than sending original chromes to a magazine (my road race Kodachromes from the Los Angeles Olympics are probably still in a desk drawer in Europe) and wondering if you’ll ever get ’em back. Sadly, you often don’t.
I think you’re spot on in your thinking about cameras; why spend a chunk upgrading when you still won’t get the resolution you need to sell your pictures in a lot of high-end markets?
In essence, we’re waiting for all things digital to “grow up” and I don’t think it will be long before the lower-level “pro” cameras are actually fit to be used by most pros. That’s what’s weird about digital vs. film; in film, there isn’t any significant image difference between a cheaper camera body and a more expensive model. In digital, the difference is huge.
Interesting discussion,
Tom ChandlerHahaha, hey Tom, I don’t know where you got your information about Northwest Fly Fishing but I’ve met Steve Probasco and while he’d no doubt be flattered, I doubt he would make any claims to being “higher end” than American Angler and Fly Fisherman.
Hey Will –
I think my main reason for disregarding the fixed lens point and shoots is really the financial one.
Zach
I agree the lens investment arguement is a valid one- though I would argue that investing in high quality lens performance is different than simply investing in lens
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.