User ID

Well, Ill guess that your cash is "hard earned". And from your queries its evident that youre at least a bit confused by a choice of cameras, so why not jst ask dirctly about cameras in your budget rather than indirect generalized hyotheticals that bark up a wrong tree ?

You, or more likely your "good friend", are or is facing a choice of cameras ??? Ask about that ... but for gawdsakes NOT HERE ! Just call B&H and tell them the needs and the budget. Once youve got the recommendation from B&H then, just for larfs, ask the clown car to opine on the camera that B&H recommended.

User ID

Easy ! IQ is "no complaints". Acoarst thaz still subjective. But at least its a definition ! Youve got subject, object, and "is" ;-)

Or, perhaps youre looking for something onto which to attach a dangling preposition to ?

MJPerini

This is another great point (by someone who's work demonstrates what he knows)......
"Image Quality" is a HIGHLY Subjective term. That is why it is useless to argue about.

In my earlier post I mentioned that 12MP FF was a bit of a landmark level for camera evolution.
There is enough physical resolution to make large prints AND , IN THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE DAY, the pixels were large enough to be low noise.
But you may not be able to get the same quality of print from every picture, or Some pictures will print better than others.
I sometimes use an ill defined term like "Full Exposure" to describe a frame where the important elements have received enough exposure to allow a good print. It is probably not a good term, but I'll bet those of you who do your own printing know what I am talking about. The better you are technically the more frames like this you make. Regardless of MP, you can often see the difference.
I have an ancient Canon 40D crop 8MP that under the right circumstances can make gorgeous prints

There is no arguing with a print you can hold in your hand or view in a wall, when it is right, it has a kind of perfection, that is independent of numbers or Display resolution ,or weather each of our displays has been calibrated etc... The Proof of the Pudding is in the eating, and the best Proof of image quality is a Print.
It either succeeds or fails. I am not speaking of the aesthetic value of the picture which is a separate thing.

My point here is that it is really pointless to have this discussion of image quality, especially across old sensor and processing technology vs Brand new technology when no real definition is universally agreed upon.

I think it should be enough to agree that superb work although uncommon , has been done since the earliest days of digital photography. Good work is sometimes produced BECAUSE of limitations.

So the best way to 'argue' for your preference of lower pixel counts is not to discuss the unprovable, but to show great work that proves your point.

delder Loc: Maryland

Yes!
The cameras in my Samsung S23 are using a prosser with 16 BILLION Transistors. Makes it harder to tell who is actually doing all the heavy lifting!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

My original post asked a question of all or any forum members. Due to advancing neuropathy I have recently had difficulty in using the buttons crowded on to my loved but tiny Leica P&S (13MP). Looking for an alternative, I found the fixed lens Sony RX10 series (20MP) with an equally good Zeiss lens - larger (and therefore heavier) camera but much easier for me to handle. Interestingly the Leica has a 4/3 sensor, and the Sony has a 1" sensor. The question re IQ vs detail was raised by a pro reviewer when comparing the two cameras.

Bohica Loc: SE Coast of NC

Amen, brother, amen

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

A single pixel is just a value. A value that represents how many photons it has captured. That single pixel has to be converted from a voltage into a digital value of that voltage, plus any adjustments that the manufacturer had predetermined through the use of an ADC then mathematics. At this point, that single pixel doesn't yet represent any color. This comes later when demosaicing is used to mathematically determine a RGB value for every pixel which can done in-camera (JPG) or in post processing (RAW). This process takes into account the knowledge of what color filter is above each pixel.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

We've come a long ways from when I was young that first generation transistor radios used to advertize how many transistors they used. Usually 6 or 7.

I stand corrected. This site even mentions transistor radios using only 2 transistors. I had my first transistor radio in the 50's (probably 1958 when I discovered baseball cards) when my favorite baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates and I would lay in bed at night listening real quietly when my team would take road trips out to LA and San Francisco for which the night games were way past my bed time. And I remember all the horrible night time static on AM radio during those summer nights. There was always a storm somewhere close enough to supply the static noise.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/guest-column-collecting-vintage-transistor-radios-of-the-1950s-and-60s/

No one ever asks such questions now.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The need for more (but smaller) pixels and the pros and cons of higher resolution need to be put into perspective. The hype would have us believe that more pixels is the best option and the only option worth serious consideration. That is true only for some. A better understanding enables us to make more enlightened decisions. Unfortunately the misunderstandings and lack of understanding can be very persistent.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - wise words - which need to reach out to the photo fraternity - so many of whom are trapped in a dilemma caused by manufacturers whose adverts place too much importance on the pixel race.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have a camera,
it has pixels.....

BebuLamar

I actually feel I need more pixels than my current camera can provide.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

That's because your mind can extrapolate, a camera cannot.

Bill_de Loc: US

I think you are being realistic.

"What is the quality of an image in photography?
Image quality can refer to the level of accuracy with which different imaging systems capture, process, store, compress, transmit and display the signals that form an image. Another definition refers to image quality as "the weighted combination of all of the visually significant attributes of an image."

WIKIPEDIA

---

---