BurtLehman Loc: Santa Fe, NM

This larger inter-pixel spacing allows the use of mirrors around the edges of each pixel sensor to direct more light into each one, thereby enhancing the sensitivity of the device, which in turn reduces noise artifacts as well as provides other benefits listed above.

BCStreet Loc: Longwood, FL

First - I'm sorry if I'm going around in circles, but just when I thought I had a handle on this discussion, my logic kicks-in and I get myself more confused.... For argument sake... if 2 million pixels are crammed onto a 1/2" sensor (like a p&s camera) and the same 2 million pixels were on a DSLR that has a bigger sensor, then the DSLR would have more space between the pixels, which would indicate to me that the p&s camera would produce better pictures. Or... does the pixel size increase to compensate for the larger sensor area of the DSLR, thus 'absorbing' the additional space? Am I in left field or what?

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

That's your first mistake..DSLR Marketing types love it when consumers get dizzy over numbers.
Just the opposite-the relatively large number of pixels crammed in to a smaller sensor means the possibility for noise and cross-pixel interference is increased. The denser the pixel count, the more noise becomes an factor.
I believe the dies used to make DSLR sensors (and we're getting in to an area here in which I am not really competent ) are adjusted for physical sensor size. And I think you're overly complicating things as well. You do not need to be so hung up on absolute numbers. Just know that beyond a certain point, cramming more pixels on to a given sensor size does not lead to higher picture quality, and may in fact mean that noticeable noise is introduced at lower ISO levels.

guy145 Loc: Norridge IL

My canon 30D 6mp (8yrs old) gives me great pictures with todays software. Six mp in its day was to hold the same amount of info of 35mm film. The software makes it a fact.

BCStreet Loc: Longwood, FL

I'm a technical guy and sometimes I drive myself crazy. I truly appreciate you taking the time to clarify this. I believe I have a better handle on what's important. Thank you Jim.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Not true...see: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality

Just to add....35 mm film is not the Holy Grail of resolution.

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

No, you're not in left field. If you look at the relationship between sensor size and pixel size, the more advanced cameras (full size sensor = 35mm) have a pixel size ranging from 5.9 microns (Sony A900 24.6mp) to 8.5microns (Nikon D3S and Nikon D700 both 12.1mp). The smaller sensor size DSLRs have pixel size ranging from 3.9microns (Sony A77 24.3mp) to 7.5mp (Sigma SD15).

guy145 Loc: Norridge IL

I am getting real education here on sensors. I am enjoying all the info.

Roy Hakala Loc: Red Wing, MN

After reading through the above discussion, I have three questions: first, I have a Canon PowerShot A2200 that has 14 MP on a tiny sensor. Would I increase image sharpness (reduce diffraction at small f-stops) by shooting at the second-highest quality setting, or does that setting simply apply more compression to the stored image? Second, which would provide greater resolution (other factors being equal), shooting 6 MP in RAW or 12 MP but saving in JPEG? And third, I shot a picture of my bookcase across this room with a 10 MP P&S and the resultant JPEG image clearly displayed the individual dust motes (zounds, dust in my office?) on the books. Does that suggest that we are splitting fine hairs in this discussion on resolution?

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

I don't know. I suggest a comparison shot to evaluate and judge to your own sensibilities.
I don't know. I suggest a comparison shot to evaluate and judge to your own sensibilities. (Seeing a thread here?...lol) Actually,I do know, but I think you'll learn more if you experiment...

Umm..yes, to a point.Many of the differences between a 15mp and 18mp image, all other conditions being equal, would be visible only to a 'pixel peeper' with a magnifying glass, or when enlarging and printing a sofa-sized print. Pixel quantity matters, but only to a point, for 90% of all shooters. IMO, anything beyond 15mp or so, for your typical amateur, is probably wasted. Pixel SIZE matters more.

The bottom line, of which I believe most of us can agree, is that cramming more and more pixels on the same sized sensor (for example, your typical APS-C going from 6 to 12 to 15 to 18mp) is primarily a marketing ploy designed to satisfy the general public who don't understand anything except 'bigger is better'. Hence, such abominations as the Hummer H2, Ford Excursion, KFC CheesyBaconBucket, and the 1/3lb Double Bacon Angus Burger.

guy145 Loc: Norridge IL

I have 3 canon dslr camras. As soon as I can I will take a single picture with each camra using the sam lens. A canon 85mm 1.8.

Canon 7D APS-C 18meg/pix
Canon Xsi APS-C 12mp
Canon 30D APS-C 6mp

If anybody interested I will post the pictures.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

That's a good thought, but to get any idea of the quality differences, you'd need to blow up each original to about 400% and then crop out a small section. There's no way, looking at an image on a computer monitor, or even printing one out at 8.5 x 11, that you can really see the minute differences. It would be interesting to see what your three densities do differently.

:thumbup:

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

Hey, I thought it was pretty good. Specious, spacious ... hehehe.

Adirondack Hiker Loc: Southern Adirondacks

Is a P&S 14 mp camera better than a 12mp DSLR ?

Short answer, NO.

The detector in the P&S is maybe 10% the size of a dslr, so the pixel size is a lot smaller, hence noisier. Noise is defined as the square root of the number of photons collected per unit of time. The larger pixel will collect a greater number of photons, hense less noise. Practical example, put a juice glass (P&S pixel) and a 5 gallon bucket (dslr sensor) out in the rain. After 5 minutes, which will contain a larger volume of water (photons).

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

There are advantage and disdadvantages to each camera,with a p&s megazoom, you have the advantage of shooting in differnt situations without changing lenses, I've seen some p&s cameras cost as much of a entery level DSLR, although the picture quality will not match that of a DSLR