The author mentioned in the earlier article that there is a difference in types of mega pixels. It was called it the mega pixels myth. The analogy of a cup of water vs 5 gal buckets was used. Does this rating system have a name? How does a consumer know which style of mega pixels us being used? Is it the type of sensor?

I remember hearing something similar about the camera used on the Mars rovers. I think i recall they were like 1.5 or 2 mega pixels max. To me that seemed low figuring the budget NASA had. But after reading the 1st installment, the cup of water vs 5 gal bucket makes sense.
.
Still how does one determine the style they have?

-Bigcitymike

uhhh the camrea will say the amount of megapixels it has. if it uses a unique image sensor it will tell you. anyways, make sure to include the time it takes from pressing the button to file-write and recharge.

The article states:
"The sensor only receives the light that passes through the center of the lens, while the light on the outer region simply falls to the side of the sensor. This isn?t necessarily a bad deal because the center of the lens is the ?sweet spot?, generally being sharper than the edges of the lens."

This is mostly incorrect. Basic Optics 101 shows that light from all parts of a simple lens falls on each point in the image. This holds true for complex lenses, except for the elements that are very close to the film/sensor, for some wide angle lenses.

As a Macintosh user with a 1GHz processor, I find the author's analogy (megapixels to megahertz) perfectly apt. I use a 17-inch PowerBook, and the value to me of the bulletproof software and hardware built into this thing is ignored by people who only look at processor speed figures. I also own a Digital Rebel, my first camera purchase since a Canon AT-1 back in the early '80s (OK, I'm slow to change). The Rebel works in the same flexible ways as my AT-1...and then some. There's so much more to consider when buying and using equipment than marketing numbers.

The article states:
"The sensor only receives the light that passes through the center of the lens, while the light on the outer region simply falls to the side of the sensor. This isn?t necessarily a bad deal because the center of the lens is the ?sweet spot?, generally being sharper than the edges of the lens."

To which someone replied:
"This is mostly incorrect. Basic Optics 101 shows that light from all parts of a simple lens falls on each point in the image. This holds true for complex lenses, except for the elements that are very close to the film/sensor, for some wide angle lenses."

What he probably was unclear, what he said is basicaly true - the smaller sensor captures less of the image projected by the lens, and since it is capturing more of the center of the image and not the edges, the resulting image will have less of a quality drop edge to edge than one taken with a 35mm film camera (uncropped). While all of the light is reflected everywhere, the best focus is generally at the center and lessens as you go outwards.

The article didn't really make it clear that while it *should* be possible to make a DSLR using a much smaller set of lenses, this will be at the expense of a smaller sensor too (which part I did make clear is a trade-off).

Digital sensors and film don't respond the same to light striking obliquely. Film doesn't really care, but the sensitivity of digital sensors falls off as the light strikes further from the normal.

When you reduce the size of the lens, light striking the extremeties of the sensor comes in at a greater angle, which causes an effect similar to vignetting. One of the special challenges to digital lens designers is to keep the exit objective of the lens as far from the sensor as possible to reduce this effect.

Replying to "drgonzo" Uh dude, the author has said already not all mega pixels are created equal in his prior article. Hence my question. It's like the fact you can't compare Intel and AMD CPU's just on a megahertz level only.

-Bigcitymike

The Olympus 8080 fits "very" well in your hand.. very balanced,
(like the Nikon) an excellent overall feel for a prosumer camera.

This is my new favorite in the high end prosumer camera wars

I own a Nikon D100 and I've used smaller digital cameras as well. I think the author completely missed the point.

If you want to take snapshots, buy one of the smaller cameras. If you want to take professional photos, you're going to want a full size DSLR.

The author also ignores the possibility of a larger sensor. As we increase the number of megapixels in our sensors, we will approach the physical limits of light's ability to hit the sensors correctly. Smaller isn't always better.

I dunno, I guess I feel like complaining about the size of 35mm cameras when they could be an amazing 1/2" smaller in each dimension doesn't really convince me.

There are several professional photographers that get by just fine with non-DSLR cameras. I was just reading about the "Magazine Photographer of the Year" that used an Olympus C-5050. I know several photographers that could outshoot me with a disposable camera. Remember that these are just tools, and having a bigger hammer doesn't make you a better carpenter.

Two things really came out glaring an E-1 is a POS because it is "4x optical zoom only" the only really nice digital cam's from Olympus are the 7xx series as they all use what's called 10x optical zoom and are only pared to 4 megapixels... but unless your willing to pay for lenses, your not going to get carl zeiss lenses otherwise. The other thing is the lenses DO MATTER. look at what a camera's optical zoom is rated that will give you a far sharper image no matter what the quality of the sensors, the orignal UZ-700 proved that to the point Olympus stopped making them as they were cutting into their SLR sales. They were 2.1 megapixel... oh and how many people realize that the images at 6+ megapixels exceed 1600x1200 and some of the camera's resample them before storing defeating the whole point of sampling them at such a high res in the first place.

ps most of my work is after the photo's/ video is taken.

A higher magnification lens doesn't equal better images. I don't think anyone said lenses didn't matter, and on the contrary, I do believe a sensor needed to be paired with a good lens.
I don't see the problem in shooting at 6+ megapixels and storing at the native resolution. If you choose to resample the image to a smaller size, that is your preference. For the most part, only Fuji makes a regular practice of interpolating their images to a larger size in camera. Supposedly this works better with thier SuperCCD than standard sensors, but that is debatable. I shoot with a Fuji S2 and the 12 megapixel output is okay, but no, it doesn't compete directly with Canon's 11mp sensor in the 1Ds.

The author of this article brought up many good points about digicams, and what needs to be known before making a good purchase, i.e. matching lenses to sensors, etc.

Which websites review digicams on these grounds? I'd like a list of resources I can read to find out this info.

Olympus e-1 ---- author said that the image quality is'nt quite there yet?

erhm... he is a techwriter, not a camera reviewer, ask him to check out the e-1s kodak sensor and other review sites....

"he is a techwriter, not a camera reviewer"

Seems like you are fully aware of his position and knowledge...

whats the mather if the cam is 8mega pixels or 4... u gonna never take it 8 and very small chans in 4... so why dont buy an 3,x or 4,0 dont buy 5 then u stupid

Guest wrote:

"The author also ignores the possibility of a larger sensor. As we increase the number of megapixels in our sensors, we will approach the physical limits of light's ability to hit the sensors correctly. Smaller isn't always better."

IMO, this is a key point.

If you are an advanced amatuer or pro, the body of the camera makes up a small percentage of the money that you have tied up in the complete camera system. The majority of the money is spent on lenses.

Also, it isn't just about a legacy holdover from film.

Avid DSLR shooters have to accept that they will upgrade their DSLR body at some point. Maybe the next sensor will not be APS sized. Maybe the next one is a 1.3x or even full frame (compared to 35mm).

Being able to stick with the current lenses is a major advantage.

There is a market for both the prosumer P&S and the DSLR. Different tools for different jobs.

I didn't suggest that 35mm lenses be killed off. It cannot be ignored though, that the number of cameras released with a 1.5x size could justify a new standard. Doesn't hurt the camera manufacturers because there will be less carry-over.

1083421176686

What I meant to say was that this article was a complete waste of my time.

I'm off to take some pics with my 110 film camera.

Digital is never going to replace film. Ever.

Are you ever going to get around to publishing part three?!

You need to get a photographer and not a computer tech to write ANY article about cameras. Your man is just plain wrong on many point and misleading in others. The over simplification of many points are just wrong.

With specific regard to the comments on the Olympus E System dSLR this man clearly has not seen any actual output from the camera in question by a real photographer. Just testing it in an office is USELESS as a review

I'm late to this party, but I also question the reviewer's rather blithe statement that the Olympus E-1 image quality is "not quite there yet." Says who? This is a three year old camera, and it's still selling well for very good reason. A lot of good photographers, and many well-known pros, have found its color rendition and clarity to be superior to other DSLRs with higher megapixels. The E-1 would have been the perfect camera to prove the author's point about the MP myth.