Could the megapixel race finally be over?
Click HERE for today’s photos.
Could the megapixel race finally be over?
Let’s hope so.
Here’s the headline: “Canon releases a new camera with lower resolution and better image quality.”
While this seems a bit counterintuitive, it does make sense. You see, cramming ever more and more pixels onto the same sized image sensor is NOT the way to improve image quality.
In my view Canon did a VERY smart thing in reducing the pixel count with the G11. And to make the news even better, they upped the sensor size, so you get a double whammy effect that results in larger photo sites, meaning a higher signal to noise ratio and lower overall noise.
I don’t want a super high resolution 100 megapixel image that is so noisy it looks like it was taken during a snowstorm. I’d much rather have a sub-10 megapixel image from the same sized or larger sensor as that will dramatically improve final image quality. Sigma, with their 4.7 megapixel Foveon sensors in their DP1 and DP2 cameras have proved this. Granted Foveon sensor technology is something entirely different from CMOC and CCD, but the fact remains that the 4.7 megapixel resolution images have the sharpness, clarity, and detail of 10-12 megapixel images shot using CCD or CMOS technology.
The only thing that really puzzles me is why Canon decided to grace the new S90 with an f2.0 lens, whilst only giving the G11 a widest aperture of f2.8? I am sure anyone who knows anything about taking pictures would have easily traded the 140mm zoom on the long end of the G11 for the 105mm on the long end of the S90 if it meant they could get an f2.0 aperture on the wide end.
S90: f/2.0-4.9 28-105mm (35mm equiv)
G11: f/2.8-4.5 28-140mm (35mm equiv)
In its defense, the G11 does have a very useful articulated LCD screen, although it is (marginally) smaller than that on the S90, AND on the long end of things, the G11 has the S90 beaten both on aperture, as well as reach.
It seems funny, but I think the biggest threat to Canons new G11 is their very own S90. The again, maybe not, since they seem to be marketed towards slightly different groups. The S90, being very pocketable is a “take it with you everywhere” camera that is sure to be popular with everyone. But the G11, while still compact, is certainly not something that you will want to stuff in your front pants pocket, not unless you want to make people think you are happy to see then anyways… The G11 seems geared toward the same crowd as the G10, those serious about their pictures, and after an all-around best-fit camera to fit as many photographic situations as possible.
I also see that they left HD video out of both of them, further ensuring a solid upgrade path for those that buy into the current lineup. So neither the S90 not the G11 are perfect cameras.
Smart. Very smart.
And in truth, I don’t think it is in any manufacturers best interest to produce the ‘perfect” camera. After all, their goal as a manufacturer is to make money. If they made a perfect camera then why would people fork over more of their hard earned (or inherited, or ill-gotten, or whatever type) money for a new model?
Businesses are IN business to DO business. Period.
That’s why we see such incremental product updates most of the time. It cuts down on R&D and manufacturing costs while maximizing the mount of units being sold, and this translates directly into profit.
It is a fine line though, and I am sure Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and everyone else I watching each other like hawks to make sure than no one manufacturer gets too far ahead of the curve and upsets the balance. I can just see the CEOs of all the big camera companies getting together once every year to decide what features to release on the public, how much to charge, and what features should be reserved for future product updates.
Following is a brief summary of my thoughts on some digital camera manufacturers. Basically, I attempted to describe each companies philosophy when it comes to making cameras:
Canon: Full frame is where it’s at, ergonomics are for pansies.
Nikon: Full frame is overrated (oops, that was last years line…) “Full frame is where it’s at, and oh by the way, our ergonomics wipe the floor with Canon.
Olympus: Damnit, 4/3rds IS full frame! (if you can accept the logic that the original Pen was a full frame camera this may make sense, otherwise, it’s a bunch of rubbish…), and lets make some really good glass, but lets also make the mistake to price it outside of most peoples ability to afford.
Panasonic: Yes, we really do make cameras, not just electric shavers and flat panel TVs.
Leica: Screw sustainable business models! We’re making rangefinders and medium format digital cameras that nobody can afford. But just to hedge out bets we’ll partner with Panasonic and place one of our fabled red dots on a few of their models which will allow us to instantly charge $400-$600 more for the exact same camera.
Pentax: It’s all about the glass. (And they are absolutely right)
Sigma: No, really, it really IS a 14.7 megapixel sensor! (all the other makers roll their eyes)
Kodak: Someone has to sell cameras to the people who bought Yugos
Mamiya: Isn’t that Italian?
Casio: Someone has to sell cameras to people who are ready to step up from Kodak.
Ricoh: Yes, yes, I know this shot looks like it was taken during a snowstorm, but look at just how sharp that palm tree is! Ricoh should sell their cameras with a disclaimer: “Use Only In Direct Sunlight”
Hasselblad: Let’s make our equipment even more expensive than Leica. That way we can feel exclusive and justify our high prices. Never mind that our digital backs cost more than a mid-sized SUV.
Fujifilm: We’ll take a Nikon mount and put one of our bodies and sensors on it and instantly charge $400-$600 LESS than the comparable Nikon.
Epson: Epson? I thought they only made printers?
Contax: R.I.P.
Sony: A little late to the DSLR game, but since buying up Konica/Minolta they have really come into their own. Now if only they could increase their focus speed, and decrease their high ISO image noise. They have been making solid point and shoot cameras for years.
HP: I thought they just made printers and computers?
No camera is perfect. I know because I seem to have tried darn near all of them. But it certainly is an interesting time to be alive with the steady progression of technological advances creeping ever closer to the end-goal of what had been developed in the film world years ago, but with the added bonuses of better high ISO image quality, huge storage capacity for pictures (can you even imagine changing your memory card after just 24 shots?), and immediate image/histogram review.
Click HERE for today’s photos.
