PC World magazine asks a good question: "Just how many megapixels do you need -- and do these high-resolution cameras come with hidden costs?" They are speaking of Sony's small, new US$500 7-megapixel camera for consumers, the DSC-P150.
I liked the answers provided by the article's author, Charles Bermant, because they match my opinion on the matter. I feel 3 megapixels is the perfect trade-off. The camera department salesman isn't going to warn you of these problems with 7-megapixel cameras:
* More storage space -- fewer JPG and RAW files fit on a given memory card. OTOH, with the price of memory cards plummeting, this is less of an issue than it was even a year ago. Heck, I just bought a 512MB SD card for my iPaq 4130 as storage for its MP3 player.
* Similarly, more storage space on your computer and more CDs to backup those precious JPGs. Again, the price of hard drives and CD-Rs keeps dropping.
* Takes longer to transfer JPOG files from camera to the computer.
* Takes longer to load and process JPG files in paint programs.
There are other trade-offs that remain to be detected. Does a tiny CCD with that many pixels have other problems?
The advantages to more megapixels? Digital zoom is more practical, and prints can be much larger. Summarizes photographer Arthur Bleich:
"So for the average shooter, 3 megapixels is a perfect number, and I feel that it is the resolution that is going to become standard for most point-and-shoot cameras. By that same token, 6-megapixel cameras are going to be the workaday standard for most serious amateurs and a lot of professionals."
Comments