[orangepeel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/te...in&oref=slogin

Hitting the hi-tech wall

[water]

makes you think,eh? .

[VinnyP]

If they can control noise and keep the quality more megapixels means more cropping potential which is a big plus especially for a compact. But they often can't; my always with me camera is a Casio EX-Z750. It takes sensational 7.2MP pictures for it's size, I think, but amongst a few shortcomings it has a weak flash and the ASM modes are tricky to access. Hence when the EX-Z850 came out I quickly snapped one up. It solved all those problems AND upped the pixel count to 8.1. To my eye test the pictures were not so sharp and I was disappointed. I sent it back and got another one. The same story, by this time many people had found the same thing. Luckily I had kept the Z750 and never had an 850 too long to return it under distance selling. The 10 megapixel one is even more of a disaster for picture quality.

[Markulous]

Understandably, given the camera I own, I've never subscribed to the Myth of Megapixels!

[Soupdragon]

You can NEVER have enough mega pixels.
If you think about it, more pixels effectively increases the focal length of your optics but has no adverse effect at the wide angle end of the world.
More to the point, if you had enough mega pixels (assuming your optics could resolve to matching levels) you could just point the camera in approximately the right direction, fire at will, and then crop to what you want.

Tera pixels! bring it on!

[orangepeel]

I'm pretty sure the limiting factor will be lens quality rather than anything to do with sensors. in fact I'd suggest a higher pixel count shows up lens issues even more.

[Markulous]

I'm holding out for in-built HDR and permanent DOF. The latter already exists: take the shot and then decide what you want in focus!

[Soupdragon]

I'm holding out for improvements in remote camera control.
I want my camera out there taking shots while I have a beer up on the sofa with the Tele on.

[Markulous]

Oh, I'm training the local sparrows to do all that. They're having problems with changing CF cards, so may have to get a larger one!

[Soupdragon]

The possibilities are endless!

I believe they are working on the Sparrow VR/IS mount as we speak!

[abirkill]

[Les Meehan]

The Victorian lads, Hurter and Driffield, proved a very important point about 'visual perception of [print] quality' when they conducted their survey whilst formulating photographic sensitometry. The general public are very good at deciding what is good or not so good quality in a picture. BUT, once the quality has reached an 'acceptable' level (which unfortunately isn't very high), any more quality is not perceived as making a great difference. It is then in the realms of people like photographers to discern the better quality.
Since camera/printer/ink makers are more interested in the general populous for sales than they are in the relatively small percentage of serious users, the issue of how much quality is needed has already been sorted (i.e enough for a postcard print) and anything which surpasses that is simply to show how clever they can be.
Also, this thing about more pixels gives more cropping options, when did traditional 35mm film images ever have that flexibility except to enlarge/lose quality? The only way to achieve that was to move to larger film sizes.
The bottom line is that in the hands of serious folk on 35mm more pixels is good, better detail, more sharpness (until the lens can't hack it, and hey, if you hand hold it ain't sharp anyway), bigger prints (anyone non-pro make bigger than A3 now anyway? Can't afford to (?), I know!), but for the makers of our toys it is more important to make it whistle 'Dixie' than give more quality as 'joe public' don't care a whit about quality in photos (if they did they might take the time to learn something about photography) but might want to listen to music while they use the camera.

The flood gates are now open, let it pour!