http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 10:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 12:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
I mean, i'd much rather they made a 6MP camera with a half decent sensor, decent zoom and more useful features (say stuff like more manual controls) for the same money.]]>Feb 25th 2008 4:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 10:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
I guess my point was, that's a lot of pixels on a small sensor. Each pixel's going to occupy around 1/20th or so of the area that it would on something like a Canon 400d. The Sony has 4x the max ISO. So it's taking 80 times less light, or thereabouts, and attempting to make some sort of image. The Canon does cost more than twice as much, but nonetheless I can't really see all these extra megapixels and high ISOs as anything but marketing gimmicks.

I'd like to see compact camera manufacturers concentrating on things like battery life, shutter lag, LCD lag, or anything that might make a different to the average photographer. I really don't think 13.6mp and 6400 ISO is preferable to the 8mp and 800-1600 ISO that the average midrange compact seem to settle on. Though I do like to see IS becoming commonplace; again, this makes a practical difference.]]>Feb 25th 2008 12:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
Heres more info:

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3320]]>Feb 25th 2008 10:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 5:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
]]>Feb 25th 2008 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 11:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 11:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 12:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
Since when is this true? I think you mean that a lense with a small maximum aperture relative to the focal length of the lense (large f-stop value) doesn't let in as much light. And a small sensor generally produces more noise than a larger sensor given an equal number of photosites (megapixel count) on both.

Search Google for these two lenses:

Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 ED IF
Nikkor 50mm 1.4

Which is bigger? Which let's in more light? And by how much?

The 50mm. 4 times the light.

As you can see, the theory that a physically larger lense lets in more light than a smaller one is fundamentally wrong. There is more geometry to take into account.]]>Feb 25th 2008 12:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 2:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
While your general point is correct, the specifics are flawed. The amount of light gathered (total number of Photons) is proportional to the surface area of the aperture (focal length/f-ratio).
The surface area of the 200mm lens is Pi*((200/2.8)/2)^2 = 4007 mm^2
The surface area of the 50mm lens is Pi*((50/1.4/2)^2 = 1002 mm^2
Thus the 200mm lens gathers about 4x the light as the 50mm lens.

The key is that the image from the 200mm lens is magnified 4x over the image from the 50mm lens.So the image has 16x the area and 4x the light. Because of this the INTENSITY (number of photons per unit area at the focal point per unit time.) of the light in the 50mm lens is 16/4=4x greater then that of the 200mm. i.e. a f1.4 lens produces an image that is 4x as bright as a f2.8 lens.]]>Feb 25th 2008 3:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
Of course, if you don't have a nice fat low light lens (]]>Feb 25th 2008 5:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
If you want to learn more about optics, try the glossary on dpreview.com as a starting point. Or pick up one of John Hedgecoe's books on photography.

Sometimes I'm just amazed by the stupidity I see on the Internet. The worse part about this is that it appears people actually believe your seriously flawed logic.]]>Feb 26th 2008 10:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 9:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 10:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 10:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-25-2008/0004761444&EDATE=]]>Feb 25th 2008 10:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 10:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3320]]>Feb 25th 2008 10:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 10:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 11:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

]]>Feb 25th 2008 11:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 11:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
The average consumer will probably only make prints that are about 5x7, or at most, 8x10. If they're printing anything larger, chances are they're going to get it done the old fashioned way—at a studio.

So, why would you want so many megapixels? You really only need about 5 to get a nice clear 5x7. Hell, I've printed decent 4x6s with my really old DSC-P52, and that was 3.2 megapixels!

Another point is, a lot of consumers also DON'T print their photos at all. I mean, we often share our pictures with each other via email, photobucket, flickr, etc. Why would you need a 13mp picture there? I prefer when the picture looks close to actual print size on-screen, which would mean scaling the picture down before placing it online.

I just don't get it, but maybe someone can enlighten me. My W80 (a regretful replacement to the superior W50 before it) and my D40 are all I need. If I really wanted some poster sized stuff, I'd probably save my money and get a film camera *shrug*]]>Feb 25th 2008 12:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 12:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
The e-penis. The average consumer buys stuff based on numbers. More megapixels, in their view, mean a better image, with no consideration for any other factors. But when said consumer goes out with his buddies and they all compare their penis lengths, er... I mean cameras, Joe Blow can have the bragging rights of having the "best" camera in the group.

And the technological illiterate will believe it, and try to outdo him with the next best thing that comes out. Thus gadget companies sell more gadgets, and the cycle continues.

And for the record, my Fuji 3800, a 3.2 megapixel dino does pretty nice 8x10s. Love that colour.]]>Feb 25th 2008 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Well, more "detail", which is what we are discussing the need of here, is not only useful when printing out large poster sized images. It also allows one to zoom in when viewing, see things close up, get a better feel for what was actually there at the time of the shot. I zoom in on my photographs all the time when viewing. The more detail captured, the more accurate description one has of the scene, even if, unfortunately, it can not all be visible at once. Then one can always make a huge print later if desired. Also, of course, is cropping; one doesn't always get the perfectly composed shot, so it's nice to have options.

Futility of increased pixels:
Of course shrinking the size of pixels without better light capturing technology will result in more noise. However, high ISOs can be reduced down to a tiny image, sub-megapixel, which is still better than not having any image at all. Yes, full resolution would be nice, but that's reality I guess.
If a 6MP model of camera gives a less noisy image than a 12MP model at the same settings at full resolution, the 12MP camera still does not pull in significantly less light(or does it?). The noisy 12MP image can be reduced to 6MP and will not be worse than the 6MP image.
Further, on a sunny day, there is plenty of light to go around. I've seen images from tiny sensor, high MP cameras, and with plenty of light, their full resolution output looks as good per pixel as a similar sensor with half the resolution(or quarter, etc.).]]>Feb 25th 2008 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Feb 25th 2008 3:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/]]>Feb 25th 2008 3:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/i have a W100. I don't use it much, because 3X zoom is not enough...]]>Feb 25th 2008 9:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/Mar 16th 2008 8:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/
How many megapixels does the human eye have?

here's the answer:
http://www.maxim.com/askmaximeyeballsandipods/articles/19369.aspx?src=tstam]]>Mar 26th 2008 11:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/May 5th 2008 12:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/25/sonys-new-dsc-w300-brings-13-6-megapixels-to-point-and-shoots/w300 is my last resort for sony. Hoping to have bright and clear photos.
]]>May 20th 2008 7:38AM