Olympus exec declares "twelve megapixels is enough"

The megapixel race has been declared over plenty of times before, but we're guessing that there will be more folks than ever in agreement with Olympus exec Akira Watanabe's recent statement that twelve megapixels is "enough for covering most applications most customers need." In addition to that blanket declaration, Watanabe said that Olympus has "no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System" (its line of DSLRs), adding that it would instead focus on other features like dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting. On that latter front, Watanabe predicts that autofocus could be one of the big areas of innovation in DSLRs, with current "phase detect" systems giving way to new and improved image sensor-based autofocus systems. So, what do you think? Is twelve enough, or is the more megapixels the merrier? Sound off in comments.

[Via Ars Technica]

[a ham sandwich @ Mar 9th 2009 6:07PM]

for the time being (that being the key phrase) i agree with him.

[Vince @ Mar 9th 2009 6:15PM]

+1

I think definitely 12mp is enough, for the time being, as long as other aspects of cameras improve.

The megapixel race is more for marketing purposes, as to the general public more = better, and for this reason alone, the megapixel race will continue, until another number can be recognized as a 'rating' for cameras.

[BigDaddyM @ Mar 9th 2009 6:16PM]

I also agree, for most people, that 12 megapixels is enough resolving power, but there is more to a cmaera than a sensor, like the quality of the lens.

Also, I agree that camera manufactures need better dynamic range and ISO performance. (Or I should say, I want better performanbce.)

Having said that, I work in an advertising agency and in controled lighting conditions, megapixels is king. I work with a 1Ds body and only L lenses...

Eventually, megapixels should be increase WITH THE OTHER FEATURES....
M

[Skrying @ Mar 9th 2009 6:24PM]

Why for the time being? The megapixel count in no way limits the enhancement of other aspects. It could be argued that instead this focus on increased density means time and resources are being placed in a needless areas. The areas in which a professional photographer is resolution limited are in cropping and some still object model photography. Even then, those photographers should be instead using film which is of a much higher resolution.

Resolution is like megahertz. It is a number that people associate because it provides them a sense of scale. Just like horsepower, just like tornado scales, hurricane scales, etc. In the industries where actual knowledge of the field exists the use of such scales are laughably pointless. Just like megapixels and megahertz in the modern camera or computer world.

[Matthias @ Mar 9th 2009 6:46PM]

Size of print needs to be taken into consideration, some people want to print a 20/30 which you can do with a 12mp but the resolution does start to show at that point. Other than that though 12 MP is fine.

The biggest issue I want is noise reduction and full sized sensors so I don't have to do funky conversions to figure out what my old 50mm lens will actually look like when I put it on my camera.

[alexmueller @ Mar 9th 2009 6:46PM]

@Skrying

Fine we will both buy the same computer, the only difference is mine will have a Quad 2.6GHz processor and I'll give you a Celeron 1.2ghz processor, and we will see who will be laughing running windows vista. Hint: It won't be you.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Mar 9th 2009 6:53PM]

I'm not sure "for the time being" is even necessary to say. The fact of the matter is that film cameras stuck with 35mm frame sizes for a long time, and the only potential quality improvement was in the film itself. Yes, some people used larger formats, but most didn't. And the quality of the film did NOT improve as fast as pixel densities have been improving.

There is a point beyond which you don't want to blow up a picture, and, frankly, 12mp is big enough for all but the largest reproductions. Even though you might want to crop and blow *that* up, you'll start seeing artifacts from imperfect sensors and lenses before you start seeing the individual pixels as being too blocky.

But then, my DSLR only does 6mp and I know for a fact that the biggest problems with the picture I take are, in order:
1. Crappy photographer
2. Crappy lenses

Pixel density on the sensor doesn't factor in anywhere, and this is on an SLR. 12mp on a pocket camera is utterly pointless.

[CraigJ @ Mar 9th 2009 7:05PM]

"enough for covering most applications most customers need."
should be
"enough for covering most applications most consumers need."

If what you do is take pictures and view them on your monitor, then 3 mega pixels is more than enough
If what you do is print 4x6 images the 3 mega pixels is enough
If you want to print nice 8x10s then 5 mega pixels is enough, although to get to 300 DPI you want at least 7MP
If you want to print 19x13s then 12 MP may be enough, but your effective DPI is about 120. to get to 300DPI you need a 22MP image
If you want to print a poster, 12MP is definitely not enough.

The problem is, as the size of a printed image increases the number of pixels increases as a square. a 4x6 image is 24 sq inches. an 8x12 image is 96 sq inches, for example.

[owdee @ Mar 9th 2009 7:24PM]

@unixsystemsengineer

finally someone actually understands that megapixels matter a boat-load less that many other factors in a camera such as ISO performance (highly degraded as MPs increase in all but the most expensive cameras).

hey people! its not the pixels you are going to see even on poster-sized prints. the noise (grain) and the chromatic aberration will make your eyes bleed by the time you blow it up big enough to see blocky pixels. i am so sick and tired of hearing about megapixels that don't even matter. get a decent SLR and an amazing prime lens (like a F1.8 50mm or for telephoto a 300mm 2.8 or something of the sort) and you will get the best prints regardless of MP rating.

[brian @ Mar 9th 2009 7:31PM]

@craigJ - i agree with your breakdown, but i don't think you need to print the larger images like a 13"x19" at 300dpi. i print them frequently on my Epson R1800 from my 40D images (10mp). 300dpi is considered magazine quality and you don't hold a 13"x19" print up close to your face like a magazine. you back away from a print this size (or larger) and that print resolution is not necessary when you take a step back.

[slab @ Mar 9th 2009 7:31PM]

@alexmueller No, the comparison is more like between a 2.0 Ghz Pentium 4 and a 2.0 GHz Core Duo.

If megahertz were a magic scale that worked for everything, both of those would be equivalent. Hint: They're not.

[TareX @ Mar 9th 2009 7:36PM]

I disagree. 12 megapixels will always be enough so long as human eyes don't undergo a sudden evolutionary leap.

Hell 5MP and decent lens are enough...

[ilh @ Mar 9th 2009 7:42PM]

I don't know anybody that prints digital photos. In my book, the MP race was over long ago as it's pointless having umpteen MP for only looking at them on screen needing to zoom out to 25% to see more than somebody's eye.

[Aaron @ Mar 9th 2009 7:43PM]

Agreed. 5MP is plenty good for an 8x10 enlargement -- the largest most consumer printers can print. By my calculations, 12MP is good for a 13x19 enlargement. If the consumer is going larger than that, they need to move up to a professional-level camera.

Hell, back in 2001, I took photos of my friend's wedding using a top-quality 3MP camera with a great lens, and even looking at the 8x10 enlargements today after being professionally printed, I can barely tell the pictures are digital.

[kccboy2004 @ Mar 9th 2009 8:00PM]

yep. 12 is enough for general use, for now.

better to 'FOCUS' on other aspects, now.

[peestandingup @ Mar 9th 2009 9:02PM]

Well, 12 megapixels is gonna be just fine for a good while, & people arent gonna be able to fantom this now, but we arent always gonna be using prints to display our photos & they'll eventually die-out (not completely but for the most part) being replaced by digital frames. And also, I'll tell you one thing that no one has touched on why more megapixels are essential...monitor resolution & future-proofing that image of yours.

What I mean is, as monitor resolutions get bigger & bigger, a measly 6 MP image at around 3000x2000 res is gonna run out of viewing space FAST when viewing on a website or on your desktop. That means in the near future, when we are all using big honking monitors with big honking resolutions, your stuff's gonna look mighty small compared to shots that were taken more recently or with more megapixels early on.

It's basically gonna be the equivalent of looking at a 1 or 2 MP (1600x1200) image right now on a monitor with a 2560x1600 or even a 1920x1200 screen resolution (which are hella common these days). I know what you're thinking. "That's so far off it doesn't even matter", right?? No, not really. It was just 6 years ago that 2 MP cameras were the cat's meow.

Just saying. Megapixels DO matter. It's not all that matters (quality of course is the main thing), but it's still very important. You gotta pack in enough to future-proof the image while still not going overboard but retaining quality.

[wickedpheonix @ Mar 9th 2009 9:12PM]

For most shutterbug-happy consumers, 12 MP is more than enough. The megapixel race should've been over for consumers back at 6 MP (the Nikon D40, which is a damn fine DSLR).

HOWEVER - 35mm film's detail is over the equivalent of 80 MP - include the high dynamic tonal and color range of film, and that figure doubles. 4x5 large-format film is equivalent to over a gigapixel, and of course some people shoot even bigger than that. No way in hell are the megapixel wars over for the professional landscape photographer.

[The Walrus @ Mar 10th 2009 2:17AM]

@wicked: Can you give some links/data to back up your claims?

[CraigJ @ Mar 9th 2009 11:26PM]

@brian.

What you say is probably true, however, I think it depends on the subject matter. People typically don't examine a photo from close range, however, there are many cases where the extra detail is noticeable. I recently saw a photograph of a mountain ridge, there were many, like 100+ pine trees in the shot. there were 2 versions, one taken with a 4 x 5 camera, and scanned. And another taken with a Nikon (D1, I think). Anyway, at poster size you could actually see the individual needles on the trees in the 4x5 shot. in the other shot you could see some of the needles, but the difference in the level of detail is striking. Now, this is more than just mega pixels, but the point is, in order to capture fine detail, you need high resolution capture media, whether that is a cmos or film. You can't print information that doesn't exist, you can only interpolate it and print that.

It's also not readily apparent until you see the images side by side. On their own both images probably look great, but when seen juxtaposed, the image with more detail will appear sharper and more lifelike. This same is tru for SD vs HD tv. You think your up scaling DVD player looks great, and it does, until you view a properly mastered BluRay disc next to the DVD and you realize what detail you're not seeing with the DVD

Having said all this. I would say that anything more that 4 or 5 megapixles with a cheap plastic lens is stupid. In order to capture the fine detail you need quality optics, and them ain't cheap.

[Evan @ Mar 9th 2009 11:51PM]

@ Wicked
As a photographer, its impossible to compare digital to film.
As for large format 4x5 and up, the are ways. For example, I have a full frame DSLR, and I will zoom in to about 135mm and take a photo of about 7 images across and 3-4 down and stitch them together in PS. The files are HUGE. At 21.1 megapixel I'm averaging at about 500 megapixel.
Fun stuff.
However I do believe that 12 is enough for the average person.

[thedesolate1 @ Mar 10th 2009 9:32AM]

You guys aren't factoring in photoshop using graphic designers who need the extra resolution to create more accurate images for editing and publishing. Im saying we don't need more than 12 but all those other numbers you guys are throwing around for "consumers" are a little too low.

[Blaine Oliver @ Mar 9th 2009 6:08PM]

Even 5MP is enough if it had a decent quality set of pixels rather than the crap phones churn out, Even at 8mp camera phones give pictures that are quite grainy even on an A5 print. While if they were pixel perfect they would blow up nicely and would still look good.

[Skrying @ Mar 9th 2009 6:28PM]

This is because of sensor size but more importantly lens quality.

[Blaine Oliver @ Mar 9th 2009 6:34PM]

Its all about marketing though with the herd that is the general public.

[Boards of Canada @ Mar 9th 2009 7:11PM]

My samsung cellphone can do 5mp! wouaaah... but the lens is crap... shiiiiit. Its better than most phone out there but its not enough quality to justify the 5mp tag. Photos taken with it are just as good as cheap disposable camera.

[solmar @ Mar 10th 2009 12:11PM]

Pretty much... it's not the megapixel count that matters, since you can have a lousy cameraphone with a vga sensor produce a ressed-up 5 megapixel image (yes, it's been done). You also can't compare the output of a compact (especially not from Olympus) with an image of the same megapixel count from a DSLR, or even among compacts. Megapixels mean very little.

However, I've heard the "xxx is enough" statement so many times, and it's been proved wrong just as many times. Remember when they said that 64k of memory "is enough" for computers? How much memory is considered just barely usable today? Around 1GB, which is more than *ten thousand* times what was considered "enough".

I'm not surprised that a statement like this comes from Olympus... they're not very in touch with their consumers.

[Finnschi @ Mar 9th 2009 6:09PM]

ahh yea, just like 64K is enough Ram ....

[HC @ Mar 9th 2009 6:17PM]

Those are different things... Computer memory and mega-pixels are different. More memory helps a ton in computing, but having 10 megapixels over 8 means nothing if you cannot get the shot right, or have applications capable of using the higher resolution etc...

I mean, I'd rather take a quality 8 mega-pixel camera over a sub-par 12 mega-pixel camera anyday.

And just so you know, that quote you said, trying to reference bill gates, is completely wrong and false. It was 640K ought to be enough and Bill in fact never said that.

Heres his response, "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time. Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."

[alexmueller @ Mar 9th 2009 6:48PM]

@HC

Some people work with photos in graphic design and 8MP is not enough.

[CraigJ @ Mar 9th 2009 6:54PM]

double fail

1. 640K, not 64K
2. This is a myth, and he didn't really say that

[iKurt Mark III @ Mar 9th 2009 8:29PM]

Ever heard of cropping or "smart zooms" HC? You know, where they crop or magnify a subject to 3MP from a 12MP image?

HC, you're friggin delusional.

[ark_v2 @ Mar 9th 2009 9:55PM]

Megapixels just take bigger shots; it doesn't make them good.

[JerseyBricklayer @ Mar 9th 2009 6:10PM]

He will eat his words in about 4 months.

[hitsthings @ Mar 9th 2009 6:31PM]

Go lay some bricks in Jersey.

[phanbouy fan fan @ Mar 9th 2009 6:41PM]

i heard there's douchebags there

[Jake @ Mar 9th 2009 6:12PM]

In most cases, twelve megapixels is plenty enough. But when you reach pro-level, some pros need the higher megapixel count (Think Nikon D3x) for large format printing, or if they demand a larger photo for whatever reason. But, for normal consumer use of it's SLRs, I think focusing on image quality is better.
~Jake

[finite_loop @ Mar 9th 2009 6:15PM]

that's what medium format cameras are for

[phil @ Mar 9th 2009 8:31PM]

That's when you get into high-end full frame sensors, or even the F-series Nikons and start to enter the realm of Hasselblad medium format. Olympus has never really entered that particular market (in fact I can't even find a camera by them that does medium format), so for them 12MP is enough.

As a hobbyist photographer, even with the photos I end up printing, I can't see really needing larger than 10MP anytime soon. As others have said above, It's more about the photographer and the quality of glass than how many MP can be crammed on a sensor.

[Michgar @ Mar 9th 2009 6:12PM]

12 megapixels is not only enough, it's probably too much. 1080p resolution, the current standard for high definition video,is but a mere 2 megapixels. I know video and still images are different ballgames for photophiles, but few people outside of a few pixel-crazed professional photographers could tell the difference between anything in the 4-12+MP range.

[turn_self_off @ Mar 9th 2009 7:26PM]

and most home viewers cant tell the diff between upscaled dvd and HD, unless you make them stand right in front of the tv so that one can count the pixels of the edge of a still frame...

[schmitt @ Mar 9th 2009 6:12PM]

Its all in the lens, my friend...which is why I don't buy Olympus.

[Rick @ Mar 9th 2009 6:20PM]

Uh, dude... Olympus zuiko (35mm film) and now Zuiko Digital are some of the best lenses ever made. I'm a nikon person, but I know full well Oly optics are top notch.

[Gad Get @ Mar 9th 2009 6:19PM]

What?! Clearly, you need to read some reviews!

[yoyoma. @ Mar 9th 2009 6:34PM]

sorry buddy but Olympus is know to have some of the best optics in the field. Some would argue that the only lens maker that does better is Leika. There are many reasons to chose an other dslr maker over Olympus but lenses is not one of them.

[Jamie MacD @ Mar 9th 2009 7:32PM]

You obviously have no experience with lenses. The Zuiko line of lenses are top notch. The 50mm f/2 is ranked as one the best lenses made. The OM 50mm 1.8/ 1.4 are STUNNING lenses as well.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_50_2_o20/page4.asp

Quote, "Certainly in terms of the studio results, it's the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens"

Come back with an education please.

[iKurt Mark III @ Mar 9th 2009 8:31PM]

Too bad Olympus lenses are made in China

[djkindred @ Mar 9th 2009 8:58PM]

They are actually made in Japan....I am also a Nikon shooter but am well aware of their amazing optics!!

[chasen @ Mar 10th 2009 12:31AM]

Honestly man... what the hell are you smoking? I can't think of a better set of glass... the new 14-54mm zuiko is the single best glass I've ever owned... and with my prime 50mm on the way I can know I have near perfection.

Olympus only really lacks in their choice of sensor (the 4/3's system) but I have no real qualms when I shoot professionally. As a side-note I have used/owned Mark III's and Nikons top-notch, but I love my E-3 more than anything now. Nothing matches Oly color.

[insky @ Mar 9th 2009 11:41PM]

No I iKurt I think for you it's "too bad Apple doesn't make lenses, or cameras."

[Rorschach @ Mar 9th 2009 7:16PM]

Why hinder innovation? I agree that autofocus and other features are needed but why decide that they are going to stop innovating in a field and more in others?

then again its not my company....