When I checked Canon and Nikon DSLRs, I see that unlike in smartphones, the megapixel race seems abandoned. My ancient Canon DSLR is over 10 years old, but the new Canon ones in the same class have only raised the MP amount from 18 to 24. If you pay over 1000 euros, you'd get 32.5MP. If you pay thousands of euros, you'd get 50MP. I suppose you can tell that the manufacturers consider DSLR to have totally lost the competition against smartphones in the more casual market. Thus people who really want to use DSLR are willing to pay a lot or alternatively don't really care about fancy specs. Nevertheless, as long as my current one works, I'm not going to pay 600-700 euros to upgrade from 18 to 24MP, plus some miscellaneous stuff like a touch screen. If the hobbyist cameras had at least 50MP, I might actually consider it.

Truthfully it depends on what you want to do with a camera. For taking photo's it's best to have a large sensor, you could want faster burst speeds, but lenses play a big part as well. No matter the size of a sensor on a smartphone, you still don't have enough quality zoom, then it goes to digital and gets worse.

Smartphone sensors have come a long way, and some of them take truly amazing pictures in daylight. Sadly most of the software offers little to no settings control and even with all the development you can't just beat a full or medium format camera: larger sensor area = more photons captured = less noise Plus, the fake blur is horrible. The natural blur can't be beaten by software. But for low quality Instagram pictures, good enough!

SmootyPoody:

1 megapixel (or just 1 pixel) is not = 1 megapixel. Its is only a quantitative statement about the amount, not about the quality. Its like saying 4K video is better than 1080p. No. Its just a quantitative statement. Its like saying a 4.5GHz CPU is better than a 4.0GHz CPU. The truth is there are so many variables that makes up a sensor - not even talking about the much more complicated final image. 108mp does not mean anything. Its a marketing term. It does not saying anything qualitative about an image. I can take a much more technical good image with a 10 year old DSLR than a smartphone from tomorrow. I would say the size and the tech used in that sensor is what is going to do most about the image. Physical size will just be better from a natual law perspective. Bigger sensor, more photons. Of cause this also need an equal size lens to support it.

Yeeeeeeeeah... I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges here. What I'm saying is that a Canon DSLR with a 18MP sensor Canon has approved is worse than a Canon DSLR with a 50MP sensor that Canon has approved. The imagine quality will automatically be a whole lot better in the latter, plus you can crop it quite a lot and still have an image of some size. I also believe that when you combine signals from multiple sensor pixels using a sophisticated processor, you may get a less noisy image than with a sensor of the same size but less pixels, although the final image might have the same dimensions, just like the article suggested. Or in your terms the same CPU architecture with a 4.5GHz unit would, surprise surprise, beat the 4.0GHz variant straight out of the ring. However, if few people bother to buy DSLRs these days, it means there's not much business in trying to upgrade them massively. The investment wouldn't pay itself back. That's why we don't see that much development, by the looks of it.

Kaarme:

Yeeeeeeeeah... I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges here. What I'm saying is that a Canon DSLR with a 18MP sensor Canon has approved is worse than a Canon DSLR with a 50MP sensor that Canon has approved. The imagine quality will automatically be a whole lot better in the latter, plus you can crop it quite a lot and still have an image of some size. I also believe that when you combine signals from multiple sensor pixels using a sophisticated processor, you may get a less noisy image than with a sensor of the same size but less pixels, although the final image might have the same dimensions, just like the article suggested. Or in your terms the same CPU architecture with a 4.5GHz unit would, surprise surprise, beat the 4.0GHz variant straight out of the ring. However, if few people bother to buy DSLRs these days, it means there's not much business in trying to upgrade them massively. The investment wouldn't pay itself back. That's why we don't see that much development, by the looks of it.

I'm just curious, do you have a DSLR camera? I think you may not realize the steps in quality difference if you haven't compared head to head. I recently got my first full frame camera and the difference between a phone camera and that thing is night and day. I don't even bother with my phone (Pixel 5) if I want a good picture anymore. I could say a lot more on the subject but I'm guessing you don't have a DSLR to compare to so I don't see the point in trying to change your mind.

scoter man1:

I'm just curious, do you have a DSLR camera? I think you may not realize the steps in quality difference if you haven't compared head to head. I recently got my first full frame camera and the difference between a phone camera and that thing is night and day. I don't even bother with my phone (Pixel 5) if I want a good picture anymore. I could say a lot more on the subject but I'm guessing you don't have a DSLR to compare to so I don't see the point in trying to change your mind.

I feel like nothing in his post is saying a DSLR is worse? To address your point though - I think most people would expect that paying a similar price for a device entirely made for taking pictures would yield better results than one that has far more functionality. That being said I think you would agree for 99% of people, a Pixel 5 would suffice. Honestly for some people it would probably yield better pictures because getting the most out of a DSLR requires you to actually understand photography and the device itself. Now that these phone cameras are getting 10x zooms, ultrawides, utilizing dual conversion, etc it's only going to get more difficult to sell DSLRs that aren't $2000. Especially when the bar for image quality for the vast majority of non-professionals is instagram.

Denial:

I feel like nothing in his post is saying a DSLR is worse? To address your point though - I think most people would expect that paying a similar price for a device entirely made for taking pictures would yield better results than one that has far more functionality. That being said I think you would agree for 99% of people, a Pixel 5 would suffice. Honestly for some people it would probably yield better pictures because getting the most out of a DSLR requires you to actually understand photography and the device itself. Now that these phone cameras are getting 10x zooms, ultrawides, utilizing dual conversion, etc it's only going to get more difficult to sell DSLRs that aren't $2000. Especially when the bar for image quality for the vast majority of non-professionals is instagram.

I think you're right, that's why I didn't want to go too deep and look like a dick, lol. Using any SLR is definitely something you have to play with. I'm just stunned at the difference you can get between a good phone camera (like a P5) and even a 5+ year old Sony full frame camera. One that I think is a great comparison is getting a similar focal length lens, setting the shutter/aperture/iso/everything up the same on both and taking a shot of the night sky. You'll probably see a 20-100 stars on a phone camera. On a DSLR you'll see tens to hundreds of thousands. Stunning! I find it nice that they don't drop new camera bodies every year too. Each one has something that really is an "upgrade" rather than, hey look, a new kludge to get around something that sucked last time! (like phones) Anyways, enough of me rambling on here...

scoter man1:

I'm just curious, do you have a DSLR camera? I think you may not realize the steps in quality difference if you haven't compared head to head. I recently got my first full frame camera and the difference between a phone camera and that thing is night and day. I don't even bother with my phone (Pixel 5) if I want a good picture anymore. I could say a lot more on the subject but I'm guessing you don't have a DSLR to compare to so I don't see the point in trying to change your mind.

Like I said in my first post, I have a 10+ years old DSLR (Canon 550D). It's APS-C, so it's not a full frame camera, but it's what I could afford. I don't really take photos with my smartphone, except for practical stuff that doesn't really matter photography wise (a label of some product for technical info is a good example or a picture of something I need to quickly send over IM to folks). I also have a Canon pocket camera I carry with me pretty much always. It still has a 5x optical zoom over smartphone cameras, but obviously a modern smartphone's software and electronics would be more advanced. My smartphone isn't exactly a camera monster, though. For my particular uses with the DSLR, I could put more MP to use so that I could crop the image more. I only like to take photos in sunlight, so lighting isn't an issue at all, reducing any noise problems. A good thing too because with my non-optically stabilised macro lens, getting sharp photos is difficult enough even with really short exposure times. A stabilised macro lens would have cost twice the camera's price, which was out of my range. All in all, it's not like I'd need a better camera for the moment. I just think DSLR megapixels should have grown more over the years. It's pure technology, so it should develop. It's harder to develop the optics than the electronics. I'm sure the processors and software have developed, even if I didn't mention it, but, really, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. One other thing is high-speed video. I don't see why the manufacturers can't allow a nearly 1000 euros "hobbyist" camera to record hundreds of frames per second. Sure, they sell real high-speed cameras as well, but those are 1000+ fps, so they wouldn't eat their own specialist market. Sorry about the long post...

Kaarme:

Like I said in my first post, I have a 10+ years old DSLR (Canon 550D). It's APS-C, so it's not a full frame camera, but it's what I could afford. I don't really take photos with my smartphone, except for practical stuff that doesn't really matter photography wise (a label of some product for technical info is a good example or a picture of something I need to quickly send over IM to folks). I also have a Canon pocket camera I carry with me pretty much always. It still has a 5x optical zoom over smartphone cameras, but obviously a modern smartphone's software and electronics would be more advanced. My smartphone isn't exactly a camera monster, though. For my particular uses with the DSLR, I could put more MP to use so that I could crop the image more. I only like to take photos in sunlight, so lighting isn't an issue at all, reducing any noise problems. A good thing too because with my non-optically stabilised macro lens, getting sharp photos is difficult enough even with really short exposure times. A stabilised macro lens would have cost twice the camera's price, which was out of my range. All in all, it's not like I'd need a better camera for the moment. I just think DSLR megapixels should have grown more over the years. It's pure technology, so it should develop. It's harder to develop the optics than the electronics. I'm sure the processors and software have developed, even if I didn't mention it, but, really, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. One other thing is high-speed video. I don't see why the manufacturers can't allow a nearly 1000 euros "hobbyist" camera to record hundreds of frames per second. Sure, they sell real high-speed cameras as well, but those are 1000+ fps, so they wouldn't eat their own specialist market. Sorry about the long post...

Ah ok I understand what you're saying now. I think that is mostly because the high mp count sensors just introduce a higher signal to noise ratio and cost more. The Sony A7R series gets you 61MP which is quite a lot. It has a mode where it can use the internal sensor shift technology to "gain" a higher res pic by stitching a few shots together too. There are cameras that have higher MP counts but you're talking big money at that point. Like hasselblad. To your point of them not allowing 1000fps, I agree that they seem like they should be able to do high burst speeds. Not sure why they can't. Phantom cameras make huge amounts of heat though so there must be a reason.

scoter man1:

To your point of them not allowing 1000fps, I agree that they seem like they should be able to do high burst speeds. Not sure why they can't. Phantom cameras make huge amounts of heat though so there must be a reason.

Yeah, I'm not saying they would need to reach the levels of the real high-speed cameras like Phantom. Those can do hundreds of thousands of fps. Something like 600fps at sub-HD resolution surely should be more than reasonable for a DSLR that costs a thousand bucks. It would require a cache memory of the DDR variety, I guess, but if the image resolution isn't that high, not massive amounts of it for limited length videos. The memory would costs tens of dollars at the maximum, which isn't a huge portion of the total price. As I recall, the flagship smartphones are doing it, maybe closer to 1000fps, so heat isn't likely a critical problem at that speed. The SNR has developed to a better direction constantly over the years, plus better CPUs and algorithms help with it as well. When you have plenty of light, it's less of an issue as well. In less light, you can combine the pixels. With modern UIs, it shouldn't be an issue, unlike in the rather unwieldy UI still present in my old camera. With technology, it's normal to expect more for the same price.

Oh ! More megapixels of noise ! While for extreme zoom it will help a phone is impossible to get a lens big enough to not get tons of noise in such resolutions.

SmootyPoody:

Sure, but that are two different price segments. The 18mp camera is not competing against the 50mp one. The 18mp one is using a lot older tech and lower-end tech. That is why you can have it so cheap. The 18mp is an entry level camera. The 50mp is a professional. But the megapixel count has nothing to do with the entry vs professional.

Back when I bought the camera, a decade ago, 50MP camera was probably something only NASA would have been using. Mine wasn't an entry level DSLR either, it was the hobbyist level, so mid-level, before the enthusiastic and naturally the professional series. Entry level was a different series at the bottom. Nowadays the comparable models have 24MP. I'm sure the other technology has made a jump in 10 years. They would have needed Intel execs to not make great strides in 10 years.

SmootyPoody:

A Megapixel count is just a sampling rate..

No, it's not. It's a physical feature of the sensor, how many photodetectors it has. Sampling rate has got nothing to do with it, barely even as a comparison.

SmootyPoody:

I am a professional photographer and use a 42mp sony camera on a daily basis.

Good for you. I'd also use one if I could afford one, but I'm not a pro and can't deduct it from taxes.

SmootyPoody:

That thing is amazing - if the lighting is right. It has terrible ISO performance because the photosites are so small.

Yeah, I wrote earlier I like to photograph in sunlight. There's no better lighting condition known to men and mer than that, if you like the kind of atmosphere it creates in photos, which I do.

SmootyPoody:

My 12mp sony camera however is also fantastic. You think 12mp is not enough these days, but it is. If its made with modern tech. The problem is that we compare 10 old tech with brand new future tech and say "look at the difference! WOW!".

No, thanks, I don't what to extrapolate images larger, even if the original supposedly has better image quality. I often need to crop my photos, so I'd like more pixels instead. I could also buy better lenses, but the manufacturers sure know how to get their money back. Alas, I don't.

SmootyPoody:

Also. Lower megapixel counts lets you read out data from the sensor much faster and can capture more images with the same space. Those images can then be put together and you can then superresolution them. There is a reason that Apple is still using 12mp cameras. Its because they can manipulate them much faster, take more images and compare difference and then normalise the end result. You dont even notice it just took 20 images and compared them, rotated some, superresolutioned, some in low exposure, some in high all put together to one image.. In the end its the physical size of the sensor and the current tech that says what the quality will be. Megapixels count is just one quantitative factor of a whole pipeline and largely a marketing term. You dont hear all the other numbers of the stuff that is in the tech - only the megapixel count.

I doubt I'll be moving to smartphone photography any times soon, and even if I did, I have a genetic dislike for Apple, so it's out of the question anyway. While I haven't experienced the fancy technologies flagship smartphones use, I have a gut feeling the engineers building the smartphone camera systems and software are less interested in photographing living bugs and other small animals, and more interested in photographing humans, tourist attractions, dishes, and the kind of stuff people usually, casually photograph with their phones.