[ytterbium]

With all those Megapixel race protests, i wonder where would you agree to stop for a daily unprofessional use, if the quality and price reflected that. What minimum Megapixel count would not make you think double or sacrifice high iso noise, dynamic range and make to consider more resolution for simple uses. Provided reasonable quality 5..7x max zoom (7x would have to start at something like 35mm wide i think), approx 10..15 cm "macro" at the wide end F2.8 lens, since you can't crop much now.

If there was a compact camera with excellent image quality, almost as DSLR but smaller sensor (and price), what would be the lowest acceptable resolution, keeping in mind that this is unprofessional, cheap compact but has kept quality in mind.

---

Last edited by ytterbium; 08-30-2009 at 07:34 AM.

[er1kksen]

I'd say 4-5mp bayer resolution is good enough to make a good 8x10. I've seen very nice results at even larger print sizes from the 5mp Olympus E-1 and 4.5mp Canon 1D.

[rparmar]

I would want 6MP on an APS-C sensor. I think that's the sweet spot and would love to see the smallest possible camera that could be built to that spec.

I am not so interested in smaller sensors, and have no idea what MP count is optimal for them. High ISO is not the only factor. Without a decent lens a camera means nothing.

[ytterbium]

Interesting. But i cant actually find a where one can easily get documented APS-C sensor and corresponding development/evaluation kit's, so i doubt it's an "open market".
It is much easier with smaller or odd sensors.
Closes i know is here: Kodak Image Sensor Solutions - Full Frame CCD

[JonPB]

A 1/2.5" sensor with the same pixel size as the K20D would have 1 megapixel (about 1152 x 858); a 1/1.8" sensor would have 1.5 megapixels (about 1435 x 1064). What might be interesting would be a ~1/1.8" sensor with a 1920 x 1080 resolution, designed more for displaying on TVs than for printing. With a good lens, manual controls, compact and very cheap--yeah, I'd consider buying one.

That said, my view of "stopping the megapixel race" means finding the optimum balance between sensitivity and resolution--without marketing's input. I don't know where that line is. For my particular uses, I'd be thrilled with a 6 megapixel full-frame SLR that doesn't have much shadow noise at ISO 51,200. But what that tells me is that I need to start lugging a tripod around for night shooting; I'd rather have an engineer decide what the optimum megapixel design is rather than have the marketer's start an ISO race for folks like me.

[er1kksen]

JonPB, how did you do those calculations? Any idea what a 2/3" sensor would give you with the K20D's pixel density? I think a 2/3" sensor compact could be pretty ideal if we don't want to move all the way up to DSLR (4/3 and larger) size.