Howdy, fellow 365ers
Someone told me recently that higher megapixels in a camera means poorer low-light capabilities. Is this true, or is more the lens or camera settings that determine better low-light picture-taking?
Thanks
Robyn/2thGirl
Yeah, that couldn't be further from the truth. The resolution of a camera's sensor, or the megapixels, have absolutely nothing to do with low-light capabilities.
It's all about ISO and noise. My Nikon D200 starts to show noise at 800 ISO, while the Nikon D3X can shoot comfortably to about 12800 ISO before showing noise.
The newser the camera model, the better low-light capability it will have. All the major camera brands have been working on that capability the last few years.
It doesn't affect low light capabilities, but the more megapixels you cram onto a sensor the more noise you will get in your shots, especially on high ISO shots. This is usually no problem if you shoot with a DSLR because they use a relatively large sensor but most P&S cameras use tiny image sensors and image noise can become a problem.
Comparing two otherwise-like-for-like sensors, yes, in effect the higher MP one would shoot poorer low light shots, as you'll have more noise in the resultant image, and night time photography typical demands high ISO and is especially sensitive to noise.
Shooting high ISO requires more from the camera's processor(s). If there are more MPs (i.e. more data) the processors need to work more. There needs to be some compromise between ISO processing and writing the data. This is (apparently) why the Canon 1DX can shoot full frame at ISO 204,800 -- because it has two badass processors, which can handle both processes simultaneously.
@gurry Well, I guess that is sorta true. I guess what I should have said was that by the time Nikon came out with the D3x at 25MP, it also had such an awesome sensor it could record high ISO's without problem.
The point is, however: there is no reason not to buy a camera with high resolution just because of noise. All cameras have noise in low-light conditions.
@jasonbarnette Agreed. If a camera can shoot at 12,800 or higher, it better have the processing power to make sure it doesn't look like a drunken blizzard.
(Also, it's not the sensor, but the processors. The sensor is like the plate of food being served; the processors and their power relate to how fast you can chew, swallow, and digest the food before pooping it out into a pretty image! ;)
And for the moment that is one decided advantage Nikon has over everyone else: processing power. Their sensors can shoot faster photos at higher ISO with lower noise than anyone else. Although Canon is catching up. I hear Olympus is trying to buy it from someone else.
@gurry Now you're talking my language! =-D I'm not too "camera lingo savvy", but I get food and digestion analogies... haha! @gurry@jasonbarnette@helstor I'm looking specifically at the Sony alpha65 that just came out. I had read pre-release reviews about the low-light capabilities and it was reviewed as awesome. Then a few have done post-release reviews (I'm guessing the generic consumer like me) and have said it stinks in low light. Now I'm all screwed up! Do I want it or do I not? I really originally was looking at the a55 because of how small it is and I don't want something big and heavy for my trip to Italy next year (and for my future world travels). =-D
Still trying to get all the right info to make the best decision. It's hard to sift through reviews and to know if they are nit-picking and comparing teeny tiny differences or if these are big flaws an amateur for-fun photographer should be worried about.
Thanks for the info!
@jasonbarnette When you get back, can you let me in on how you get such crystal clear pictures? They look like I'm looking out a window, with my glasses on! =-)
While larger (physical size) pixels deal better with low light (less noise at high ISO), and therefore less pixels in the same size sensor means less noise, it is really not relevant. And not because of newer technology and better processors.
The reason it is irrelevant is because, if you take the higher megapixel image (with a bit more noise) and scale down the image to the same pixel count as the one from the lesser-megapixel sensor (the one with less noise), it also reduces the noise, thus resulting in an almost identical noise ratio. Of course, that is in a comparison of two same-generation cameras of similar quality (say, 5D Mark II and D700).
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
It's all about ISO and noise. My Nikon D200 starts to show noise at 800 ISO, while the Nikon D3X can shoot comfortably to about 12800 ISO before showing noise.
The newser the camera model, the better low-light capability it will have. All the major camera brands have been working on that capability the last few years.
Shooting high ISO requires more from the camera's processor(s). If there are more MPs (i.e. more data) the processors need to work more. There needs to be some compromise between ISO processing and writing the data. This is (apparently) why the Canon 1DX can shoot full frame at ISO 204,800 -- because it has two badass processors, which can handle both processes simultaneously.
Similar to what @helstor and @eyebrows said.
The point is, however: there is no reason not to buy a camera with high resolution just because of noise. All cameras have noise in low-light conditions.
(Also, it's not the sensor, but the processors. The sensor is like the plate of food being served; the processors and their power relate to how fast you can chew, swallow, and digest the food before pooping it out into a pretty image! ;)
And for the moment that is one decided advantage Nikon has over everyone else: processing power. Their sensors can shoot faster photos at higher ISO with lower noise than anyone else. Although Canon is catching up. I hear Olympus is trying to buy it from someone else.
Also, poop analogies. There is no better universal experience.
@gurry @jasonbarnette @helstor I'm looking specifically at the Sony alpha65 that just came out. I had read pre-release reviews about the low-light capabilities and it was reviewed as awesome. Then a few have done post-release reviews (I'm guessing the generic consumer like me) and have said it stinks in low light. Now I'm all screwed up! Do I want it or do I not? I really originally was looking at the a55 because of how small it is and I don't want something big and heavy for my trip to Italy next year (and for my future world travels). =-D
Still trying to get all the right info to make the best decision. It's hard to sift through reviews and to know if they are nit-picking and comparing teeny tiny differences or if these are big flaws an amateur for-fun photographer should be worried about.
Thanks for the info!
@gurry might have some good suggestions. He's like that every once in awhile.
In short: low-light all depends on situation, exposure, and lens. Fast lenses help. Tripods and long exposures help. So it might still work for you.
While larger (physical size) pixels deal better with low light (less noise at high ISO), and therefore less pixels in the same size sensor means less noise, it is really not relevant. And not because of newer technology and better processors.
The reason it is irrelevant is because, if you take the higher megapixel image (with a bit more noise) and scale down the image to the same pixel count as the one from the lesser-megapixel sensor (the one with less noise), it also reduces the noise, thus resulting in an almost identical noise ratio. Of course, that is in a comparison of two same-generation cameras of similar quality (say, 5D Mark II and D700).