The Megapixel Marketing Lie
Posted by Aaron on January 20th, 2010I generally post articles when I have something very useful to say, which is why my posts have been so sporadic. There are a myriad of sources for photography industry news and I always feel I am doing my readers a disservice by parroting every new equipment release or software upgrade here.
This time, though, a piece of “news” hit my screen that I had to share, and I hope that by reading it here you will receive the whole story and not just 1/3 of it as some people did when they got the information from digg, reddit, or similar.
We’re talking about megapixels, and we’re talking about marketing, and we’re talking about lies. Lies perpetrated by the manufacturers of point-and-shoot cameras with tiny little CCD sensors who keep increasing the megapixel count and marketing it like it’s the end-all be-all of imaging performance.
Not so! Read on…
This issue surfaced when a nameless blogger (literally, I have no idea who this person is) posted an article (you might call it a “diatribe”) about the “suicidal march” of point-and-shoot cameras toward more and more megapixels (spurned by the Consumer Electronics Conference, or CES, which was earlier this month in Las Vegas), and the results of cramming lots of pixels into a small area. You can read that article here.
In order to understand some of the background, though, you’ll want to read his or her other article about optical diffraction and Airy disks, which is very interesting, and then read his or her follow-up article where he (or she) addresses some of the anonymous Internet’s criticisms.
Now, I know it’s a gamble to spread anonymously written blog posts around as though they’re primary sources and laud the nameless, faceless author for their courage in uncovering what seems to be a pervasive scam, but to be honest I was blown away by the apparent truth of the whole thing.
Hi there,
Thanks kindly for the link. I’m not actually trying to be a shadowy figure of mystery! My name’s Ross.
I only started messing around with this new blog a month ago; so I was totally unprepared for this blowout of attention. This issue really seems to have hit a nerve.
I’m just happy if I can shed some light onto the camera industry’s “dirty little secret” here—but I’m hardly the first to.
Hi Ross! I found the Airy disks and diffraction stuff to be very interesting and the mediocrity of point-and-shoot cameras in the midst of skyrocketing megapixel counts is something I always held as anecdotally true if nothing else.
Keep writing! I’m sure you have earned a decent readership!
I’ll vouch for Ross’s expertise on most things photographic (not that my endorsement counts for much, but hey, I know the guy IRL) – and I only say “most” because no one can know it all. Ross knows more about photographic minutiae than anyone else I’ve ever met, and I know a good handful of good photographers. He’s my go-to guy when I have technical questions, whether they’re related to pixels or film.
Many may speak the truth with respect to the stupidity of megapixel mania, but Ross’s skill in communicating the rationale for calling it a consumer fraud is what stands apart. IMHO, of course!
Hi, Aaron,
Your analysis is very informative.
But I am a little puzzled here. Since the light hits (almost) vertically to the CCD, the photons should go deep into the pixel well. So it seems to me that the pixel well depth should be more relevant rather than the pixel pitch. Is there any additional discussion about that?
thanks,
poppyer
Hey Poppyer. I didn’t actually write the articles mentioned and have but a scant knowledge of particle physics and optics, but perhaps you could direct your question to Ross over there on http://petavoxel.wordpress.com if you haven’t already. I would be curious to know the answer to your question!