God damn mega-pixels!

Since many people are aware I'm a photography nut, not a week passes without someone asking me for a suggestion on their next digital camera, since they have an old one that can "only" take 3 (or 2 or 4) mega-pixels pictures and the pictures are not that great. So they want to know if 6 MP is enough, or maybe they need 9 or even 12.

Sigh ...

OK, I'll try to make this as clear and short as possible. The "mega-pixels" (the number of individual pixels the camera sensor has) is ONE of a camera's properties, GENERALLY the LEAST important. Why is everyone talking about MEGA-PIXELS then? Because the manufacturers exasperated by the the increasing dumbness of the general public they finally found a NUMBER they can print on the box. Biiiig number good! Small number baaaaad! So when you're looking at your camera and you see 3 (mega-pixels) and then you look at the one in the store and you see 12, you KNOW it must be the missing 9 meeeeeeega-pixels that make your pictures look like shit.

For those that are not convinced, here are two pictures. Both of them are roughly 1 mega-pixel pictures (click on it to see full size).



Can you tell the difference? If not, stop reading right now and have your eyes checked. Seriously. go now. Don't drive though, take a cab, you must be legally blind. On the top is a picture from my "camera" phone. On the bottom, it's a picture from my compact digital FinePix F31fd (which was set to capture a 1 MP image). Why are they different? For the same reason two 6 cylinder cars are different, one of them can be a recent marvel of engineering german car which gets to 60mph in 4 seconds and makes 30MPG, and the other can be a 1950 piece of shit that needs 4 hours to get to 60MPH and it barely makes it from gas station to the next. Not to mention looks, handling, brakes, noise, interior, ABS, sound system, etc. When you buy a car do you take into account more then the number of cylinders? I certainly hope it's the LAST thing you'd consider. The number of mega-pixels should be the LAST thing you should consider when buying a camera.

Incidentally, the Brownie camera that Kodak started to sell in February 1900 for $1 was likely able to take more clear pictures then more then 50% of the current crop of "camera" phones.

What's important then? Like with anything else, it's a complicated answer. It depends on how are you planning on using your camera. Are you taking most of your pictures outdoors during the day ? Then almost ANY digital camera will do. Do you take lots of pictures in low light and hate the way the flash make most faces look? Then you have to look for low light perfomance (sensor and optics). Do you often go in the wilderness for weeks? Then battery life/type might be important to you.

Here's a list with the most important properties of a camera to get you started.

* The quality of the sensor (flashless low light performance is a good approximation of the overall quality of the sensor and lens)
* The quality of the optics (here bigger, in size, is better. The smaller the glass is, the crappier it will be. Sorry, the laws of physics are at fault).
* Battery type and battery life (bigger battery is better)
* Autofocus speed (try to capture the kitten jumping around? A camera that needs 3 seconds to focus might not work all that well)

There are many other things to take into account and yes, it involves research and ... gasp... thinking!

P.S. I just bought a compact digital camera to have with me when I don't feel like carrying my (rather large) digital SLR. It a Fuji Finepix F31fd camera. Great little thing, only $250. So if you can't be bothered to do your own research, get this one. Sigh ... I know you'll be asking. It's a six God damn mega-pixels.