By Russ Juskalian, The New York Times
It happens to all of us: the moment when one finds out that more megapixels and better photographs aren’t always the same thing. To be disabused of the Megapixel Myth—this decade’s analog of the Megahertz Myth—can lead to an existential buyer’s crisis in miniature.
Disbelief, at first, gives way to a sort of embarrassing self-questioning: You mean, 15 megapixels isn’t three times better than 5 megapixels? This year’s model isn’t better than last year’s? I spent all that money upgrading—for nothing?
READ ON at nytimes.com
Mike (Thanks to Aaron Dill)
Featured Comment by Robin P: "Well, it read like an advert for dpreview to me but I sent the link to a technophobe friend anyway and he replied 'Very interesting and easy for a novice like me to understand.'
"All grist to the mill in the struggle to make technology easier for the man in the street to understand and deter the manufacturers from persuading us to buy what we don't really need."
Featured Comment by Mike Jones: "The article brings one additional factor into the equation, but is little more enlightening than the pixel counting scenario. We are still judging digital photography within the digital realm, simply because it is digital. Pixels, sensor size, pixel density, ISO etc. When did one ever judge a photograph by such criteria? If so where would 35mm been in comparison to large format? Colour rendering, sharpness, gamut, contrast, bokeh are all factors too, but not so easily quantified. Especially when related to the final image."