Size, ahem, doesn't always matter. At least, if this New York Times article about digital cameras is correct. It seems they printed three versions of the same image. One each at five, eight, and 13-megapixel resolutions. They then showed them on Times Square and asked passerbys which was which. Of the "dozens" of people who were surveyed, 95% percent could not tell the difference while the other five percent tried but failed to get it right. In fact, according to the article, only one person correctly chose which was which and , the writer feels, even this was a result of random chance, not expertise.
However, since this was a non-scientific, non-double blind experiment you can't say much about the conclusions drawn from this. That said, this sounds to me a lot like double blind studies done on audio perception. It seems there are people who allege they can hear differences in music when said music is played over different types of speaker wire (the more exotic and therefore more expensive, the better). Yet, when these so called golden ears try to tell the difference in controlled, double blind tests, they are unable to do so.
Note, this is not the same as saying there are no differences. Theoretically, there could be. But if there are, the differences appear to be so small as to be below the level of human detection.
I wonder if the same thing isn't happening with digital camera specifications where manufacturers are racing to sell cameras with more and more pixels (with higher and higher prices) because people think they will get sharper, better images (or, at least, manufacturers are either claiming or implying such).
If this article is correct, then unlike the difference between Betamax and VHS, there does not appear to be a difference. So, why spend the extra money on anything above five megapixels? Well, I guess there may be other features that are only available in the higher prices cams. But otherwise, it doesn't make sense to me. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here. Feel free to buy whichever you choose.
By the way, as sort of a bonus rant, I love how manufacturers are adding image stabilization (at an added cost, of course) to their cameras. What is so interesting to me is they are solving a problem they have created. See, a lot of camera shake is being caused by people holding their camera with their arms extended away from their body so that they can view the LCD screen on the back of the camera. This is similar to placing the camera on the end of a pendulum. That is, the camera, at the end of your arms, swings up and down and/or left and right leading to images that, in some light conditions, will result in blur.
However, you probably wouldn't hold the camera this way except many digital cameras don't have optical viewfinders. If they did, you could brace the camera against your face (while looking through the viewfinder), keeping your elbows and arms close to your body, and thus reduce shaking (thereby reducing or eliminating image blur).
An added benefit of optical view finders are that they work great in the sunshine and, conversely, in low light conditions. Both sunshine and darkness wash out every LCD screen I've ever seen. The only downsides I know of are for eyeglass users (because the glasses get in the way of the viewfinder) and if you want to shoot a high or low angle shot (because LCDs allow you to hold the camera away from your eyes, thus making it easier to shoot low or high level shots). Otherwise, why not get a digital camera that has both an optical viewfinder and LCD screen (Sony, Canon, Kodak, and others make models that have both) and have the best of both worlds?
Happy Shopping!
Aloha!
