Which is better 8mp or 5mp

Night vision is not extremely critical. Am interested in your comments on where you think I may have gone wrong. Joined Mar 9, Messages 34, Reaction score 15, They are 2 MP or 4 MP. Thanks for the input. I will look at the sensor size and darkfighter low light was not of high importance, but I don't want it to look like crap either. Can you suggest another vendor other than BHPhoto? Thanks, Roveer.

You can try the forum store, it was relabled Hikvision cameras. A forum member is china provides international camera and excellent service and support. There are a number of posts on his excellent service. Can you link one of these cameras? Joined Dec 21, Messages 51 Reaction score 2. Joined Apr 18, Messages Reaction score I deleted my prior comment because I didn't completely read the original post and my comment didn't make sense.

You may want to show the property owner some nighttime footage where the face is a blur vs detailed enough to ID the person, they might reconsider their low light requirements. Last edited: Jun 5, That makes perfect sense. Glad to know. There are three technical limitations to raising the megapixel rating of a camera in an effort to boost quality. One is simply that a higher resolution takes longer to process and consumes more storage space. Another limitation is the sharpness of the lens.

Details are usually pretty sharp in the center but they tend to fall off slightly towards the edges. However, it stands to reason that there would come a point where increasing the resolution would only capture the defects of the lens in increasing detail.

This is caused by inaccuracies in the measurements for each pixel, and it takes the form of a speckled graininess across the image. As a result, noise reduction also removes some of the fine detail from a photo. In dimly lit scenes, the camera must boost the exposure, and this boosts noise levels too. A small sensor has a small lens sat in front of it, which captures less light than a bigger sensor and lens. However, it is possible to increase the resolution without boosting noise levels if you also increase the physical size of the sensor.

This explains why SLRs are able to offer 24MP and higher resolutions but still deliver lower noise than compact cameras with their tiny sensors. So how many megapixels do you need? However, make sure that very high resolutions are matched by an equivalent increase in sensor size. Of course, image quality is also defined by the design of the sensor, the quality of the lens, the intelligence of the metering and automatic exposure system Of course without zooming in.

If yes, how is that? If no, when I watch at a 10mp picture on a 2mp screen, where do those 18mp pixels in excess go? A friend of mine convinced me to get the D I thought the D would have been fine. However the the D has better water proofing bit more rugged etc. D would be a great back up body has better low noise characteristics and does not require a tripod in low light.

I have set the D to a 1. This is to reduce file size There are many other considerations. The range of apertures available to a cell phone, between fastest possible and the point where diffraction becomes a problem, is very small. Also, because of the small absolute size of available apertures smartphone images will almost always be equally sharp or equally fuzzy!! This is great for landscapes in good light, but not for much else.

It is especially bad for portraits and people shots which is ironic as that is what most people use them for. A smartphone's tiny lens and tiny sensor does not allow the differential focus that can be obtained with DSLRs. APS-H is pretty good, but the 35mm format is probably optimal. With larger formats depth of field is too little for many subjects, and very difficult to work with. We have a 3. Over the years, at postcard size jpg' its image has proven to be almost impossible to tell from either hi end film or digital cameras used at the same time in the same conditions.

I assume that most people take snaps with their phones. Good on 'em. Nothing wrong with snapping. For hi end images tho, you need a hi end real camera with a similar lens. You have a point but output size matters too. And newer sensors, in cameras and phones, can do somewhat higher ISOs better. And produces jpegs that can be easily printed at 12" x 18". Isn't it strange that with so many improvements in the camera capabilities of these cell phones, I still see many people walking around in their front yards, driveways, and streets trying to pick up a signal to talk on their phone?

Wouldn't it be easier to build cell phones into regular cameras? You'd still have people trying to get a signal, but at least they wouldn't have to worry so much about their picture taking capabilities. Wouldn't it be easier to put a cell phone in a camera than the other way around? Both with VERY good glass up front. Guess what? Which, the last time I looked, is what counts, yes???

Who cares if you have 3, 8, or MP? Is it a good image. The first cameras were actually used to record scenes. They were far too slow for people. Most pictures as stated in the article are never going to be seen with a device needing more than 10MP. Also you need to keep in mind viewing distance and apparent size. I used to print billboards, and we rarely printed at much over 75ppi. At 24" most people cannot see any improvement over ppi but let's use Apples ppi macbook as a maximum.

A 20" x 30" print looks HUGE when viewed from 2 feet away. Doing the math, this requires a 29MP image. Give us a decent even if small sensor and a good lens preferably with some kind of optical zoom and very few will see any difference in resolution after 10MP. No one needs more than 50MP unless they need to crop. I know friends who take photos of their kids with phone cameras. I don't care if the rest part be displayed at much lower resolution for "beautiful bokeh" but I think 8 MPix should be needed for facial cm2 projected better over 10 MPix because our eyes are really good at facial details.

PPI doesn't actually matter until you print the image. How many people are taking pictures with their cell and hanging them in a gallery? I'd bet less than half a percent, but that number really can't be quantified among all pictures taken with a cell. Keep in mind that as you go to larger and larger prints, you expect them to be viewed from further and further away.

I'll spare the math, but a 12MP image without cropping can manage most commonly-available print sizes comfortably. Now that it's hard to find a sensor that can't manage 12MP, the game is more about image quality than MP.

Adding MP is now more about getting more room to crop and doing some tricks with light collection, along with trying to make smartphone cameras more competitive with the small camera market. But, as long as people still buy into the idea that more megapixels yields higher quality, the war will continue, because the game at that level isn't about taking pictures at all: it's about selling stuff. What utter tosh. You want microscopic realism in a life size image viewed from 10 inches away.

That is a perverse interpretation of the question "How many megapixels do we need. Wouldn't the new iPhone 5S have a bigger 8MP sensor than the previous version? This article points to the same sensor size. The difference between the iPhone 5 and 5S is not enough to get me to "upgrade. I use the Noiseware plugin in Photoshop which can easily reduce of the noise found in low light iPhone images. And, I have also found Photo Resize to be of help in enlarging photographs.

We are going faster to bigger sensor size with bigger picture sizes. But half is okay, too, because ppi are enough. Also consider the viewing distance. The answer was given below: the space after the size is misplaced, it should read "x 3, 18MP" and "x 4, 35MP". Marvol is right, type-o's. A4 print at ppi 3, x 2, 9MP A3 print at ppi 4, x 3, 18MP A2 print at ppi 7, x 4, 35MP but lowering the pixel density you can double the size of the print.

Throw in a bit of cropping potential and 4 to 8MP is just fine. By limiting the MPs, the cameras on smartphones could address their dire dynamic range that so massively degrades image quality compared to even disposable film cameras. How come and the "more pixeled" but the same pixel size full frame cameras, outperform much better in low light conditions than those with APS-c sensors?? Actually, that's not true.

Even the highest megapixel retail full frame camera Nikon D at 36 megapixels, released has 4. Most full frame cameras actually have much larger pixels than APS-C, since the D is an outlier when it comes to pixel count in consumer cameras. D and D have about same sized pixels but D can deliver well over a stop of better image quality. The D and D use different generations of sensor. Sony has quite consistently added about a stop of high sensitivity performance to each successive generation of their CMOS line.

Still, as you may have noted at least in Nikon's implementation , it delivers quite impressive performance for its pixel size - in good light comparable detail 'per pixel' to the 'old' 16MP sensor, and not too far behind at higher sensitivities resulting in a net win for detail capture. Pixel size isn't at all irrelevant to image quality - it's just that it's only one of many factors influencing IQ.

And how are you even defining IQ? Low light performance, resolution, DR? Pixel size, pixel count, generation of sensor and cpu all make a difference but most of all the lens. There are also some who do not have an argument, but they comment just to satisfy their feeling of inferiority, Victor get a life.

By the way pixel size matters, the bigger the better. Most of the noise is in the light itself, even if it were measured perfectly. This is just flat out false and perpetuates a long-held myth that DPReview helped to start and to perpetuate. In fact, more pixels in the same size usually leads to less noise not more, for various reasons. Those Aptina sensored Nikon 1 series cameras also live by this "myth". This is hilarious. Increasing exposure decreases noise, actually. If they meant boosting amplification, it does not boost SNR, since it increases both the signal and the noise.

Pixel density, not "count" has something to do with noise. As do circuit placement and heat dissipation. Well, it depends on what you need the camera for. As a general rule of thumb, a higher resolution is better, but that also means you have to account for more storage and bandwidth.

In situations where you want a clearer picture, a higher resolution camera is preferable. But in situations where you may only need to see basic movement, lower resolutions may be preferable to save bandwidth.

How do you measure a good-quality resolution? Speaking about security cameras and resolution is similar to speaking about television sets and resolution. Resolution is a means to measure the size of the produced video. Low-resolution videos produce smaller images while HD or high-definition videos produce larger images. In short, the larger the image, the higher the quality and resolution produced. Security camera resolution is measured in pixels width and height of an image. The most popular home security cameras include:.

Should you go for a 5mp or 8mp? It all depends on what image quality you want to see. A higher resolution is always better, but you also need to take into consideration other components of the security camera. Every additional pixel will improve the image clarity of the security camera. An 8mp security camera, therefore, produces clearer images at 8- megapixels.

Resolution for security cameras has increased over the last years. With p resolution, 8mp security cameras offer clearer human face and plate number recognition details than a 5mp with p. Megapixel security cameras usually come with wide-angle lenses. An 8mp security camera, though, allows you to see more of an area because it has a field of view of degrees compared to the lower 81 degrees of a 5mp security camera. Frame rate refers to the number of individual images your security camera can produce every second.