Why do lower-resolution photos from my Canon 600D look better than higher-resolution photos from my phone and action cam?
Asked 2/16/2016
4 views
2 answers
0
I’m comparing JPEG photos from three devices: a Canon EOS 600D (3456×2304, about 2.5–4.5 MB), a Ricoh WG-M1 (4320×3240, about 4.5 MB), and a Galaxy Note 3 (4128×3096, about 3–3.5 MB). On screen, the Canon images look clearly better even though they have fewer pixels than the other two devices.
Does this mean the phone and action cam are saving more pixels than their image quality can really support? Should I increase the resolution setting on the EOS 600D, or is something else causing the Canon images to look better?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
6
To a very large extent, pixels don't matter - or at the very least, more pixels won't make things significantly worse.
What does matter is the size of the sensor in each camera - the EOS 600D has an APS-C sized sensor with a total area of around 330 mm^2, while the Note 3 has a 1/3.2" sensor with a total area of around 16 mm^2 - or in other words, about 5% of the size. That means that the EOS 600D can gather about 20 times as much light (depending a bit on the lens you're using) and so needs to amplify the signal a lot less in order to get a well-exposed photograph. Amplification means noise, and that's why the Note 3 looks bad. The Ricoh has the same sized sensor as the Note, so things will be very similar there.
Smartphone manufacturers will often attempt to compensate for the noise from the small sensors by very aggressively applying noise reduction algorithms to the images. However, these aren't magic and often mean you end up with "smeared" pictures instead of noisy pictures. With a dedicated camera, you often have some sort of control over the amount of noise reduction applied so you can choose, but for many smartphones it's fixed.
Originally by user11371. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11371
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes, a camera can record more pixels than its sensor/lens can usefully resolve, but pixel count alone is not what makes an image look good.
Your Canon 600D likely looks better mainly because it has a much larger sensor and typically a better lens. A larger sensor gathers more light, so it needs less amplification, which means less noise, better dynamic range, and cleaner detail. Phones and small action cams have much smaller sensors, so even with more pixels, each pixel gets less light and image quality suffers.
JPEG file size also doesn’t directly indicate quality; it depends on resolution, compression, and image content.
So no, the higher-resolution files from the phone and Ricoh do not automatically mean better images. More pixels cannot compensate for a smaller sensor, more noise, or a weaker lens.
You can test “useful resolution” by taking a very sharp image from each device, downscaling it, then scaling it back up and comparing detail. If the image looks the same after some reduction, the original had more pixels than real resolved detail.
In short: the Canon looks better because of better overall imaging hardware, not because it has fewer pixels.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Canon 600D vs 650D autofocus: do all cross-type AF points matter for action?
What do "effective pixels" mean, and why can they differ from image resolution?
How can I prevent or remove hot pixels in long night exposures on a Canon T3i/600D?
Dropped Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS II: zoom ring is tight and clicks — repair or replace?
How large should a PDF be for high-quality A3 photo printing?