Panasonic, I love you!!!!!

[Dave]

I've just read that Panasonic has anounced a new Brudge Cam, the DMC-FZ150. With 12MP it has 2 Megapixel LESS(!!!!!) than it's predecessor (14MP).
I hope this will set a sign to Canon, Nikon & Co. I want more "real" features, not just more megapixels.

regards, Dave

[Edwin Herdman]

Does the Brudge Cam have a Brudge Report?  Or is Brudge the famous painter from the 1500s?

You might be interested to know that more pixels increase the freedom from noise of the final image.  I'm sure there are some other improvements that can be made with fewer pixels on the sensor in the same generation of technology, like price or maybe dynamic range...or maybe they are just saving money.

[dr croubie]

Did not the powershot G10 have 14MP, then the G11 and G12 down to 10MP, adding a different screen and video?
Did not the 14MP SX210 update to the SX220/230 with gps and double the screen dots, and reduce to 12MP?

[EYEONE]

Did not the powershot G10 have 14MP, then the G11 and G12 down to 10MP, adding a different screen and video?
Did not the 14MP SX210 update to the SX220/230 with gps and double the screen dots, and reduce to 12MP?

Yes, Canon has already done a pixel reduction in replacement cameras.

[distant.star]

Love -- it's a hard road.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are tons of cameras out there with fewer pixels, even some with 512K pixels.  That should make you extremely happy with those huge photosites!

[KyleSTL]

Tough crowd today.  No love for Dave. 

Anyway, I though the title of this post would be talking about the 14-42mm collaspable zoom introduced this morning.  I think that's the big headline of the day.  That new lens and an E-PL3 or GF3 would be awesome.  Pocketable camera without a lens that sticks out all weird like the other MILC zooms.  Bravo, Panasonic. 

Hopefully Canon, Nikon and all the other manu's will follow suit and we can see some innovative designs in the coming months/years (without crop factors above 2x).

[Gothmoth]

Anyway, I though the title of this post would be talking about the 14-42mm collaspable zoom introduced this morning.  I think that's the big headline of the day.  That new lens and an E-PL3 or GF3 would be awesome.  Pocketable camera without a lens that sticks out all weird like the other MILC zooms.  Bravo, Panasonic. 

they are way to expensiv....

[KyleSTL]

they are way to expensiv....

Lens alone, I agree , but when you factor in the GF3 kit at $750 MSRP, it's less expensive than a 600D kit ($900 MSRP) and much more portable.  It gives IQ just about on par with the 1100D kit.  I guess it depends on your priorities.  If they had a G3 kit for $900 or less, then you would get even better quality that would be about on par with the 550D/600D (albeit ~1 stop noisier at the higher ISOs).

[Edwin Herdman]

Tough crowd today.  No love for Dave

He's been voted down three times. O_o  I thought the post was silly, but not THAT bad...irrelevant enough to ignore for the most part.

[UncleFester]

I thought maybe they got into the adult toy market.

[macfly]

Wanting less pixels just baffels me, if you want lower quality just buy a cheaper camera, and stop trying to impose you will for less on those of us who want more.
 
Me, I'm looking forward to my NEX-7 that is already on order. After the terrible G12 I won't be buying another Canon 'enthusiast' camera in a hurry, and the way they're dragging their feet on the 1Ds it could be that I'm not buying any more Canons at all!

[Dave]

Yes, Canon has already done a pixel reduction in replacement cameras.

Well, I'm sorry... Didn't know that, I've jsut stumbled upon the anouncement...
Was the first time I saw something like that (actually I'm not interested in compact cameras) and thought that the manufacturuers are starting to learn from theair mistakes.

Imho it is just ridicoulous to raise the megapixel more and more. No professional photografer would be able to believe that he has bought camera X instead of camera Y since it has 2 MP more.

Anyway... won't happen afain, when new users here are bashed like that...

[WarStreet]

Was the first time I saw something like that (actually I'm not interested in compact cameras) and thought that the manufacturuers are starting to learn from theair mistakes.

Anyway... won't happen afain, when new users here are bashed like that...

Dave , I am sorry for the bad welcome in the forum but it was expected.

The problem with your post is that you are saying that the engineers and minds behind Canon, Nikon, Sony and all the others are all doing a big mistake. They are investing money to continue improving their technology in their labs, but they all missed the cheap easy way to do so, by just decreasing the pixels.

Unfortunately you seem to be a victim of lots of non-sense available in the forums or blogs from the 'experts'.  You can easily see bad comparisons or differences exaggerated that in real life won't have any visible difference. 

The subject is not that straight forward about detail-noise relation. I think it is easier to have faith on the technical guys out there knowing that they will produce a better product than the previous one. 

[Dave]

They are investing money to continue improving their technology in their labs, but they all missed the cheap easy way to do so, by just decreasing the pixels.

I didn't mean that they have to decrease the pixels (sorry for my bad english), but I say that more megapixel won't make a camera much better.
I'm waiting for the 5D MKIII (or maybe the 7D MKII) and the least I want to see is an advertisment like we had the last years... "Yeahhh buy the new 5D!!! Now even MORE Megapixel and even MORE frames  per second").

I don't say, that more sensor resulotion is bad. I want to see some REAL improvement. GPS, WLan, Touchscreen, more Video-functionality etc. Not just onother sensor upgrade.

The 5D II has almost 22MP. We've reached a very high level on sensor resulution - high enough. Who cares if the 5D III will have 22, 24 or maybe 30 MP?
And if a manufacturer "dares" to go down in the resolution I thought it was worth mentioning. Better resolution is does not necessarily mean better image quality.

And no, it is not a problem of engineering, it's a problem of marketing.