« [REVIEW—NIK COLOR EFEX PRO 3.0] | Main | [REVIEW—PENTAX K-x DSLR] »
February 04, 2010
[BUYING BY NUMBERS]
Why, oh why, we ask, do people persist in buying by numbers?
Of course we know the answer -- because they feel that is all they can trust. The bigger the number the better the gadget, right? A 125 cm TV has to be better than a 100 cm telly, doesn't it? Regardless of the size of the viewing room or the quality of the picture, bigger must be better.
And if the bigger one costs less than the smaller one then it's not only better, you've got a bargain. Shoppers don't even stop to ask themselves why bigger should be cheaper than smaller when common sense would make you wonder if there is something else going on here.
Back when hi-fi systems were the gadget de jour average shoppers put more trust in the number of watts per channel than in what their ears told them, so the big number phenomenon is not new.
Let's take the case of cameras. The camera makers' research tells them that the average customer wants pixels, the more the better. They don't know what pixels are and they are ignorant of the physics of digital photography, but never mind that, 14 megapixels has to be better than ten any day.
A few years ago, when 8 megapixels was considered to be bordering on the absurd, Canon announced that they were pulling out of the pixel race. From now on the emphasis would be on the quality of the image rather than the number of light receptors on the sensor. Within months they were back in the race.
However, late last year a remarkable thing happened. Canon launched the successor to the G10, their top compact camera. We were pleasantly surprised that the new G11 sported 4 million fewer pixels than the camera it replaced. The G10 had 14 megapixels, the G11 has 10. Why would they do this? The answer is "the Panasonic LX3".
One year earlier Panasonic launched their top compact with a ten megapixel sensor and a very short range Leica zoom lens. It immediately won the admiration of camera reviewers around the world. Its natural competitor was the Canon G10 which was declared to be inferior to the LX3, solely because of the image quality difference.
Canon reacted by hurrying the G11 (and its sister, the S90) onto the market with fewer pixels and the move paid off. Canon is back at the top of the compact camera heap.
Here's the paradox. Both Panasonic and Canon make lesser, cheaper cameras with more pixels. Canon squeezes 14 million receptors onto an area about the size of a pinky nail in some of its cheaper cameras. No doubt many shoppers find it hard to comprehend why more should cost less, because they assume that if less is more then more must be a great deal more than more.
Next week we will answer some FAQs about sensors and pixels to assist the confused shopper in dealing with the seduction of numbers.
*
Posted by terry at February 4, 2010 07:22 AM
