Megapixels surely I'm wrong ? Are we being suckered ?

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Messages
4,050
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

Photos from my everyday carry 20 mp point and shoot are normally down sized if in portrait format to 600X800px in order to post here. This got me wondering if I were to have a camera for just posting here how many megapixels do I need ? Being lazy I used an online calculator which gave me a figure of .48 mega pixels , Wow ! Are a lot of us getting sucked in to camera Bull excrement ?

An example

ALLEYBW.JPGALLEY.JPG
 
The limit here is 1024x1024 (if I read the instructions right) so that's 1,048,576 pixels. Thus a 1 MP sensore should do the job.

In theory, something like this would be overkill...

Sony Cybershot DSC F55E camera P1130380.JPG
 
I originally brought my point and shoot ( which I now realize is much more suited to my photography than my bigger theoretically better cameras) second hand on eBay going for a high megapixel count knowing I didn't need 20 megapixels but thinking a later camera would also be better in other ways. Maybe next time ( the dog already semi killed this one) I'm go for something a little older .
 
I don't think you are being suckered as the increase in Mp has come for free. If you look at the price of a 2.7 Mp Nikon D1 it was about £7500 in today's money whereas a 45Mp Z9 is £4400.

The question is do you need to buy a new camera with high Mp, if you don't have a camera you may as well. If you do have a camera and only display your work electronically there's probably no point in upgrading for more Mp.

The only reason I would upgrade is for more dynamic range.

Andrew HATFIELD | Architectural and Interior Photographer
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Maybe next time ( the dog already semi killed this one) I'm go for something a little older .
Click to expand...
Depending on your appetite for weight and bulk, you might like to look out for the 5MP Olympus E20P.

Rather tougher than a brick wall and with an excellent SLR type optical system, I regret getting rid of mine. To be honest, though, there are only so many cameras you can fit in the cupboard before the shelves give up the struggle! Prices are all over the place but I've seen a few for £25 or less...

Olympus E20.jpg
 
If you only want to display on this site or similar, or FB/Insta etc, your argument seems convincing. The flaw in it is that it limits you to doing little else. I guess a lot of us aspire to shooting some images to display on the wall, subject to managerial permission, which demands something higher than 1Mp in digital and probably MF if shooting film (or very good lenses, very good D&P, very good exposure control) if shooting film. I've got a few taken with 12Mp cameras on the wall that look great at A3 size; film ones in 35mm I've only gone upto A4 size (but that my shots being a bit grainy due to exposure limitations).
 
There are a lot of reasons why having more camera/sensor resolution than the output file requires is a good thing.

In theory it only requires 64 pixels to record a chess board. But for that to happen the image of the board would have to align with the pixels perfectly; and that's not likely to happen.

When the details being recorded match the size of the pixels (or are smaller) it causes aliasing (moire). So sensors with larger pixels (not necessarily fewer) are usually equipped with an AA filter which blurs the details somewhat (makes them larger).

Digital cameras do not record color directly. For the typical sensor the most accurate color occurs when there are 4 (or more) pixels per detail.

The process of demosaicing an image results in some (generally small) loss of detail for the same reason (doesn't happen with a monochrome sensor).

But do you need 20 to post 1? Probably not...
 
Along with the increases in resolution, there has also been an increase in dynamic range and high ISO performance over time with sensors. For the most part, the the advances in sensor technology seems to have plateaued.

Whilst an older lower resolution camera may closer match to a resolution for images only posted on the internet, it would probably come with a hit to the aforementioned dynamic range and high ISO performance of new sensors, and also limit crop-ability.

Older lower resolution cameras can be had very cheap though. ;) :LOL:
 
For me, only doing occasional prints, I feel like 24MP is about the sweet spot.
 
Higher megapixels are useful if you want to crop, shooting wildlife for example. It all depends, use the tool suitable for the job. When shooting motorsport with a 150-600 attached. I didn't really need to be carrying my standard 15-85 as well, My phone would have covered those most likely shots. Horses for courses.
 
It is worth remembering that the majority of images on TP are actually hosted elsewhere at full resolution, but linked using a BBCode, to circumvent the limitation of the forum software for holding image files. So whilst we see on TP the lower resolution image, it is but a kind of thumbnail link to the full fat image.
 
It can also depend on what medium you shoot in. If you're doing portraits in a studio, chances are you can often get it almost perfect in camera with the ideal framing and where any cropping would be minor. Meanwhile if you shoot wildlife you might have many situations where you simply cannot get closer to frame the show how you'd like. Even more so considering that high quality lenses for long telephoto lengths are very expensive and out of many people's budgets.

So having access to more MP for increased capacity to crop whilst still maintaining a high quality of final image is a good thing.


Plus, as noted, the increase in MP isn't the only thing that newer cameras have. Sure marketing pushes it hard because its what a lot of lay people cottoned onto as the mark of a better camera and marketing fed that so now a lot of casual and regular people interpret "higher MP" as "higher quality camera"; which for the most part is generally true. Marketing likes it because its super easy to simplify all the ins and outs of technical advance down to one single stat that people pay attention too. Casual customers (of which there are MANY) are happy because they can easily tell that the 10mp camera is better than the 5mp.

So sure you can take fantastic photos with lower MP cameras and share them online and have the shots look great - most of us have done that for over a a decade and are still doing it. That doesn't mean that having more MP; more dynamic range; better AF; smarter auto systems; insanely good ISO ranges and more aren't also boons that we spend big money on better cameras for. Heck considering the filesize of higher MP Cameras I was happy to get a camera that doesn't have 40mp or so because at least it didn't swamp my harddrive in moments. But I did want better AF; better ISO range; better dynamic range and a bunch of other things that the R6MII gives me over the 7D; and both those cameras gave me things that my 400D couldn't do.
 
I think one thing to think about is that over time as new cameras come out the mp count tends to creep up and as image quality does generally tend to slooooowly creep up too I don't think we're really getting sucked into too much but of course these bigger files can end up filling up our computers. If we are buying used then we might have a wider choice of mp counts to choose from.

I have an old Medion compact which gives files somewhere between 1.x and 2.x mp's depending upon the detail present in the scene and the files are 2304 x 1728 and therefore will still need downsizing for this forum. Image quality wise it's pretty poor by todays standards but I do have a print filling an A4 sheet, so it will have been cropped to fit, and it looks lovely when viewed normally but of course it wont stand up too well to close examination.
 
I think probably whatever size photo you'd like to print would determine how many pixels you actually need. I don't know how many pixels either of my cameras are, I think about 20mp on both Panasonic ZS100 and a Nikon D7000. What I do know is I can print 12x24 inch photo's and I like them very much! I can also edit down them to size's I can use in the internet. One of these days I'm gonna try a 13x25 and then maybe a 13x39. But I really have no need for bigger than 13x26 so why bother
 
At normal viewing distance, where you can see the whole picture, most people can't see much more than about 14 megapixels. This applies to pictures and should also apply to screens (so there is no point in a 24 megapixel display). A 12 megapixel camera is fine for most pictures. 16-24 is useful for cropping in a bit to get pictures level and making things vertical, but only photographers would notice the lack of resolution if you did it from a 12 megapixel camera.
 
Agree that 12 MP is fine for most things
For wildlife sometimes you sometimes can’t get near enough if it’s a rare sighting especially the ability to crop a bit is helpful
Do need good light and the lens has to be able to resolve the detail though
It’s actually very interesting to be able to zoom right into a macro shot and see every tiny scale and detail
 
What a can of worms .. a few years ago Nikon stated 12 mp was the final limit .then look at todays limits . Experience will soon teach you what’s best for your needs depending on what you take .our needs and wants are all different . But don’t forget as a friend of mine did higher m.p needs bigger and faster computer processing,so it’s a double edged sword
 
If all you do is post on line almost any thing will do.
However if you print or crop the more the merrier.

Compared to other chips like CPU or GPU the resolution of the finest camera sensors is very low indeed.
Far more is at stake in making a good sensor chip than mpx.
Sony followed by a very distant Canon make virtually all camera sensors, other camera makers are limited by what Sony choose to make.
 
For me I would be happy if my camera had double or triple what it has.. for cropping and to help wiht noise on occasions. Because I am shooting sport usually wiht a prime lens so I can't frame the picture exactly as I am going to use it...
 
you are looking at one use case, plus there are options in the menu to suit. There is RAW and JPEG small so nothing is stopping you using those
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Maybe, just maybe there are more uses to photography than posting on tp. Just a wild guess
Click to expand...

Is there ? Of course my .48 megapixel was a bit of a joke and we would all most likely need more ( unless sending phone to phone) the point was really at which point do we say that's enough there will always of course be specialist uses but in reality most of us hobby photographers are never going to print at 100 feet across , the majority of people just send pictures from phone to phone . I did read at one point that it's possible to have too many pixels for a given size of sensor but I'm not sure what that was.
Terrywoodenpic said:
Sony followed by a very distant Canon make virtually all camera sensors, other camera makers are limited by what Sony choose to make.
Click to expand...
That's something I never knew !
 
ecoleman said:
How fast does your car go?

It only needs to go a maximum of 70mph
Click to expand...
True enough.

There's always the argument that a car designed to travel at 100MPH, will be safer at 70MPH than a car designed to travel at 70MPH. In the same way, the camera designed to deliver 20MP images, some might argue, will provide better quality at 1MP.

Of course, both arguments too often lead into discussions about terpsichorean angels and the heads of pins! :coat:
 
ecoleman said:
How fast does your car go?

It only needs to go a maximum of 70mph
Click to expand...
But how fast have you driven it?
In Germany there is no top limit on autobahns
I know my old Camry could exceed 100mph. Just checking. But mostly driven between 20 and 60mph.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Is there ? Of course my .48 megapixel was a bit of a joke and we would all most likely need more ( unless sending phone to phone) the point was really at which point do we say that's enough there will always of course be specialist uses but in reality most of us hobby photographers are never going to print at 100 feet across , the majority of people just send pictures from phone to phone . I did read at one point that it's possible to have too many pixels for a given size of sensor but I'm not sure what that was.
Click to expand...
I think the manufactures seem to have found the sweet spot with sensors with regard to resolution. 1" sensors seem to have topped out at 20Mp. APS-C sensors have the majority at around 24Mp. FF sensors are going from 12Mp-24Mp-46Mp-60Mp depending on the needs of the photographer, and are niche at the extremes. If you want lower than that for any of those sensor sizes then you are probably looking at older cameras, with the hit to dynamic range and high ISO performance the further you go back.

Of course if one does video, then that will also affect the sensor resolution depending on whether you want 720p, 1080p or 4k, and maybe video has been why those resolutions above are the most popular. And like video or not, I don't, but it has been a major driver in the camera market, and a lot of the advancements in the sensor technology have been pushed by the video needs from the sensor.
 
time spent at your computer is a factor - how many of us have had to upgrade our computers because of higher MP Cameras

I use my 24mp cameras, (Q, Zf, M240), now more and more, probably because I am now taking fewer bird images were cropping has always been the norm for me.
I'm happy with my D850 but have thought about upgrading to a Z9 and also from the Q to the Q3 - but the DNG Leica files from the Q3 are now 100 Mbtes ....... not only extra storage would be needed but also significantly more processing power leading to further expense.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
But how fast have you driven it?
In Germany there is no top limit on autobahns
I know my old Camry could exceed 100mph. Just checking. But mostly driven between 20 and 60mph.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

If you are only driving on 30mph city roads then you have no need for a 100mph car. If you only post photos on TP then you have no need for a 50mp camera
If you drive the autobahn regularly then that 100mph car comes in handy as does 50mp when I want to print a large print or crop an image.
 
A different perspective, having owned a car with a maximum design speed of 72 mph it required considerably more skill to drive on the motorway than a car with a higher design speed. Loved my tin snail, but not for performance reasons.

TBH the question that's started the thread is a bit weird: do camera makers treat megapixels as a big deal in marketing any more? I thought that pretty much stopped with just a couple of specialised exceptions more than a decade ago. I've been using a camera with 20-24Mp since 2013 and it wasn't groundbreaking then.

As is so often the case, it's usually what's behind the camera that makes the biggest difference. A low mp camera with a lot of in-camera processing may help a photographer of lower skill produce pictures they prefer to a professional camera and lens that requires understanding when taking the picture and careful processing afterwards to get the best from the image. In the end they're just tools.

Returning to the metaphor, use all the driver assistance you want if you struggle to drive, or turn it off and do it yourself if you're able.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Returning to the metaphor, use all the driver assistance you want if you struggle to drive, or turn it off and do it yourself if you're able.
Click to expand...
It’s not necessarily about ‘struggling’ to either drive or take photos.

I set my camera up to make it easy to use, so that I only have to think about the things that are important to the shot. Lighting composition DoF focussing.

Likewise I find using adaptive cruise on my commute to work leaves me with plenty of thinking space for keeping safe.
 
I think you probably find your own level. As a Fuji owner I know there are more MP's available, but I find 26MP's perfectly fine and just can't get excited about them. I just think there is little, or no benefit for what I do. I'm never going to produce huge prints, or indeed anything that requires that amount of detail.
 
Phil V said:
I set my camera up to make it easy to use, so that I only have to think about the things that are important to the shot. Lighting composition DoF focussing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But for some, getting exposure right may be too much of a challenge. Possibly even in program.

FWIW I have been generally happy printing up to 20"x30" from 24mp, but sometimes it's necessary to crop hard. I don't have many lenses that can tolerate a really hard crop, but there are a couple, and there have been times I occasionally wished for more pixels. Lightroom has 'super-resolution' that can increase the apparent resolution of the image, But it's no substitute for actual detail.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Absolutely. But for some, getting exposure right may be too much of a challenge. Possibly even in program.

FWIW I have been generally happy printing up to 20"x30" from 24mp, but sometimes it's necessary to crop hard. I don't have many lenses that can tolerate a really hard crop, but there are a couple, and there have been times I occasionally wished for more pixels. Lightroom has 'super-resolution' that can increase the apparent resolution of the image, But it's no substitute for actual detail.
Click to expand...
Nowadays my work doesn’t often get printed larger than A4, but occasionally as they’re sports images they may have been cropped fairly heavily.

And I’ve settled at 21mpix?* genuinely have no idea how many megapixels I have, nor do I know the hp of my car nowadays, I just know it’s enough
 
Phil V said:
And I’ve settled at 21mpix?* genuinely have no idea how many megapixels I have, nor do I know the hp of my car nowadays, I just know it’s enough
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how it is for me too.
 
As time goes on the electronic part of technology improves, however, you will see lenses that are valid and are 10+ years old, whereas a camera body may not be as capable.

It also very much depends on your intended output.

The thing that never changes is pointing it a the right thing at the right time.
 
I have 20Mp compacts, and a 20Mp APS-C DSLR, and they are enough for me. And they are 20Mp because that was the megapixel count of the cameras that had the other features I wanted, better AF, more fps, better high ISO performance.

I don't think I would have liked less megapixels, because of the crop-ability and the potential to print quite large, but they could have been more pixels if those particular cameras had the other features I wanted and more pixels.

I never went FF because APS-C was the sweet spot for size/weight (of cameras and lenses), and quality for me. If I did though it would probably have been the D850, as it almost had my D500 inside as well in DX mode. ;) And that is 45Mp FF, and 20Mp on DX/cropped mode.

Camera choice can depend on more than just the pixel count for people. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top