A camera with huge MP (like 50 MP or greater) is definitely useful for making huugee fine art prints, like typically seen on art galleries. But realistically speaking... how many of us do that? For me (a hobbyist), 36 MP is way more than enough.
@@anta40 Yeah, I think high megapixel sensors are just fun because you can zoom in on details to a degree you'd never seen before. From a utility perspective, such a high count is unnecessary for 90+% of photographers.
2 things I think are relevant to this subject are: 1. certain genres of photography benefit more from having more megapixels / greater pixel density (e.g wildlife photography). 2. If you have higher megapixel sensors, you usually need to pair them with higher quality (and heavier) lenses to get the benefit from them, and then need a higher power laptop to edit them, bigger memory cards, etc. Overall there are always compromises with every improvement in performance you chase!
I'm usually happy with the 20Mp of my micro four thirds camera but took a close look at the 23 faces in a family photo I took last year. They were a little soft. Ran it through Topaz Photo AI on my 27 inch screen iMac and am very happy with the fairly subtle improvements. I'm an amateur and in my 70s now and carrying photo gear on long plane trips matters. I'm also digitizing old negatives so I can catalog and share them with dispersed family. This combination of camera, software and computer suit my needs and budget in general. All I can suggest is, if you are starting out, talk at length with one or more experienced photographer who listens to your needs before making suggestions. Make sure you discuss software and computer requirements as well as camera gear. Start with little and second-hand gear, maybe a generation or two old and take a lot of photos and process them. Print a photo book of a family visit or trip. All the major camera brands make excellent cameras for any amateur. Starting to take photos of good-enough quality now is much more important than agonizing over megapixels; you can't go back in time for such memories.
Well said! I think that I am not really buying a camera. I'm buying memories to share and save. I'm buying a reason to go out to the park, to the woods, or just outside my front door (thanks macro lens!) Some of my most cherished photos were taken with low-end camera, sometimes in bad light. I'll try your suggestion about software to make those look a little nicer. This weekend, I'll use my new 12MP camera to digitize family photos and heirlooms. Lose the moment, lose the photo.
My D700 has 12 MP and I often print 60x40 cm with it. Never craved for more resolution. As one comment also mentioned - the larger the print the more viewing distance you usually have. The only advantage of large MP is the ability to crop harder. I always try to get the composition right in camera so I don't need to crop.
That's because the photography genre you do allows for you perfect in body composition. If you did wildlife or sports you would definitely need to punch in in post.
@@Cervin_Suisse I shoot wildlife and sports and the most I'll crop for sports is about 15-20% of the image. Wildlife, I think requires more, because even with a 500mm lens, you still might need to crop to get closer. Sports, for the most part, a 300mm is overkill. So I stick with a 70-200 mostly and am able to fill the frame from about 20 yards out. Switch to my 300 for longer shots, still never have an issue filling the frame for football, soccer, volleyball, golf, Cross Country, Basketball, Swimming, Baseball, you name it. a 70-200 will do it, the 300 i barely touch.
I shoot with a Canon R6 with 20MP and almost never need more than that (Portraits & weddings). MP doesn‘t decide the look of the photo, Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO do. If you know what you‘re doing and you know the limitations of your gear, you can create great work with almost any camera.
@@ispenttoomuchongear I got great 8mp A3+ prints and amazing A2 prints from 10mp if you have a bigger sensor. It's sensor size and lens quality that counts. My 12 year old 16mp APS-C prints way better then the newest 100mp smartphone.
Well... It also depends on the type of photography. 24 MP doesn't allow much cropping. For wildlife photography for instance it might fall a bit short. If you have the budget to buy € 18'000 lenses + converter you might not have to punch in so much. However if you have that budget you will buy a body with a bigger MP sensor to begin with.
As a wedding photographer I sometimes run into situations where the client wants huge prints such as 16X20", or larger. I can't offer those sizes, since my home printer can only print 13X19". So, I send them out. Even if I could, my highest resolution camera a Nikon D750, tops out at 25 MP. I was thinking about getting a higher resolution camera and a bigger printer but the rare times I do get these offers, does not justify the cost of added equipment.
I have for years offered prints up to 20x30 for clients, and have made them from 16 and 20 megapixel cameras in the past with no issues. No complaints.
I have medium format, full frame and M43 systems. I like all of them for different reasons. I find the 20-24mp sensor is a sweet spot for most things but tend to shoot 50mp full frame or medium format for landscapes just for the cropping flexibility and print sizes. My favourite camera to actually use in terms of enjoyment and ergonomics is my Lumix G9 20mp with one of my tiny fast primes. It's a joy to use and even use it for landscape sometimes. I took your japan ebook with me on my trip to Japan at the start of the year thank you. What a great country for photography!
Chris Hau made a video where he took similar shots with the 12MP A7SIII and a 100MP Fuji Medium Format camera, then he showed the images to photographers in various formats: social media, downsized on computers to fit the screen, printed out on a medium size print (8x10 maybe?) and the printed out on massive posters. They couldn't tell the difference. In fact, most of the time they thought the 12 MP prints were the 100 MP prints and preferred them. I've had images from my 8 MP Canon 1D Mark IIN used on billboards and they looked incredible. I've also uprezzed my 24 MP R6 II files to 45 MP to match R5 shots and even zoomed in to 100% my friend and I couldn't tell the difference.
Brilliant comparison and most valuable information video I have ever seen recently. Keep up your great work bro wishes from India 🇮🇳 looking more videos from your end ❤❤❤❤
Give me all the pixels…but not strictly for cropping or prints. Primarily, I want resolution because I want to minimize my glass carry. Hi-res typically lets me leave one, sometimes two, lenses at home, and those lenses tend to be on the bigger side. Give me a sensor that lightens and shrinks my carry, and reduces lens changes…I’ll take that over burst rates in most scenarios.
There's no point in having more pixels than your lens can resolve, so if you can't afford high-end professional lenses, then you don't really need a high megapixel sensor in your camera.
Some years back, I was looking at the a7R2 to upgrade from my a6000. The jump in low light performance was great but it was still pretty high for everyday stuff. Ended up keeping both and alternating between them depending on what medium I want the final image to be on. Next thing I’m looking at is an A3 printer lol
I absolutely agree with you. I sold all my Sony APS-C and Nikon full frame gear and now have one A7CR with four lenses. I too consider this camera to be two in one, especially having used an a6400 for several years prior to having this 61Mp camera with the built-in crop factor available at the push of a shortcut button. Like you, I also have more keepers thanks to the abilty to crop and not lose out on quality. Best decision I ever made.
My 25-year-old Nikon D70, 6mp, with a classic 50mm 1.4 D lens delivers excellent image quality in a normal setting (low ISO). It doesn't have bells and whistles, but the images are lovely. Print sizes up to 12X18 are also great.
In fact, 24 megapixels is now enough for commercial photography. As humans, we are limited by the printing limit of 300 dpi and the viewing distance, so any more pixels than this is just overkill.
12 mp is more than enough for a good print to put on your wall. But it's the sensor and lens that's important. Smartphones sucks when it comes to print.
Smart phones suck as soon as you blow up the image. As long as you vision it in the original size on a phone then the pictures are somewhat acceptable. Even the new iPhone 16 Pro camera leaves to be desired.
Just one little point. A FF sensor isn't 1.5x the size of an APS-C sensor, it's 2.25x larger. The sensor is 1.5x wider x 1.5x taller = 2.25x the overall size (area). A Canon FF sensor is 1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56x the size of its (slightly smaller than usual) APS-C sensors.
Only print digitally at 1080, I'm happy with 8MP as it will also allow amateur videographer to record in 4K and amateur photographists to shoot...The manufacturers should focus on lower noise, with higher ISO...
I've went from a 24mp aps-c A77II to a 33mp FF A7M4 and ironically I can crop more with the full frame one than with the aps-c. For some reason the pixels are more tidy and it's Bayer matrix interpolates better. A 1920*1080 frame crop from A7IV looks better than a 4096*2160 crop from A77II, and that is using the same Minolta High Speed G lenses (commonly known as the great father of G Master)
Hey mate, good video. I have the A7c2 and was debating if I should have got the A7cr. Do I still have decent cropping ability with the 33mp version? I also like to use the APSC mode as I only shoot with small prime lenses.
Last time I checked it was the size of the lens aperture (not f-stop which is the ratio of fl and aperture) that dictated the amount of light hitting the sensor. Two same aperture lenses one designed for a smaller and one designed for a larger sensor will give the same total amount of light to those sensors and if the sensors have the same megapixel count they will produce the same quality pictures due to same amount of light even though they are different sizes. So yes it’s all about the lens size not sensor size.
I have 61MP a7cr and sigma fpL. I like both but yet my favorite picture was shot on a panasonic LC1 at 5MP. I also have many great pictures from "only" 10-14MP on 4/3, N1 and nex5 cameras. From 16MP up it only becomes a cropping benefit for me.
I love the bold statement at 4:25 "the larger the sensor, the more light is gathered". Really? Those who are brave enough to put a lens in front of their sensor might disagree.
My favorite response in any photography or computer gear discussion is "depends on your use case". I use a PhaseOne IQ3-100mpx digital back for fashion photography & fashion portraits. My "use case" is about post-production & editing / retouching. Having a 100mpx medium format image gives my retoucher the absolute most "real estate" to work with. As for my Sony A7R4, that is less of a "use case", and more of a "...I can use it as a backup for my PhaseOne in an emergency".
I used a EOS Rebel T3 which is a 12mp camera till 2020 when it kicked the bucket IMO those photos are still better then soke of the photos I take with my 70D which is 20mp, all I gained is distance when cropping.
For me, dynamic range is as equally as important as resolution, perhaps more. I wish manufacturers would highlight this features as much as megapixels. If a high megapixel (>60 mp) sensor yielding >15 stops of dynamic range and minimum noise at high ISO's - that's what I want. (oh, and still be full frame; medium format too pricey)
Hi Pat, thanks for all your valuable Information. Can you please make series about composing in variable conditions, like indoor, outdoor, different subjects like Person or Persons in Occasions, Sports, Animals etc.? Landscape and so on. I know it is so much like your series of Visual Patterns, but what I would mean is taking these in practice and combine it with handling camera technics.
_The higher, the megapixel the better sometimes when I’m on the go, and I don’t have the time to adjust for zooming and framing or adapting the distance to a shot because of a higher megapixel I just take the picture and crop it later without losing the detail; the iPhone 15 Pro Max, however, has all the technology of a professional camera with features in technology that you can only dream of_
Higher mp only benefit landscape and wild life. Because you can reframe smaller objects. But other wise, anything above 8 mp is suitable for nearly anything you will do. Yes, there is extra detail POTENTIAL in higher resolutions. But you need some insanely good lenses and nearly perfect conditions to capture them. Better to save the money to use on getting to intresting places or getting nicer stuff to work with.
Targeting 300 dpi is usually overkill. Computer monitors used to have 96 dpi. With 2K/4K monitors you usually have to increase DPI scaling to 120/144 dpi. You can easily see pixels with 96 dpi, but with 144 dpi it is much harder to see pixels (maybe on fonts). I'm sure 150 dpi is plenty, for looking at the distance probably even less.
My main camera for photos is the ZVE1 lol. It works well for shots that don't require flash and places that don't cause the light banding. It is great for corporate events and conferences since clients usually want a fast turnover time and 12mp file size really helps with the transfer into lightroom, and the subsequent export out for customers. The inability to use flash really hurts tho :(
Why can't you use a flash? I have the same camera and there is a slot for a flash. Is it because using a flash is a pain or the client doesn't like flash? I find that odd.
@@bondgabebond4907 I have not tried using a flash for a while, but the last time I did, the shutter speed would not go beyond 1/30s and I can't find any settings to change it. I had to walk around an entire event shoot with a mounted LED light lol. Turns out it is the Flash sync speed spec? I think? I'm not used to shutter speed being limited on camera by flash as I was upgrading from the old Nikon DSLRs (D4 and 810), so I didn't realized this could happen.
Most YT content makers are more interested in shilling for a product, not getting into the nitty gritty of creating a pleasing image. If I was to tell people the aps-c a6700 is a superior camera to the A74, I'd be laughed out of the room, that is, until I show them large printed images coming from the a6700. There are so many factors that go into making an image for posters, 8x10s, billboards, that one really has to examine how people see the image. That requires a lot of examples and discussion on how we see images. An example is when we look close to a large black and white print coming from Tri-X black and white film, we see dots, lots of dots. Back up a little and an image of a person, for example, appears. That is why it takes time and research to determine what you really need to make photos and what their intended use is.
The worse you are at composing prior to pressing the trigger, the more pixels you will need. If it could be done on an APS-H CCD sensor of 4MP and printed in magazines, there really is no viable excuse for absolutely requiring more than 24MP. We got by with 6MP, then 8, 12, 16, 20... Practice composing rather than cropping
I’ve always heard that about megapixels but like you rightly said IF YIU HAVE THE MONEY!!! A 60 megapixel would give you the flexibility to use it in a way you want,looking at it from that perspective more is better
Thank you Pat! great explanation. I'm using an A7 III with a G FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G... for taking some of my own architecture during construction process and some final shots before I hire a professional architecture photographer. The idea is to have great pics during the process and some to post on IG basically. I started shooting in AF because it's been a long time since I used analog cameras, but little by little trying to do some manual shooting. I think this setup is OK for architecture, I'm trying not to shoot over 24mm in order to have more controlled size, quality and format... would you suggest something for my purpose and if I had to have another lens for let's say architecture and more travel or street photo what would that be? Thanks!!
Honestly that setup will get you through 90% of what most people would want to do, so I would actually just suggest to make the most out of what you’ve got! For street, sometimes people might find 35mm to be difficult, so they opt for a longer length, but if you can get good at 35mm street, you can get good at anything IMHO
I think anything over 20 MP is overkill. If you are really worried about cropping that much, just get a longer lens or get closer to your subject. Any solution a high MP count will solve can be solved using practical solutions. In fact, a 2x crop on a full frame 45mp looks worse than a uncropped 20mp image anyways.
If there are no trade offs, a gizzalion pixels is good enough, but the first hit will be file management, horrible. 2ndly, pixel size crowding will become an issue. I think 42MP is the perfect size. Allows for cropping and still has files that are manageable and the low light limitations cuz of pixel pitch is already encroaching on capability at 42 MP.
I have 24 megapixels in my Nikon Zf and it's more than enough for my use cases. Even if I crop to a 1:1 ratio, because I love the square format for portraits, I still have about 16 megapixels, enough for a 13x13 print. Would it be awesome to have something like a z8 with it's 45.7 megapixels? Yeah, but it's not a necessity.
I've printed 30x40 from a 16mp Fuji XE1 which has a crop sensor nowhere near as good as that of your Zf so you can easily print bigger than 13x13 even with that crop.
@@patkay Probably. In reality, I rarely print larger than the 8x12. Photography is just my hobby, my creative outlet. More megapixels is just a nice-to-have and not a need, really. I'd agree that the large megapixel count cameras are useful for using the DX mode to get some extra reach. Your video was an excellent explanation of how many pixels one needs for the various uses that 99.99% have.
I need 1000mp 😂 i like shoot motorsport , motogp , sbk , so i love cropping in so much & i don’t need anything longer then 200mm lens mostly. Im using the sony a7r3 now , wishing a7r6 will have more then 61mp.
For video you need exactly as many megapixels as the footage you wanna shoot and not a single pixel more. For 4k that would be 9MP (8,3 if we’re precise). For photos it depends. What kind of photography are you doing, how important is low light performance, do you plan to shoot a ratio of video and photo on the same camera, are you printing photos or putting them on social media (tow extreme opposites)… So on and so forth
@Pat, maybe you can zoom in to printing too. The numbers you called seem to be very limited. I have a print on my wall which is 120 cm wide, made with a 24MP FF sensor and it is just fine. Of course you can pixel peep on the print too, but nobody does that.
megapixels are literally only for if you crop a lot in sports or wild life photography sensor size doesn't mean much but it means a lot if you want tighter focal lengths for background compression and higher ISO noise floors in low light larger sensors capture more photons its capture the same photons as a crop sensor it capture the same DENSITY OF LIGHT but it spreads it out and is capturing more of the image with tighter focal lengths getting tighter comression
Something to take into account too is file sizes! Big file sizes are a pain to work with 😭 Also, me going from a 17.9mp camera, to a 51mp camera that I used at 28mp, to a 2005 12mp camera because the 51 one is way too fancy to shoot around the city (and I kinda outgrew the 17.9mp one). "Parkour'
Composition and light still reigns supreme and sometimes timing.. I have a Nikon with 45mps but I also have a D700 with 12 and a D200 with 10 and I prefer the vintage cameras. The sensors are different.
Now that is a question. I got cameras with nice big sensors, 24Mpixels, 20Mpixels even an APS-C with just 16Mpixels. But let me tell you. For 99% of my use that is more then enough. I can print it out big enough, I can send copies off*. I can use them in so many ways. Hell the 16Mpixels one even punches above its appearant size. It is REALLY good for its age.** * I tend to downsize them for that ** Fujifilm X100S. A relative small camera with a really nice lens and a good sensor. What do you need more?
So far what I've found - it's not the megapixels, but about the camera. Let me rephrase it - images from S24 ultra look waaaaaay worse than from some 10 year old Sony camera that was sitting in a bin. At least that;s my experience. Phone photography usually oversharpens, lacks dynamic range and in general FEELs less deliberate. Again these are subjective opinions that I have formed as an amateur photographer, so your mileage may vary. Having said that my favourite photo from this year is shot with a phone just because I had roughly 5 seconds to react to a scene, so now I'm almost contradicting myself
Useless question for me. There are no "bad" cameras today on the market, it just all depends on what you are going to do with the Photo. You dont need many MP per se. If you want to do large prints, its necessary (depending on the content that is shown). You need the extra option to do crops? Fine, have more MP. You want personal family photos on your computer to browse once in a while? 20 "real" MP are more than enough from a proper MFT, APSC or FF Camera. Not Smartphone tricks like iPhone and Co.!
I have taken done great pictures way back in 2006 with my (very out of date) 6mp canon 10d, but i have to admit i love my current 50mp 5ds... but it does not guarantee great images having all that resolution... worry more resolution i find in even more critical over any lots of sharpness from focus or camera shake
Sorry have to call you out on your explanation of why larger sensors are better.. Sensor & pixel size has nothing to do with ISO, dynamic range or noise. The Quantum Efficiency of the photo site determines how many photons are converted to an electrical signal. Full well depth ( among other things) determines the dynamic range. If the F ratio to sensor size is scaled correctly many small sensors will keep up with the FF equivalent, this is one reason why crop sensor lenses are often 1/2 to one stop faster. granted there are some draw backs due to diffraction in such an optical system but for the most part these things scale linearly. Noise is another matter, much of this is due to read out noise smaller sensors with a fine pixel pitch can suffer from the density of the electronics creating cross talk and heat that is difficult to deal with at such a small scale. BSI, Stacked Sensors and Global shutters have all come from the smallest sensors as a way of mitigating these issues. If what you were saying were true, why does the a7r5 have the highest dynamic range of any ( consumer ) FF sensor ? Another thing worth mentioning with higher MP cameras like the a7r4 or 5 is that at higher ISOs when down sampling ( over sampling / pixel binning ) you will end up with a higher quality output when compared to the larger pixel counterpart a7s. This is due to the finer pixel pitch containing 3.81 times the colour and dynamic range information so when averaged it will be an average of all of those details not just one of the bayer matrix. Apologies for the rant, just hope one day these persistent myths will die a more than timely death.
Thank you. Is this why the images from my OM-1 (stacked, back-lit sensor) are slightly better quality than the images from my OM-5; even though both are 20mp?
I appreciate the effort but honestly I don’t think I’m competing against what you’re talking about at all 😅. If anything a lot of it is the same. Also, let’s try to keep it simple, hey? This is a video for beginners, after all. A classroom would roll over with boredom if I started talking about well depth amongst other things 😂. Keeping it focused on beginners!
@@patkay All fair enough, though i do believe there needs to be a better way to describe the differences in sensors. saying a larger sensor lets in more light or has lower noise or a smaller DOF is wildly incorrect. There are pros and cons to each camp, perhaps mentioning the slower read out speeds, the need for high end glass, cards, storage and compute required to make use of the high mp cameras could help.
To the beginner who is still confused after watching this video, perhaps it is because its creator uses the word "size" to refer to multiple things. Sometimes "size" (and related words) refers to the physical image-sensor size. But on other occasions "size" is used refer to the number of pixels on a sensor, a 10 megapixel sensor being in pixel count "bigger" than a 5 megapixel sensor. He is far from being the only UA-camr employing such sloppy verbiage. Never does he explicitly state that total sensor pixel count, individual pixel size, and total sensor size are three different, though related, things. The word "size" cannot be freely tossed around without stating precisely which of these is being specified.
Oh stop it, all you are doing with videos like this is trying to make people feel comfortable with their 20 year old cameras. You should always strive for the best for your life.
You also have to take viewing distance into account when considering megapixels. You don't need to print at 300 dpi for a billboard...for example.
Definitely could be an entire video on its own, but yes you’re correct.
A camera with huge MP (like 50 MP or greater) is definitely useful for making huugee fine art prints, like typically seen on art galleries. But realistically speaking... how many of us do that? For me (a hobbyist), 36 MP is way more than enough.
@@anta40 Yeah, I think high megapixel sensors are just fun because you can zoom in on details to a degree you'd never seen before. From a utility perspective, such a high count is unnecessary for 90+% of photographers.
I used a 12mp camera back in the days and made 3 bill board photos. I feel a good camera never looses it's quality . I enjoyed your post
Viewing distance .
2 things I think are relevant to this subject are: 1. certain genres of photography benefit more from having more megapixels / greater pixel density (e.g wildlife photography). 2. If you have higher megapixel sensors, you usually need to pair them with higher quality (and heavier) lenses to get the benefit from them, and then need a higher power laptop to edit them, bigger memory cards, etc. Overall there are always compromises with every improvement in performance you chase!
I'm usually happy with the 20Mp of my micro four thirds camera but took a close look at the 23 faces in a family photo I took last year. They were a little soft. Ran it through Topaz Photo AI on my 27 inch screen iMac and am very happy with the fairly subtle improvements. I'm an amateur and in my 70s now and carrying photo gear on long plane trips matters. I'm also digitizing old negatives so I can catalog and share them with dispersed family. This combination of camera, software and computer suit my needs and budget in general. All I can suggest is, if you are starting out, talk at length with one or more experienced photographer who listens to your needs before making suggestions. Make sure you discuss software and computer requirements as well as camera gear. Start with little and second-hand gear, maybe a generation or two old and take a lot of photos and process them. Print a photo book of a family visit or trip. All the major camera brands make excellent cameras for any amateur. Starting to take photos of good-enough quality now is much more important than agonizing over megapixels; you can't go back in time for such memories.
100% agree!
Well said!
I think that I am not really buying a camera. I'm buying memories to share and save. I'm buying a reason to go out to the park, to the woods, or just outside my front door (thanks macro lens!)
Some of my most cherished photos were taken with low-end camera, sometimes in bad light. I'll try your suggestion about software to make those look a little nicer.
This weekend, I'll use my new 12MP camera to digitize family photos and heirlooms. Lose the moment, lose the photo.
My D700 has 12 MP and I often print 60x40 cm with it. Never craved for more resolution. As one comment also mentioned - the larger the print the more viewing distance you usually have.
The only advantage of large MP is the ability to crop harder. I always try to get the composition right in camera so I don't need to crop.
I use the crop to compensate for not having a long tele.
That's because the photography genre you do allows for you perfect in body composition. If you did wildlife or sports you would definitely need to punch in in post.
Amen, the only problems that high MPs fix can be fixed compositionally.
@@Cervin_Suisse I shoot wildlife and sports and the most I'll crop for sports is about 15-20% of the image. Wildlife, I think requires more, because even with a 500mm lens, you still might need to crop to get closer. Sports, for the most part, a 300mm is overkill. So I stick with a 70-200 mostly and am able to fill the frame from about 20 yards out. Switch to my 300 for longer shots, still never have an issue filling the frame for football, soccer, volleyball, golf, Cross Country, Basketball, Swimming, Baseball, you name it. a 70-200 will do it, the 300 i barely touch.
@@ReadIcculus93 Thank you for the feed back.
I shoot with a Canon R6 with 20MP and almost never need more than that (Portraits & weddings). MP doesn‘t decide the look of the photo, Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO do. If you know what you‘re doing and you know the limitations of your gear, you can create great work with almost any camera.
If you wanna print your pictures bigger than A3+ with reasonable high ppi counts, yes. If not, 24 MP is probably all you need.
100%
@@ispenttoomuchongear I got great 8mp A3+ prints and amazing A2 prints from 10mp if you have a bigger sensor. It's sensor size and lens quality that counts. My 12 year old 16mp APS-C prints way better then the newest 100mp smartphone.
Well... It also depends on the type of photography. 24 MP doesn't allow much cropping. For wildlife photography for instance it might fall a bit short. If you have the budget to buy € 18'000 lenses + converter you might not have to punch in so much. However if you have that budget you will buy a body with a bigger MP sensor to begin with.
If you are shooting something that's relatively still, you can also do panorama stitching.
As a wedding photographer I sometimes run into situations where the client wants huge prints such as 16X20", or larger. I can't offer those sizes, since my home printer can only print 13X19". So, I send them out. Even if I could, my highest resolution camera a Nikon D750, tops out at 25 MP. I was thinking about getting a higher resolution camera and a bigger printer but the rare times I do get these offers, does not justify the cost of added equipment.
I have for years offered prints up to 20x30 for clients, and have made them from 16 and 20 megapixel cameras in the past with no issues. No complaints.
You can get away with that on the 25mp camera, I do it with a 20mp camera. Your client isn't going to pixel peep.
I have medium format, full frame and M43 systems. I like all of them for different reasons. I find the 20-24mp sensor is a sweet spot for most things but tend to shoot 50mp full frame or medium format for landscapes just for the cropping flexibility and print sizes. My favourite camera to actually use in terms of enjoyment and ergonomics is my Lumix G9 20mp with one of my tiny fast primes. It's a joy to use and even use it for landscape sometimes.
I took your japan ebook with me on my trip to Japan at the start of the year thank you. What a great country for photography!
Chris Hau made a video where he took similar shots with the 12MP A7SIII and a 100MP Fuji Medium Format camera, then he showed the images to photographers in various formats: social media, downsized on computers to fit the screen, printed out on a medium size print (8x10 maybe?) and the printed out on massive posters. They couldn't tell the difference. In fact, most of the time they thought the 12 MP prints were the 100 MP prints and preferred them.
I've had images from my 8 MP Canon 1D Mark IIN used on billboards and they looked incredible. I've also uprezzed my 24 MP R6 II files to 45 MP to match R5 shots and even zoomed in to 100% my friend and I couldn't tell the difference.
Brilliant comparison and most valuable information video I have ever seen recently. Keep up your great work bro wishes from India 🇮🇳 looking more videos from your end ❤❤❤❤
256 X 256 the perfect resoluton
Give me all the pixels…but not strictly for cropping or prints. Primarily, I want resolution because I want to minimize my glass carry. Hi-res typically lets me leave one, sometimes two, lenses at home, and those lenses tend to be on the bigger side. Give me a sensor that lightens and shrinks my carry, and reduces lens changes…I’ll take that over burst rates in most scenarios.
Absolutely. APSC mode is a dedicated button on all my cameras!
Nikon Nikkor has terrific S glass that’s much lighter and compact than Sony or Canon which I mount on my full frame Z6iii camera with 24 megapixels!!
There's no point in having more pixels than your lens can resolve, so if you can't afford high-end professional lenses, then you don't really need a high megapixel sensor in your camera.
Some years back, I was looking at the a7R2 to upgrade from my a6000. The jump in low light performance was great but it was still pretty high for everyday stuff. Ended up keeping both and alternating between them depending on what medium I want the final image to be on.
Next thing I’m looking at is an A3 printer lol
I absolutely agree with you. I sold all my Sony APS-C and Nikon full frame gear and now have one A7CR with four lenses. I too consider this camera to be two in one, especially having used an a6400 for several years prior to having this 61Mp camera with the built-in crop factor available at the push of a shortcut button. Like you, I also have more keepers thanks to the abilty to crop and not lose out on quality. Best decision I ever made.
Same I do!
My 25-year-old Nikon D70, 6mp, with a classic 50mm 1.4 D lens delivers excellent image quality in a normal setting (low ISO). It doesn't have bells and whistles, but the images are lovely. Print sizes up to 12X18 are also great.
In fact, 24 megapixels is now enough for commercial photography.
As humans, we are limited by the printing limit of 300 dpi and the viewing distance, so any more pixels than this is just overkill.
12 mp is more than enough for a good print to put on your wall. But it's the sensor and lens that's important. Smartphones sucks when it comes to print.
Smart phones suck as soon as you blow up the image. As long as you vision it in the original size on a phone then the pictures are somewhat acceptable. Even the new iPhone 16 Pro camera leaves to be desired.
Now that's the way any photographer enthusiast should be explained the famous Megapixels "war". Greatly done and thank you for this video!
Just one little point. A FF sensor isn't 1.5x the size of an APS-C sensor, it's 2.25x larger. The sensor is 1.5x wider x 1.5x taller = 2.25x the overall size (area).
A Canon FF sensor is 1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56x the size of its (slightly smaller than usual) APS-C sensors.
Only print digitally at 1080, I'm happy with 8MP as it will also allow amateur videographer to record in 4K and amateur photographists to shoot...The manufacturers should focus on lower noise, with higher ISO...
I've went from a 24mp aps-c A77II to a 33mp FF A7M4 and ironically I can crop more with the full frame one than with the aps-c. For some reason the pixels are more tidy and it's Bayer matrix interpolates better. A 1920*1080 frame crop from A7IV looks better than a 4096*2160 crop from A77II, and that is using the same Minolta High Speed G lenses (commonly known as the great father of G Master)
Hey mate, good video. I have the A7c2 and was debating if I should have got the A7cr. Do I still have decent cropping ability with the 33mp version? I also like to use the APSC mode as I only shoot with small prime lenses.
Last time I checked it was the size of the lens aperture (not f-stop which is the ratio of fl and aperture) that dictated the amount of light hitting the sensor. Two same aperture lenses one designed for a smaller and one designed for a larger sensor will give the same total amount of light to those sensors and if the sensors have the same megapixel count they will produce the same quality pictures due to same amount of light even though they are different sizes. So yes it’s all about the lens size not sensor size.
I have 61MP a7cr and sigma fpL. I like both but yet my favorite picture was shot on a panasonic LC1 at 5MP. I also have many great pictures from "only" 10-14MP on 4/3, N1 and nex5 cameras. From 16MP up it only becomes a cropping benefit for me.
I love the bold statement at 4:25 "the larger the sensor, the more light is gathered". Really? Those who are brave enough to put a lens in front of their sensor might disagree.
I use M43 Olympus OMD EM1 MK3 and the IQ is absolutely enough for me and macro and portrait work
My favorite response in any photography or computer gear discussion is "depends on your use case". I use a PhaseOne IQ3-100mpx digital back for fashion photography & fashion portraits. My "use case" is about post-production & editing / retouching. Having a 100mpx medium format image gives my retoucher the absolute most "real estate" to work with. As for my Sony A7R4, that is less of a "use case", and more of a "...I can use it as a backup for my PhaseOne in an emergency".
I used a EOS Rebel T3 which is a 12mp camera till 2020 when it kicked the bucket IMO those photos are still better then soke of the photos I take with my 70D which is 20mp, all I gained is distance when cropping.
For me, dynamic range is as equally as important as resolution, perhaps more. I wish manufacturers would highlight this features as much as megapixels. If a high megapixel (>60 mp) sensor yielding >15 stops of dynamic range and minimum noise at high ISO's - that's what I want. (oh, and still be full frame; medium format too pricey)
Hi Pat, thanks for all your valuable Information. Can you please make series about composing in variable conditions, like indoor, outdoor, different subjects like Person or Persons in Occasions, Sports, Animals etc.? Landscape and so on. I know it is so much like your series of Visual Patterns, but what I would mean is taking these in practice and combine it with handling camera technics.
_The higher, the megapixel the better sometimes when I’m on the go, and I don’t have the time to adjust for zooming and framing or adapting the distance to a shot because of a higher megapixel I just take the picture and crop it later without losing the detail; the iPhone 15 Pro Max, however, has all the technology of a professional camera with features in technology that you can only dream of_
Higher mp only benefit landscape and wild life. Because you can reframe smaller objects. But other wise, anything above 8 mp is suitable for nearly anything you will do.
Yes, there is extra detail POTENTIAL in higher resolutions. But you need some insanely good lenses and nearly perfect conditions to capture them. Better to save the money to use on getting to intresting places or getting nicer stuff to work with.
Targeting 300 dpi is usually overkill. Computer monitors used to have 96 dpi. With 2K/4K monitors you usually have to increase DPI scaling to 120/144 dpi. You can easily see pixels with 96 dpi, but with 144 dpi it is much harder to see pixels (maybe on fonts). I'm sure 150 dpi is plenty, for looking at the distance probably even less.
I agree Good lenses are a better investment in general.
My main camera for photos is the ZVE1 lol. It works well for shots that don't require flash and places that don't cause the light banding. It is great for corporate events and conferences since clients usually want a fast turnover time and 12mp file size really helps with the transfer into lightroom, and the subsequent export out for customers. The inability to use flash really hurts tho :(
Why can't you use a flash? I have the same camera and there is a slot for a flash. Is it because using a flash is a pain or the client doesn't like flash? I find that odd.
@@bondgabebond4907 I have not tried using a flash for a while, but the last time I did, the shutter speed would not go beyond 1/30s and I can't find any settings to change it. I had to walk around an entire event shoot with a mounted LED light lol.
Turns out it is the Flash sync speed spec? I think?
I'm not used to shutter speed being limited on camera by flash as I was upgrading from the old Nikon DSLRs (D4 and 810), so I didn't realized this could happen.
Sony a7IV and love it
I'm here so early! Love you Pat. I have all three of your japan books 🤩
You’re the best! Thank you for the support!
Most YT content makers are more interested in shilling for a product, not getting into the nitty gritty of creating a pleasing image. If I was to tell people the aps-c a6700 is a superior camera to the A74, I'd be laughed out of the room, that is, until I show them large printed images coming from the a6700. There are so many factors that go into making an image for posters, 8x10s, billboards, that one really has to examine how people see the image. That requires a lot of examples and discussion on how we see images.
An example is when we look close to a large black and white print coming from Tri-X black and white film, we see dots, lots of dots. Back up a little and an image of a person, for example, appears. That is why it takes time and research to determine what you really need to make photos and what their intended use is.
The worse you are at composing prior to pressing the trigger, the more pixels you will need. If it could be done on an APS-H CCD sensor of 4MP and printed in magazines, there really is no viable excuse for absolutely requiring more than 24MP. We got by with 6MP, then 8, 12, 16, 20... Practice composing rather than cropping
I’ve always heard that about megapixels but like you rightly said IF YIU HAVE THE MONEY!!! A 60 megapixel would give you the flexibility to use it in a way you want,looking at it from that perspective more is better
Thank you Pat! great explanation. I'm using an A7 III with a G FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G... for taking some of my own architecture during construction process and some final shots before I hire a professional architecture photographer. The idea is to have great pics during the process and some to post on IG basically. I started shooting in AF because it's been a long time since I used analog cameras, but little by little trying to do some manual shooting. I think this setup is OK for architecture, I'm trying not to shoot over 24mm in order to have more controlled size, quality and format... would you suggest something for my purpose and if I had to have another lens for let's say architecture and more travel or street photo what would that be? Thanks!!
Honestly that setup will get you through 90% of what most people would want to do, so I would actually just suggest to make the most out of what you’ve got!
For street, sometimes people might find 35mm to be difficult, so they opt for a longer length, but if you can get good at 35mm street, you can get good at anything IMHO
@@patkay thank you very much! I’ll make the most out of it! 🙏🏼
A 4k monitor is 8.4 MegaPixels.
If you only ever view on a monitor or print at A3 size, that's all you need.
I think anything over 20 MP is overkill. If you are really worried about cropping that much, just get a longer lens or get closer to your subject. Any solution a high MP count will solve can be solved using practical solutions. In fact, a 2x crop on a full frame 45mp looks worse than a uncropped 20mp image anyways.
I still use my Canon 5D Mk lll with 21 megapixels and the images still look sharp and beautiful.
Pat, what are your thoughts on the Canon 90D?
If there are no trade offs, a gizzalion pixels is good enough, but the first hit will be file management, horrible. 2ndly, pixel size crowding will become an issue. I think 42MP is the perfect size. Allows for cropping and still has files that are manageable and the low light limitations cuz of pixel pitch is already encroaching on capability at 42 MP.
I have 24 megapixels in my Nikon Zf and it's more than enough for my use cases. Even if I crop to a 1:1 ratio, because I love the square format for portraits, I still have about 16 megapixels, enough for a 13x13 print. Would it be awesome to have something like a z8 with it's 45.7 megapixels? Yeah, but it's not a necessity.
I've printed 30x40 from a 16mp Fuji XE1 which has a crop sensor nowhere near as good as that of your Zf so you can easily print bigger than 13x13 even with that crop.
You can always AI upscale it anyways. That works pretty well nowadays.
@@patkay Probably. In reality, I rarely print larger than the 8x12. Photography is just my hobby, my creative outlet. More megapixels is just a nice-to-have and not a need, really. I'd agree that the large megapixel count cameras are useful for using the DX mode to get some extra reach. Your video was an excellent explanation of how many pixels one needs for the various uses that 99.99% have.
I need 1000mp 😂 i like shoot motorsport , motogp , sbk , so i love cropping in so much & i don’t need anything longer then 200mm lens mostly. Im using the sony a7r3 now , wishing a7r6 will have more then 61mp.
As many you can get . The more you have , the more internal contrast you have to resolve the image .
For video you need exactly as many megapixels as the footage you wanna shoot and not a single pixel more. For 4k that would be 9MP (8,3 if we’re precise). For photos it depends. What kind of photography are you doing, how important is low light performance, do you plan to shoot a ratio of video and photo on the same camera, are you printing photos or putting them on social media (tow extreme opposites)…
So on and so forth
TL:DR You have a lot of cameras.
😂😅 I’m in a very fortunate position to have them, yes.
@Pat, maybe you can zoom in to printing too. The numbers you called seem to be very limited. I have a print on my wall which is 120 cm wide, made with a 24MP FF sensor and it is just fine. Of course you can pixel peep on the print too, but nobody does that.
Or use AI to upscale in lightroom if absolutely needed
megapixels are literally only for if you crop a lot in sports or wild life photography
sensor size doesn't mean much but it means a lot if you want tighter focal lengths for background compression and higher ISO noise floors in low light
larger sensors capture more photons its capture the same photons as a crop sensor it capture the same DENSITY OF LIGHT but it spreads it out and is capturing more of the image with tighter focal lengths getting tighter comression
Something to take into account too is file sizes! Big file sizes are a pain to work with 😭
Also, me going from a 17.9mp camera, to a 51mp camera that I used at 28mp, to a 2005 12mp camera because the 51 one is way too fancy to shoot around the city (and I kinda outgrew the 17.9mp one). "Parkour'
For video adequate megapixels needed Max fro 8k
For photography Max 20mp enough
45MP can make your fast prime lens a 2X range zoom lens. So I think that's the baseline for me.
Composition and light still reigns supreme and sometimes timing.. I have a Nikon with 45mps but I also have a D700 with 12 and a D200 with 10 and I prefer the vintage cameras. The sensors are different.
Now that is a question.
I got cameras with nice big sensors, 24Mpixels, 20Mpixels even an APS-C with just 16Mpixels.
But let me tell you. For 99% of my use that is more then enough. I can print it out big enough, I can send copies off*. I can use them in so many ways.
Hell the 16Mpixels one even punches above its appearant size. It is REALLY good for its age.**
* I tend to downsize them for that
** Fujifilm X100S. A relative small camera with a really nice lens and a good sensor. What do you need more?
So far what I've found - it's not the megapixels, but about the camera. Let me rephrase it - images from S24 ultra look waaaaaay worse than from some 10 year old Sony camera that was sitting in a bin. At least that;s my experience. Phone photography usually oversharpens, lacks dynamic range and in general FEELs less deliberate.
Again these are subjective opinions that I have formed as an amateur photographer, so your mileage may vary. Having said that my favourite photo from this year is shot with a phone just because I had roughly 5 seconds to react to a scene, so now I'm almost contradicting myself
Useless question for me. There are no "bad" cameras today on the market, it just all depends on what you are going to do with the Photo. You dont need many MP per se.
If you want to do large prints, its necessary (depending on the content that is shown). You need the extra option to do crops? Fine, have more MP.
You want personal family photos on your computer to browse once in a while? 20 "real" MP are more than enough from a proper MFT, APSC or FF Camera. Not Smartphone tricks like iPhone and Co.!
I have taken done great pictures way back in 2006 with my (very out of date) 6mp canon 10d, but i have to admit i love my current 50mp 5ds... but it does not guarantee great images having all that resolution... worry more resolution i find in even more critical over any lots of sharpness from focus or camera shake
At the end of the day a good photo is determined by the photographer, not the gear!
Type of Photograph that need super large resolution:
Nah f*ck composition i wiill crop it later
Thank you very much
Thanks for watching!
Events Photography course?
Your awareness is uncanny.
If you have to do compositing, then higher megapixels is lifeeeeeee
My D4 with 16MP is quite enough.
But for some reason my D850 with 45MP makes me sleep better.😊
TLDR: Get the highest megapixel camera you can afford
You brother you should bring to the table the Sony photography oriented phone not apple…why apple lol😂😂😂 nice video thanks
Sorry have to call you out on your explanation of why larger sensors are better..
Sensor & pixel size has nothing to do with ISO, dynamic range or noise.
The Quantum Efficiency of the photo site determines how many photons are converted to an electrical signal.
Full well depth ( among other things) determines the dynamic range.
If the F ratio to sensor size is scaled correctly many small sensors will keep up with the FF equivalent, this is one reason why crop sensor lenses are often 1/2 to one stop faster. granted there are some draw backs due to diffraction in such an optical system but for the most part these things scale linearly.
Noise is another matter, much of this is due to read out noise smaller sensors with a fine pixel pitch can suffer from the density of the electronics creating cross talk and heat that is difficult to deal with at such a small scale. BSI, Stacked Sensors and Global shutters have all come from the smallest sensors as a way of mitigating these issues.
If what you were saying were true, why does the a7r5 have the highest dynamic range of any ( consumer ) FF sensor ?
Another thing worth mentioning with higher MP cameras like the a7r4 or 5 is that at higher ISOs when down sampling ( over sampling / pixel binning ) you will end up with a higher quality output when compared to the larger pixel counterpart a7s. This is due to the finer pixel pitch containing 3.81 times the colour and dynamic range information so when averaged it will be an average of all of those details not just one of the bayer matrix.
Apologies for the rant, just hope one day these persistent myths will die a more than timely death.
Thank you. Is this why the images from my OM-1 (stacked, back-lit sensor) are slightly better quality than the images from my OM-5; even though both are 20mp?
I appreciate the effort but honestly I don’t think I’m competing against what you’re talking about at all 😅. If anything a lot of it is the same.
Also, let’s try to keep it simple, hey? This is a video for beginners, after all. A classroom would roll over with boredom if I started talking about well depth amongst other things 😂. Keeping it focused on beginners!
I tried to read all that. I think he’s saying Megapickles are good.
@@patkay All fair enough, though i do believe there needs to be a better way to describe the differences in sensors. saying a larger sensor lets in more light or has lower noise or a smaller DOF is wildly incorrect. There are pros and cons to each camp, perhaps mentioning the slower read out speeds, the need for high end glass, cards, storage and compute required to make use of the high mp cameras could help.
I bet you got beat up a lot in school.
I came to the conclusion that I would probably need only 10 MP. Everything above that is just for cropping.
Why is it now always about “megapixels” rather than number of pixels?
Your video got recommended to me when I was enquiring about the Leica d-lux 8 that only has 17mp 😂 (I won’t buy it though)
100 would be my sweet spot...for now.
99% of people does not need more than 30MP and even this is overkill for most people. Go for dynamic range, colors, low light ability, not megapixels.
I need cooping.
To the beginner who is still confused after watching this video, perhaps it is because its creator uses the word "size" to refer to multiple things. Sometimes "size" (and related words) refers to the physical image-sensor size. But on other occasions "size" is used refer to the number of pixels on a sensor, a 10 megapixel sensor being in pixel count "bigger" than a 5 megapixel sensor. He is far from being the only UA-camr employing such sloppy verbiage. Never does he explicitly state that total sensor pixel count, individual pixel size, and total sensor size are three different, though related, things. The word "size" cannot be freely tossed around without stating precisely which of these is being specified.
all of them, what a silly question
At least 1
I have 100MP, next step would be 200MP.
I NEED 100 BILLION MEGAPIXELS!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I'll take 61 MP 😁
technically the phone has 48 buuuuuut
buuuuuutttt yeah it’s not really “48” lol
If you’re only posting on instagram, 12.
Hmmmmmm.
Oh stop it, all you are doing with videos like this is trying to make people feel comfortable with their 20 year old cameras.
You should always strive for the best for your life.