**Correction 🤦🏼♂️ I made a mistake in my explanation at 3:09. When detailing the cropping ability of 16MP and 12MP I used a crop factor of 2x and 1.5x respectively to get to the 8MP resolution - this is incorrect. To achieve 8MP on the 16MP would only require a crop factor of 1.4x. On 12MP only a crop factor is 1.2x is required. The reason for this is I had mistakenly calculated (4992x3328)/2 to achieve 8MP from 16MP. In fact this should be calculated with division preceding multiplication: (4992/1.4)X(3328/1.4). Apologies for the mistake, it doesn't change the ability of an 8MP image - only the variable crop factors to get there! 😂 And a thank you to Bjørn Friese for emailing to notify me of the mistake!
Well you could crop and resample and not lose any megapixels :) Of course resampling wont improve the optical resolution of a cropped area, but if your goal is to simply create an image for a certain screen size or for print where visible pixilation would be a problem then resampling would be the way to go.
As film wedding photographer, it took years for me to realize that the average client probably has a 5-10 year old computer at home, more than likely it's a laptop at best, most have smart phones, primarily Androids. And the only people who care about resolution.... is us, photographers.
I'm going to chip in here with my experience from the other side of this equation. We had a small wedding and I asked my now brother in law to take some candid shots of people while we were doing the traditional posed group photos (when he wasn't needed to be in a shot). My favourite photos from the day, by far, were from extreme crops of photos taken on a Sony A7Rii. Anything much lower than that and the little moments wouldn't have been able to to be used. It's all little moments like grandparents sharing a joke with each other, or my wife interacting with my 1 year old nephew. Being able to pull out these shots and still have them at 8MP is an awesome thing to be able to do. All that being said, for general holiday photos I don't use the A7R and stick with an old 16MP Fujifilm fixed lens camera as it covers everything I need for out and about (pocket sized, good enough IQ and mainly that it's light weight). I think it's all about convenience, application and workflow, I'd rather take a slightly wider shot to make sure I get everything I want in the image, with the option to crop in later while keeping the photos printable in larger formats.
@@AxR558 keyword..... photographers care about resolution. Not the average client. Clearly, since you know what a A7Rii is, you're not the average client. You're a photographer. Proving my point.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographerValid point. Then again that argument stretched to people watching this video or that have the inclination to edit their photos in the first place. Anyone that this school of thought genuinely applies to might actually be better off sticking with the camera in their phone.
@@hanumanguyI've been using a similar technique since the mid 90s when I was using an enlarger and film to reframe my black and white shots. I think I've just always continued with that technique ever since as I've always treated post processing (and developing) as a part of the creative process.
My first experience with Star Wars was a VHS tape with 288 lines of resolution. What’s on the screen is more important then how many pixels that was used.
If you get a chance, check out Magnum Photographer Alex Majoli, who took a 5mp Olympus point and shoot and shot the presidential elections and the Iraq war for Newsweek -- those images won him several awards, including the award for international photographer of the year.
I believe it was the Olympus C-5060 & C-8080 I own the C-5060 it’s probably the best camera I have ever used and is so fun to use! Highly recommended 📸✨
@Wordsalad69420 people just want to convince themselves they need the gear. Amazing pictures have been taken for decades, long before anything digital but people insist they "need" this or that because it helps with this or that. It's the photographer, always has been and always will be.
This varies by genre though. Megapixels are essential when you are photographing small birds, for example; they won't let you get close, and in order to get appreciable detail you almost always must crop. Bird photographers generally find even 24 MP to be too little (which is why the Canon R3 never made it as a competitor for the Sony A1 or the Nikon X8 and X9 as a bird photography camera; the Canon gold standard for bird photography still is the R5, precisely because of its higher resolution). In addition, seeing pictures on a screen is one thing; printing them out is another game altogether, and megapixels make a huge difference.
@@poptv1762 Most bird photographers will use both a long lens (possibly with an optical teleconverter) and a high resolution sensor and still crop in when needed.
But you can resample images to improve their DPI for printing. True it's not going to improve optical resolution. But neither will a sensor with more megapixels if it already has enough to resolve the optical image created by the lens. So I think for bird photography high quality lenses and good composition, so images don't need to be cropped in post processing are more important than megapixels.
Indeed, in the case of bird photography it is very important to have enough resolution to be able to crop. These are special cases of photography where, without a doubt, resolution rules. But also, sometimes agencies have an MPX floor so if your camera doesn't arrive you won't be able to sell your photos to them.
@@artberry Not only the optics but also the focusing speed, the frames per second and the more resolution you will have, you will be able to get closer without loss of quality, something that with a smaller resolution you will not be able to.
You’re right - I used to edit an image-lead fairly glossy / heavy paper magazine (you could buy in newsagents) and as long as the base image was good (I mean sharp, well exposed) we could usually get a double-page spread out of a 3mp image without any noticeable artefacts - and 6mp was never a problem.
It is easy. High MP crop is really useful when using prime lens and you don't have the reach (or even maxed out zoom). If you have the zoomies to churn out, just use zoom to do the work. It's just choosing how lazy or restricted you want to be. Because essence of doing crop with enough MP is legitimately backed up by birding or sports people
It really depends what you do later, if all what matters is picture for social media then of course you don’t need extra detail of extra resolution, but on the other hand. after nice holiday you look back on some old photos, you like to check in the background for example name of restaurant or look closer at the flowers on the table then its amazing to have that big sensor and hi resolution. Its all about attention to detail
I agree with you for most types of photography. The output is the most important. If the output is instagram or the computer monitor I completelly agree. What about printing? For portraits, landscapes, architecture, macro etc. there is no need for big resolutions. What about wildlife photography? You can't be close most of the time, so you have to crop heavily sometimes. You still want/need to print 4000 by 6000 pixels at 240-300 dpi. Then it becomes a budget choice between disk space and bigger lenses...
My digital camera journey started with a Canon Ixus (2 MB resolution). The image quality of my photos from that era is still a sort of OK (watched on a 27" 2K screen) and there are some photos which I really like despite the low resolution. The best camera is that what inspires and enables you to take great shots. Some years ago I purchased a Sony A7R III. Factually it did not inspire me the same way like my ancient A7. Consequently I sold it without any regret because I was/am using primarily vintage lenses so that many features of the A7R III did not translate into a real-life advantage for me.
George, you had me laugh out loud when describing the screen resolutions versus the actual megapixel size! I DIDN"T KNOW THAT!!! I have been reviewing old photos that I took on my Nikon Coolpix 990 back in the early 2000s. This camera cost me over a grand in January 2000 (just after launch) and was state-of-the-art at that time. It has a 3.3 Megapixel sensor and on my 33" LG or HP monitors (I run them side-by-side off my MacBook Pro) the pics are still stunning. I found your video by accident and I'm so glad I did as I am fed up with listening to 'photographers' telling me I need the latest squillion megapixels to get a good photograph. I cut my teeth on film, had my own darkroom at home and learned that photography is about 'SEEING' not about the number of megapixels you have. Well done for a great video... absolutely love it!
When you look at a well shot image from say, a Rollei 2 1/4 camera from 1960, you not only get amazing resolution, (let's say the film was Plus X, but back then you could probably get ASA 50 or even 25) the larger image can also give you more micro contrast and range of tones. It's very obvious when you look at the prints. This range of tones is really what I'm looking for when I think of higher resolution digital. Either the sensor offers it or it doesn't.
You can generate a fairly good-sized print from lower mega-pixel (6-12MP) cameras as well. Plus, AI optimization programs can easily boost resolution (through interpolation) by 200% that you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference when compared with native resolution. Very few people view A3 or A2 prints hanging on the wall up close.
That is also true! It was only when I finished this edit I realised I could have included Lightroom's enhance feature but would like to have a final product to showcase - a future video maybe!
Interpolation would be a good topic for George to make a vid on. I have no idea how that all works. I tried to find out about it before but didn't get far.
@@stevesvids Interpolation is essentially intelligently adding pixels (through machine learning ) making the best mathematical approximation of what a pixel may have been if it had existed naturally for any given desired resolution. There is a limit to what can be done and nothing is as good as originally captured data. However, it is impressive what is possible while indiscernibly affecting the visual quality to the human eye.
@@kbarrett1844AI interpolation is definitely an interesting subject to get into, I do wonder where the boundary lies between it being the original photograph (i.e. interpretation of actual captured photons) vs digitally created art.
As an artist, all my life i've tried to make the most of the least possible, as a necessity at times, but always as a principle. I've never seen anyone explain why I love shooting with my Lumix cameras, and why I've been so eager to get friends and partners into them, as much as you have in this video. Well done, subscribed.
Great observation!. Not only that, I can get cinematic photographs on my old Canon G9 vs my Leica Q. If your a lens-based artist like me, what matters most is the art within the shot taken…and where it’s displayed. Thanks from Newfoundland.
If you dont crop a lot, megapixels don’t mean a lot. You only need 90,000 pixels per inch of printing. You need a little less than 9 megapixels to make. 8x12 print. So if you own a ten megapixel camera youre fine. It’s the dynamic range and color depth of the sensor that matters.
Very true. I didn't touch on those in detail in this video, it's hard to make tangible comparisons between two sensors or brands without just confusing yourself even more
@@GeorgeHolden I have an Olympus XZ1 that is at least twelve years old. With the newer editing apps out today that camera (and others like it) is better than it ever was in the past.
My Nikon D700 is 12M and it still happily shoots great pics. I have been in photography for 40 years or so and I was shooting 35mm before and never had issues in enlarging. Unfortunately the marketing and social media hype in higher resolution has ruined photography in general. If you are a good photographer and have a creative talent, you can shoot with a "pinhole" camera and get great images, so the idea of higher resolution is better, is a myth for general photography. But, if you want to do architectural photography or other photography that requires more res that is fine, that is why in the film days you had and still have medium and large format films. Cheers
Thank you George for delving into this, and the piratical aspects of matching the system to application along with simple technical realities often you related, which are obscured by marketing hype are important take-aways you shared exceptionally well. That being the case, there are other technical elements that comprise effective resolution and image quality other than just sensor megapixels, those being: Lens resolution, diffraction, diffusion, aberration and what is commonly referred to as 'micro contrast'. Sensor noise, dynamic range and the way the image processing engine and algorithms can also effect the overall fidelity of an image. How images are digitally developed in post and and displayed effect how an image is ultimately seen as much or more than the camera sensor size and resolution, and any element in that chain can make or break the presentation of an image. Over the 50+ years of messing about with dozens of cameras, lenses, filters, film, prints motion pictures in film and digital formats, when it comes to digital cameras, I've observed that the optical performance of the lens is the ultimate delineating element of an imaging system in terms of apparent detail and fidelity. It's easy to find images taken with a 10mp compact digital camera that appear more detailed then a full-frame 35mm camera with 4x the megapixels. I've owned and shot sub 1", 1", 4/3", APS-C, H & full-frame 35mm, 645 and 2x2 and 6x9 medium format, and 4X5 cameras in film and digital. Over the last 10+ years I've used 4/3" sensor cameras for about 75% of images produced, and the rest in crop or full-frame 35mm cameras, a Pentax 645Z and a Fuji GFX50s and cameras with larger sensors, generally produce superior image quality when used with optics designed to take advantage of the sensor. The biggest apparent difference I see between say a 20mp sensor M43 camera with a top quality prime lens, and a full-frame 35mm or Medium format camera with 50mp sensor is not raw resolution, but tonal quality, contrast and natural look. If exposed and processed optimally, I find with larger sensors, skin, hair, eyes are more natural, and defined, as are are trees, grass, water, sky and clouds, and more so in less than optimal lighting conditions. I believe that has to to with the higher inherent electronic noise levels in the smaller sensors how that noise is processed in-camera that degrades quality of the image as well. Generally, the smaller sensor system will have a lower image signal to noise ratio and a higher noise floor that limits the quality an image. While a low-contrast -low-detail scene may look the same with a modern 100mp Medium format system as a 10 year old pocket camera when viewed on a mobile device, a high-contrast, high-detail scene on a high-resolution display or print, the higher performance imaging system should, and typically does surpass the low performance system. And what about going forward? Large, gallery and commercial prints typically require a higher performance imaging system than Images shared on social media, but for how long? In a few years might newer display technologies such as VR and Mixed reality soon change that where we will be viewing immersive 100mp images through 20mp 3D glasses? And if such display become reality, will the 8mp image most in the future will care to view on such as display? I expect even in the future it will be the content of the image and how the image resonates with the viewer that will always matter as much or more than the technical capture of the image. An interesting image no matter the technical quality will always be engaging and as you point out, if we are serious about sharing something meaningful with others, perhaps we should strive first and foremost to perceive what it is we see that is meaningful to us, and how to capture and share in a way that resonates and becomes meaningful to others. That perhaps the difference between the art of photographic imagery and taking a technically superior image. Back in the 70's in high school, I had the good fortune to apprentice to a cinematographer on a film (One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest) that won as many awards as any film to date, and the technical quality of the the film was average at best for the time and very poor technically compared to what a $1,000 consumer camera can produce today, but it was how a moving story was captured in dramatic and moving ways that will be engaging forever, and one of many examples to help us become visual artists Cheers! stay charged, moving, capturing, sharing and inspiring.
I have a Canon 80D, a Canon 6D, and a sony a7iv...yet my 12mp drone has taken my favorite shots this year because it can simply get shots the others can't. And they look great alongside shots from cameras with 3x the resolution and sensor size.
I wish I could fly a drone in the locations I photograph, but sadly I can not my main spot prohibits it because it's one of the most populated places for eagles and ospreys, and another is very close to a military base.
@@MrStruggle0 depends on what you are going for, at my local watering hole I see 1 guy with a medium-format camera, I imagine they are shooting a greater picture of an eagle in its habitat more so than the eagle perched or capturing a crappie.
Manual focus is another great option . I think we are very spoiled now days with digital and better AF systems. I shoot primarily with a Nikon D4 as my main event camera. Because of its amazing low-light handling and small RAW files. I can pull back 2 to 3 stops on exposure and not have much grain to deal with. My newer mirrorless suffers just pulling 1 stop back on exposure. Something about the older film grain looking DSLR sensors to me looks better than the digital grain you get in the mirrorless cameras.
@@simrtech3d I want one after shooting a Nikon D3 for an event or two. I ended up trading up to D4 which is may main camera currently. The D700 has amazing colors straight out of camera. Canon 5D is also an amazing budget camera that has amazing colors but dated AF system.
@@simrtech3d I don't' know what it is about the sensor on the D4, but it just really has amazing output. I spend 1/2 the time on my D4 photos when I do my other DSLR's in post. I even looked at buying a second D4 so I have a spare but man the D4 is a well built DSLR, last of it's kind since the D5 is more plastic then the D4 or D4s. I will say the D3 vertical grip was better.
I was stuck in the rut of always wanting to upgrade, spent thousands on the latest gear. My newest camera now is from 2016 and my most used camera is from 2004 (albeit a rare and desirable camera that wasn't cheap). I have way more fun now than I did with the latest and greatest. Admittedly, I don't shoot to live (pay the bills in IT), I live to shoot.
'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough' - Robert Capa I'm using 16MP M43 Panasonics and the image quality is great. Years ago I used a Fujifilm Finepix F200 EXR (12 or 6 MP according to mode), a Canon Powershot S70 (7.1MP) and a Konica Minolta Dynax 7D (6.1MP) and before that a Canon Powershot G2 (4MP) . They were good too! I couldn't care less about megapixels for most purposes. Really, as you say, on screen it hardly matters. It's when you print that it matters more. What more moderns sensors give you is much better dynamic range and truly excellent low light performance. Older digital cameras produced some very horrible low light results.
I've been carrying around a Sony Cybershot DSC-T10 a friend gave me and I actually just genuinely love how "2006" it makes everything look. It's kind of like a time warp camera regardless of the results which look really nicely detailed and exposed on the little LCD screen but I have a memorystick duo card reader on the way so will have to wait and see how things look on a bigger screen. Certainly good enough for instagram!! Thanks for the explanation it helped a lot.
I’ve owned one of these - bought used with some wear and tear - and not only is the CCD sensor a beauty but it’s built like a tank. A great EDC camera 👍
Amen! One of the best videos I ever shot indoors was inside a museum in Alaska -low light-with a Panasonic Lumix Leica Lens 16 mega pixels. Images were extremely clear. 😎😎
Artists can produce stunning photos with any camera. The problem especially nowadays is that few low-pixel-count camera have the functional niceties offered by high-pixel-count cameras. One high-end video-centric exception is the A7SIII at 12MP. Professionnal photographers don't need high-pixel-count cameras because they use the right lens to compose perfectly every time. But many leisure photographers lust for 40MP at least. And camera makers thrive largely by them.
I found the same myself. 16MP is plenty and there are some great 16-24MP cameras out there. Focus is far more important - less throw always. And composition and subject matter the most important of all.
My first camera was a Nikon entry level thing that was 6MP. 12MP is good enough for most prints to probably 18”, you can certainly push that to twice that - you are never going to be that close to a 36” print It’s worth noting that lens sharpness becomes more important when you are pushing the size of your prints. If you’re viewing stuff on a phone then 6MP is totally cool
I just couldn't get by without a ''reasonable'' camera with an optical zoom lens of at least 20x zoom ! High resolution is right at the bottom of my requirements list, as is changing lenses for ''close-ups'' !
If I were to hire a photographer I would be choosing the person who's got a well-worn camera over the one with a bleeding edge and barely touched camera. Experience with your gear matters way more than what gear you have.
Great video. My first DSLR was the Nikon D50 with about 5MP. At the time I had a part time engagement as a freelance journalist for a hifi magazine. One of my pictures could cover a full page, looking great.
I've been using a camera from 2004 for almost a decade now. I'm the only person who even notices the grain at high isos and low resolution. Everyone else loves the photos. Old tech is fun and cool
I've always had a pet peeve regarding tech. And that is the notion that yesterday's state of the art is today's trash. Yesterday's "state of the art" cameras were capable of producing perfectly fine images. But, people, in general, are always looking for something bigger and better. They want the next big thing whether it's megapixels or whatever. In fact, companies depend on this to stay in business. But, how much is enough? Many years ago a friend of mine owned a very high end audio company. And he was telling me about the specs of the equipment. In particular how it was good that the equipment produced sound that you couldn't hear. At some point I stopped him and said, "I don't need the best equipment. It just has to be good enough for me." And that's pretty much where I am with lots of things in life these days.
Completely agree, the beauty is sometimes in the character of the past state of the art rubbish. For me camera design is one thing that makes me enjoy a camera over others, and the cheaper older cameras fit the bill nicely
Angry audiophile noises. Blind test any audio tech: Lossless and >180 kbps compressed audio. A few with good hearing can somewhat differentiate the lower bound. >256 kbps is a 50/50. Might as well toss a coin instead.
I needed a camera to take photos. Got one. I needed an affordable digital audio work station. I got it. I always waited for bargains online for anything that I needed. People just sell things they no longer want, or use. I never cared about the mega pixels. I always cared about the picture. I use my phone to take photos too.😊
Capitalism and greed is what pushes the idea that the newest thing is the best thing because companies want their audience to consume (consumers). It's stupid and dumb, and even wasteful and insulting towards true innovation. A camera is a camera, a phone is a phone, a car is a car, a TV is a TV, and etc. While there might be differences, we're at a point where everyone is copying each other and the "new" things of today do not make those from the past obsolete. I have a 6D Mark II I bought used, though I was looking at the Canon 5D Mark II because I kept hearing great things about it- and some people still shoot with it. Some people shoot with vintage film cameras. A camera is a tool and it really does depend on how the photographer uses it.
I have taken photos since the day's of the Ilford Box Camera, I know nothing of the technicalities of modern photography but I do understand what you say, I just rely on what my eye sees, If I like what I see I just keep going, I have Cameras from the beginning of Digital but never ever paid thousands for Camera or Lenses.
Resolution isn't just down to pixels though. It's more subject matter and the lens being used. A close up portrait will look fine on any sensor with a good lens as the amount of detail needed to be rendered is close together. I shoot for large Edinburgh posters and my closeups taken with 16mp m43 looked far sharper and more detailed than others who would have been still using DSLRs in 2013. Group shots and landscapes do need larger pixel counts and better lenses however. Not just for print but also the benefits are seen on screen. In terms of low light that also rings true. Yes the low pixel count helps gather more light for video on the A7S but the higher pixel count of the A7R downsampled will improve noise and retain more detail. Live shots from my 24mp or 42mp cameras get squeezed to 16mp for this very reason. Clients will still be able to get a good poster image should they want to use a live shot.
I used an A7iii with a 24MP sensor for many years. I found that to be a great resolution with plenty of options for cropping, but file sizes that were still manageable. With my iPhone 13 and its 12MP camera, on the other hand, I have definitely run into limitations with how much I could crop. That being said, I still take way more photos on my iPhone than on the Sony, because it’s so much more convenient to carry. And 12MP is fine most of the time. But if I’m going to carry around a separate camera in 2024, I probably want at least 20MP. And even smartphones now are going higher than that.
I agree with you as my main camera I shoot with is still my Panasonic G70 with 16 MP and that's more than enough. In addition to cropping, there is perhaps another thing that you haven't gone into here: even if you don't usually need the megapixels for display, they are a valuable reserve for post-processing in Lightroom. Because if you apply different filters to the image or rotate the image slightly, you will benefit from more image information.
I have 3MP shots from a canon Powershot A30 (the early 2000s ) - the colours and sharpness are simply beautiful. And if you need more MP then there are plenty of apps that will boost it 2x or 4x with very good quality.
I have a mft camera with 20 mp. In lightroom, under photo, enhance, the program fixes the image. After that, I can print the image in 100*70 cm format with excellent quality. Yes, even pictures taken with the iPhone 11 can be printed in large format. So, better invest in some rammine for the computer. This editing doesn't take long and goes smoothly. Thanks for highlighting this.
the most important is the camera sensor size but if have a large mega pixels its a strength to the resault of the picture,more flexible and good for zooming in the devices screen.more size of the sensor and pixel the resault is more goodness
In grad school I used a Canon 5d classic. For my thesis show I made 20x30in prints. And even with the 12 megapixel sensor, they look stunning. I'll be it with a little bit of tweaking the sharpness and adding a touch of noise after enlarging, final image is were perfect.
I make calendars each year (DIN A3). That worked with an 8MP camera if I took the whole picture, but not much cropping was possible (or the SW would warn you about detail loss). Then with 16 and 24MP it happened much rarer. I still would like to have more pixels if the need for more cropping arises (wildlife or some interesting detail). But going with the resolution you really have and need in the end is reassuring.
Apparently, you don't shoot wildlife. Most of the times, one cannot get closer to wildlife, and 50 Mp or so do come very handy. Also, pixel size is not important for noise performance. With 48 Mp sensor, you can just reduce the resolution in post to 12 Mp by combining 4 pixels into one, and get the same performance as if you were using 12 Mp sensor to start with. It's the whole sensor size, not the pixel size, that matters.
You are right but it is a special type of photography where high resolution, long and bright telephotos, great focusing capacity, resolution and dynamic range at high sensitivities are very important. But the author makes street where all that is not important.
I’m just a hobbyist photographer, but this made me realize there is more to the MP marketing than I was aware. Now to try and wrap my head around that math and cropping explanation you gave. 🤔
Wonderful video George! I absolutely love how you communicated this concept, i couldn't agree with you more. I used a Fujifilm XT-5 for my wedding business for a full year. The resolution was overall a hindrance to me. The buffer was slower when shooting burst, my computer was slightly slower when working with the files, i had to spend more on storage because the files were massive. The low light performance was significantly worse than a lower resolution sensor as well. Theoretically my images were sharper, however nobody other than me would notice this. I could crop the images more, however that's a skill issue more so than a feature imo. Unless you're a professional photographer in a niche that demands high resolution, anything over 24 is overkill. If you're a hobbyist, resolution matters even less. It's just marketing.
Might as well shoot video instead of burst..just imagining that. I printed at a custom lab for 15 years, and got stuck with a lot of wedding pics. Usually 2 1/4 VPL negs. Only at the end of the run there did I start working in digital. What a break not having to reproduce tons of dodging and burning on a run of 20 or more prints... Too bad Fuji hasn't come up with a sim for VPL. I'd be quite happy for a Nacho Libre look in a sim.
I love the way you think and present these notions. I have a Canon G1x that I love for the size and quality. Only downside is focussing but because it can go fully manual, that is not even an excuse. We should apply your way of thinking to all aspects of life!
I was a wedding and portrait photographer back in the film and early digital days. The cameras I had back then (Nikon D1X, D100, Fujifilm S-3 Pro) were 5.7 to 6 megapixel cameras. From those cameras I printed images up to 20x24 inches for my clients. Now days I just shoot for fun using everything from a 10MP point and shoot to 24MP Nikon and Fuji. I really don't think that I need anything more than that.
@@Rudyalfons100 I printed these images for my wedding and portrait clients a little over 20 years ago. They looked good to me, but more importantly the client loved them. Back twenty to twenty-two years ago six megapixel was the best available in 35mm format digital. I'm not sure whether a six MP would hold up to a 24MP side by side in detail and sharpness today, but definitely sharp enough for most people even today in standard size prints in my opinion.
@@lawrencelunsford6028 I see, I'm still beginner btw. So we don't really need that much of megapixels, right? Unless we want to make a large banner. But for potrait photos (12R - 16R size) or things like that, under 20MP are still relevant today, right? Because I was wondering why modern digital camera like Sony a7s only has 12 megapixels, even my phone has 50 megapixels 🤣 I know 50 megapixels look so lame 🤣 but pretty good for zooming or croping. Thx
@@Rudyalfons100 It all depends on your intended use in my opinion. What is your end product going to be? If you're just posting on the web and making occasional prints anything in the 6-12 MP range would be fine. Today I'd use my 12-24 MP cameras, but that's because I have them where it wasn't available 20+ years ago. Sensor size if a factor too. Your iPhone sensor is much smaller than a full frame or APS-C. Welcome to the hobby/addiction! :)
I used one of those Canon G9s for years and really enjoyed it for just about everything outdoors/good light. Even bought after market accessories for it like a metal/nicely tooled grip. Had a couple friends pick up the later models as they saw the shots I was getting from it.
I started photography because of you. Actually, after watching your Canon G9 video, I started hunting for one and ended up with a G10. Now I'm in a CCD rabbit hole and have been collecting cameras 🤣
Camera's I want to own someday. Nikon D700, Fuji x100s, then the Nikon Z9. I have one of my dream camera's which is the Nikon D4, I still cannot believe I own one after 10 years of waiting. But the D700 is next on my list, if only I can resist buying a D800e.
The Nikon D700 series and its successors are my favorite Nikon cameras, ever. Currently have a D750, and will probably buy the D780 as my ‘last’ DSLR. I used Nikon Z mirrorless for the last couple of years, but I always seem to go back to DSLRs. They just feel right.
Would love to see you extend the concept of this video into printing as well, especially in light of how far the technology has come in regard to almost lossless upscaling. Even before that was possible, a lot of photographers when printing on inkjet printers, needlessly stuck to the 300 dpi standard when printing at 150 dpi achieved a larger print at a very acceptable level of sharpness, smooth gradients in skies, etc.
Great video, cool to see the math sitting under the surface of the images we make with our older, funkier cameras. I’ll walk a bit taller next time I choose the EP3, GF1 or G9 for my random walk over my state of the art 40mp beast :-)
I get this, however, the cameras with bigger resolutions tend to be more expensive and thus also have greater dynamic range and superior auto focus. The jump in dynamic range from a Canon 5D Mrk II to a Canon R6 is quite remarkable, even more so the auto focus and sharpness of the photos.
A 27-inch iMac has a Retina display (5120 × 2880px) - that works out at 14.75 MP. Once you allow for a slight crop the minimum sensor resolution to get the best out of that monitor would be 16MP.
Resolution is measured in dpi, while MP (megapixels) refer to size: 16MP is the result of multiplying the number of pixels contained on the larger side of the image, by those on the smaller side. Example, If you have a picture with 1,200 pixels on one side and 800 on the other side, it will be 960,000, roughly 1MP. But you can have two copies of the same 15x10 cm image, one at resolution low-res 72 dpi, and the other at higher resolution with 300 dpi. Again: Megapixels MP = size. Resolution dpi = quality of image.
You make some great points in this video. And I'm already on board with you, I mostly shoot with older M4/3 cameras featuring 16 & 20 sensors. And I'm good with the image quality. Great video thanks for sharing.
Awesome explanation. Always thought this but had no looked for an explanation as of why. Important thing to take into account, marketing ALWAYS promotes the MP of the camera, regardless if mobile or body camera, and always misleads buyers. It has always bother me to know a phone could have 106MP on such tiny sensor. Greetings from Costa Rica.
Very true. If you are starting out and strapped for cash, get a Canon 5D Mk1. The large pixels allow a lot of post-processing. I used one for many years commercially with no complaints. I did invest in Canon's 28-70L f2.8 lens, which is heavy but excellent quality and very versatile - it's the lens that counts, more than the camera. In fact, I now use a micro 4/3 Olympus OM10 camera or Sony A7 for travelling and hobby photography.
Excellent video, you make a lot of sense here. I like using older cameras as well, been doing some reviews on my channel about older cameras and they are proving very popular, more so than newer cameras.
, 100% agree. I realized the same thing about megapixels a while back,.Our monitors and daily screens are not even close to using what our cameras can produce, nowhere near. I looked up IG resolution and it was 600x600 at the time. I think they have increased it but only by a small amount. But ever since then I started caring less about MPs and more about composition. And my $20 or less old point and shoot collection grew from there, no need to raise my shutter counts on my DSLRs for daily shooting. Anything above 5 MP is enough for 4x6 prints and enough for even a 4k monitor. Obviously if the screen is bigger the more flaws you notice, but even then its not a big deal, just move onto the next image. What really made me stop caring so much is knowing that the majority of people will view my images on a phone. That also why IG doesn't care to make higher MP images the standard, view time, screen size and viewing distance doesn't justify going bigger. For online sharing I make my images 1600 or 1200 at max with 240 dpi, dpi goes a lomg way in preserving image quality. Files come out to 800kb -1mb and still look good on all my screens. Less MP on a camera does limit cropping though, thats about it, so just don't crop, problem solved lol.
So true 😄 I have a 5d classic and I tend to choose that over my newer nikon, just for the enjoyment I get shooting with it and the images it produces! Plus being only 12 megapixel you would never tell I only tend to take the newer nikon if I know there's fast moving subjects or for surf photography etc Cheers mate good video 😁
I need a large, grippable, and convenient camera with at least 24 megapixels for comfortable cropping. It should have many controls to operate blindly without navigating through menus. It must be full-frame. It should be heavy for good balance with heavy lenses. It must accept old manual focus lenses so I can use vintage optics. It should also be weather-sealed against rain, dirt, and drops - it needs to be rugged. Those are all my modest requirements for the camera :)
My first digital camera was a 3.2mp point and shoot. I took some lovely photos on that. Granted you're not making posters out of those shots but for sharing online or standard small prints it was fine. I'm only shooting 20mp these days (Canon 6D). Unless you're a crop monster or want to cover the size of a football pitch with a picture then resolution is bottom on my list of considerations when buying a camera
Bigger photosites is what you're experiencing, and yes in most cases higher quality output. Digital cameras have a tug and pull effect each new generation. The D3 as old as it is, is still King of full frame 🤷🏾♂️ The Z9 and other stacked sensor's are becoming better at color. Hasselblad 1Dx, Z9, R5, a7IV all great. I think we passed the wrong limit, b/c I don't like the image quality coming from these cameras. I think its the pixel pitch being so small now. The camera quality today is looking more and more like smartphone output to me 😅 Alexa35: 28mm x 19.2mm Super35: 24.89mm x 18.66mm APS-C: 24mm x 16mm
20 or 24 megapixels is more than enough for anyone out there who isn’t doing massive prints of their shots, they both give enough wiggle room for cropping and reframing in post and still get enough resolution for it to look good on most devices where people are looking at their photos.
Many years ago I was using a Canon 5D with the 24-105 f/4 lens which had 12mp max. I was quite happy with the creamy smooth images I was getting. But, one day, I set it for lower resolution, like 3mp maybe. I did this because I was just shooting for eBay and didn't want to resize them. But then I went out shooting for myself and forgot to reset the size. When I got back I was looking through the images and I was shocked. The images were sharper than usual. It confused the heck out of me, but there was no denying it. I still don't understand it, but it was such a surprise.
yup image quality is way more important, I use old dslrs with 8-10MP and that's more than enough for me. If I want a closer shot I have telephoto lenses
this raise me 2 possible questions: - why did you bought a 4K monitor, same kind of feedback will say that Full HD is far enough for the size of the monitor.... - or at the opposite : if you buy an 8k monitor in 2 or 3 year, you could consider 33MPix sensor is what you'll need ... and you will be disappointed with your low res photos
The low light performance with small resolution large sensors is basically a myth re-told by (too) many and mainly true for video (where you don't shoot raw formats), but not for photography. The level of detail that can be preserved with noise reduction applied is much greater on e.g. a A7RIV than on the A7sIII for the same photo, if you zoom in both to the same degree (but not both to 100% picture resolution). So yes, full frame bigger resolution can produce less noisy and sharper images that full frame lower resolution cameras. Can we see the difference on an Instagram post? Less likely.
Great points and I totally agree- in fact I owned and loved my Canon G9. To get some further perspective, why not visit some of the release reviews of some of these now ancient cameras- to hear them being assessed as state of the art- and regularly employed as such- makes you realise that it's the eye behind the camera that really matters. Pros were using the Canon 5D as 12MP was the pinnacle, no doubt being sniffy about the 8MP camera they'd part-ex'd to upgrade. I've made amazing (by my admittedly low standards) images from really basic cameras. It's the subject, the framing, the light, the timing that matter. Not the megapixels.
Cropping, printing, sharpeness... there is a multite of reasons.. I agree you don't need an a7r or a7cR like me LOL but there is something to that.. being able to zoom in - yes people pinch their fingers and zoom in can you believe that? and also it gives a similar vibe to film to me where while it's not more organic but it almost feels like magic having so much detail in there. And it actually don't cost much more so why not have all the latest bells and whistles while having all of the above?
This is why I love my Olympus/OM System Cameras and won't be changing systems anytime soon, 20 megapixels is more than enough and the auto focus & image stabilisation is among the best
I agree that sometimes the MP number isn't as relevant, but the lens that is on that A7 is so much better than a point an shoot.. For me, I have a plan with my small point an shoot camera, or project. I label the tiny little nikon coolpix as "people at work" when I see a cool photo of "people at work" i pull it out and snap a photo. it's fun to download all of those photos together. It also forces me to look for poeple at work to use that little gem.
Spot on video and conclusion! In a perfect world - one where we could have gigapixel pocket-sized cameras with virtually no noise at ISO 1 billion, then we'd have nothing to talk about. But, in reality, digital cameras have been more than good enough for a vast amount of general photography for many, many years. When you start chasing the new tech bleeding edge you can convince yourself that nothing less than the new new thing is worth using - but really that's seldom true. There is no free lunch in digital camera tech. At any point in time there are tradeoffs between sensor size (i.e. resulting camera and lens size), resolution, noise (high ISO), and dynamic range. My first DSLR was an 8Mp Olympus E-300 Four Thirds camera. I try to get in close so don't need to crop much, and to this day the photos I shot with that way back when still stand up.
I know I’m gonna do the actually guy, but actually, what you think is « resolution » is called « definition ». Resolution is the number of pixels per inch (or per centimeter as all things should be). I would still argue that higher definition sensors are still superior for the sharpness of the image, given the lens is good enough. Not only the crop is still very useful in a lot of other fields than street photography, the more pixel you have, given your lens is perfect, the more sharpness you will get. Just that at some point, the resolution of the print or screen will limit the usefulness of that. I’d say it’s more to optimize your lens more than anything. And given noise is easier to remove than blur, I’ll take the better resolution. When you talked about the low light performance, that reminded me of someone that said that full frame has better low light performance than APS-C but the compared the A7R5 and the Fuji X-T5, which both have roughly the same resolution (photosites are roughly similar). If the Sony is better, it’s not because of the sensor size. Anyway, photography, immarite, lots of stuffs to know!
great one. For me 12 Mpix is totally enough for 99% situations. I have old G7.. and i love it. it has Such a sharp (L ) lens! amasing oldie. it goes from 28mm thou. still good!
very good points many digital photographers, especially pixel peeper bunch, don't quite realize ... those having come from film photography backgrounds get this quite easily and quickly when transitioning from the 'old' film medium into the 'new' digital one ... but those born and grown into the digital system, might find it hard at first to grasp the notions of resolution, definition, image clarity and so on ... here's what i have been saying all along about digital sensor size vs resolution 'ideal' number of pixels for a long time: APS-C 8MP (12MP max!) FF 20MP (30MP max!) MF 40MP (60MP max!) and by "max!" above, i mean only if the sensor is of high quality (say back-illuminated for example) then it can have that many pixels with minimal to no noise ...
"old" cameras like the Canon 10D and 5D, or the 20D as well are very good cameras with great sensors! I read one day an article from NASA that the moon and apollo shots all were taken with 1,2 mp cameras, properly stitched they all look great! And you are right, what use is a 5K screen as in my Imac 27" late 2015 if I only watch videos from the sixties on it? I guess you have to understand the concept called pixel and dot, how a sensor works and how you screen handels all this info....
You absolutely need a higher megapixel count yes processing and all matters too, but at the end of the day if you want maximum results higher the megapixel count the better imho.
I have an A3 print on my wall, I took it using my 1500mm fl F5 telescope, of the moon. it's RAZOR sharp, hence I was so happy with it.. and it wasn't full moon, it was just past the 1st quarter so craters were obliquely lit giving lovely long shadows.. anyway.. the camera?... Canon 30D.. 8MP.. more than enough for A3... many other images from that camera at A3 knocking about the house.. rarely is the sharpness something that draws you in to "see how much you can see".. because you don't do that with portraits, but the moon shot does that.. and pulls it off.
I thought this for years, too. But then I upgraded from 12 MP to 45 MP full format. I'll never go back. 1. In portrait- and model photography you will usually get 5 - 15 usable crops from one image giving you the freedom to select from. You don't waste the time on the set with different zooms. 2. For landscape you get the resolution for those big calenders I love to produce each year. 3. And for wildlife you often need this extra "tele" that your biggest lenses don't provide. 4. At the same time the autofocus of these MP-monsters has improved a lot. But you are right: most images will be shown on an iPhone. In my experience most iPhone users don't even know how to find the camera settings and will be ok with this very capable photoshop built into their smartphone. However, they will be very disappointed when trying to produce calendar images. Most, not all. :-)
7RV: you make a foto of a crowd and gets tons of portraits. One click, lots of results. That's about resolution. Less pixels do NOT perform better in low light. More pixel == more information. Even if two of four pixels show blur, the other two are showing more information than ONE pixel of a lower resolution sensor. More pixel ==better low light ALLTOUGH there is more blur.
@@GeorgeHolden good enough for facebook, instagram, mobile phones etc - as you said about low resolutions: low resolution is suitable for most of the use cases. But it's a poor decision to rely on that, because there are no further options to crop. I had them all and I still like my 7 MP Panasonic camera. It's making really great pictures. But it's no match to the 7RV.
@@GeorgeHolden well - yes and no... I'm using group fotos with "good enough" portraits for using them as avatars in accounts. People like this... I really don't think that REAL portraits, where a person should be shown in an impressive way can made by taking group fotos :-D
sometimes its art approach, sometimes it abt capturing the moment, for ordinary people. even with small screen, tech nowadays allow us to zoom in easily, in a group photo you would love to see everyone's smile at the highest quality as possible to save that scene forever. not saying many people do that, but that what i do when i had my camera with my friends and family
I wish what I had known at the beginning was to buy the best and most expensive, highest IQ and widest aperture lens possible for what I want to shoot, and whatever camera was over 12mp for it.
I just did a friend's album cover and epk... with a fuji xpro1. Now, I shot in raw and ran it through light room. However, it forced me to compose better because I couldn't crop. I think when you look at what the human eye is capable of picking up in resolution... and what cameras have to offer: camera capabilities have surpassed human capabilities.
I think a high resolution camera (something like 36 MP or bigger) is definitely nice for making huge prints, like the ones you see on art galleries. Well.... usually landscape or fine art folks. Most of us hobbyists rarely do it. And usually post on social medias/websites. 24 MP or 16 MP is still very usable. Remember, processing big RAW files (e.g GFX 100 RAW file is around 400 MB) takes more computing power and storage :p
After a while away I’m back to my photography and joined the digital revolution, finally. Having had a lot of satisfaction from 35mm film I realised that chasing massive megapixels didn’t make sense. The maths of megapixels to dpi and print size spoke volumes about camera sales talk vs actual use. My focus turned to getting the best camera with megapixels being the compromise variable. Very happy owner of an 18mp dslr that left money to spare for very nice glass. I can’t see me printing larger than A4 so I should avoid any megapixel-envy😂
My most used digital camera these days - Epson R-D1 - 6MP. Does my X-T2 have far higher resolution - yes. Is it fun to shoot with - yes. Is it as fun to shoot with as the R-D1 - Not even close!
This is a very informative video. After watching it, I ditched my interchangeable lens camera and took photos using an iPhone 5S. PS: Next time when you promote obsolete or low MP cameras, please hide your Sony Mirrorless so that the trolls have no evidence to call you a hypocrite.
Get the gear you need for your use. I find that I have to actually DOWNRES the pictures I shoot. Because well.. it is too many megapixels at times. Still, nice to have it. And this also meant the search for the "walk around camera" was made easier. Slightly older, sensor doesn't needs 100Mpixels, far from, I know that with 12-16Megapixels and a good lens I have more then enough.
Great video and too true. Ive been shooting fashion/portraits professionally for 20 years now. Owned and shot with dozens of cameras from tiny sensor point and shoots to medium format and everything in between. I am no longer shooting for publications or in store ads where you needed more resolution. These days, mostly everything I shoot is for social media and people are viewing them on 5-6 inch smartphone screens. Zero use for high resolution cameras. In fact, I have grown tired of the over-sharpened, digital look with zero character that pretty much every modern mirrorless camera and lens produce these days. I have mostly gone back to shooting older CCD sensor cameras that have a much more filmic look and lots of character to the photos. Funny thing is, Ive had a lot more people ask me how I got that look or what camera I shot with then I ever did when using modern mirrorless cameras. Fun stuff.
**Correction 🤦🏼♂️
I made a mistake in my explanation at 3:09.
When detailing the cropping ability of 16MP and 12MP I used a crop factor of 2x and 1.5x respectively to get to the 8MP resolution - this is incorrect.
To achieve 8MP on the 16MP would only require a crop factor of 1.4x. On 12MP only a crop factor is 1.2x is required.
The reason for this is I had mistakenly calculated (4992x3328)/2 to achieve 8MP from 16MP. In fact this should be calculated with division preceding multiplication: (4992/1.4)X(3328/1.4).
Apologies for the mistake, it doesn't change the ability of an 8MP image - only the variable crop factors to get there! 😂
And a thank you to Bjørn Friese for emailing to notify me of the mistake!
My first digital camera was the Kodak. Z650. It could hold Before gigabyte card, it was 6 Mega pixels.
Nice one. I was about to go all keyboard warrior on you for that one so well done on beating me to it 😜
Well you could crop and resample and not lose any megapixels :) Of course resampling wont improve the optical resolution of a cropped area, but if your goal is to simply create an image for a certain screen size or for print where visible pixilation would be a problem then resampling would be the way to go.
As film wedding photographer, it took years for me to realize that the average client probably has a 5-10 year old computer at home, more than likely it's a laptop at best, most have smart phones, primarily Androids. And the only people who care about resolution.... is us, photographers.
Truee! And, the prints you would likely sell to a couple in a frame or a book are unlikely to exceed the capabilities of your camera
I'm going to chip in here with my experience from the other side of this equation. We had a small wedding and I asked my now brother in law to take some candid shots of people while we were doing the traditional posed group photos (when he wasn't needed to be in a shot). My favourite photos from the day, by far, were from extreme crops of photos taken on a Sony A7Rii. Anything much lower than that and the little moments wouldn't have been able to to be used. It's all little moments like grandparents sharing a joke with each other, or my wife interacting with my 1 year old nephew. Being able to pull out these shots and still have them at 8MP is an awesome thing to be able to do.
All that being said, for general holiday photos I don't use the A7R and stick with an old 16MP Fujifilm fixed lens camera as it covers everything I need for out and about (pocket sized, good enough IQ and mainly that it's light weight). I think it's all about convenience, application and workflow, I'd rather take a slightly wider shot to make sure I get everything I want in the image, with the option to crop in later while keeping the photos printable in larger formats.
@@AxR558 keyword..... photographers care about resolution. Not the average client.
Clearly, since you know what a A7Rii is, you're not the average client. You're a photographer. Proving my point.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographerValid point. Then again that argument stretched to people watching this video or that have the inclination to edit their photos in the first place. Anyone that this school of thought genuinely applies to might actually be better off sticking with the camera in their phone.
@@hanumanguyI've been using a similar technique since the mid 90s when I was using an enlarger and film to reframe my black and white shots. I think I've just always continued with that technique ever since as I've always treated post processing (and developing) as a part of the creative process.
Small compact cameras with outstanding image quality for everyday use are still the holy grail of photography.
RX1r-II
Can you recommend some ? Please
There is an obsession with gear & tech and easy to forget about the ART of...
Very true, I've got some more creative focused videos on the way - this was me scratching the scrience of photography itch to get it out of my system
Not a problem when that obsession is by using much older more affordable gear and getting amazing results!
TOTALLY agree with that.
Totally agree. I've never given resolution a second thought. Light, composition and timing, however....
My first experience with Star Wars was a VHS tape with 288 lines of resolution.
What’s on the screen is more important then how many pixels that was used.
If you get a chance, check out Magnum Photographer Alex Majoli, who took a 5mp Olympus point and shoot and shot the presidential elections and the Iraq war for Newsweek -- those images won him several awards, including the award for international photographer of the year.
I believe it was the Olympus C-5060 & C-8080 I own the C-5060 it’s probably the best camera I have ever used and is so fun to use! Highly recommended 📸✨
If that doesn't convince people that you don't need to change systems or upgrade your camera every year, I don't know what will.
best photo and best resolution for the photo are different concept
@Wordsalad69420 people just want to convince themselves they need the gear. Amazing pictures have been taken for decades, long before anything digital but people insist they "need" this or that because it helps with this or that. It's the photographer, always has been and always will be.
+1 exactly
This varies by genre though. Megapixels are essential when you are photographing small birds, for example; they won't let you get close, and in order to get appreciable detail you almost always must crop. Bird photographers generally find even 24 MP to be too little (which is why the Canon R3 never made it as a competitor for the Sony A1 or the Nikon X8 and X9 as a bird photography camera; the Canon gold standard for bird photography still is the R5, precisely because of its higher resolution). In addition, seeing pictures on a screen is one thing; printing them out is another game altogether, and megapixels make a huge difference.
how about optical zoom instead?
@@poptv1762 Most bird photographers will use both a long lens (possibly with an optical teleconverter) and a high resolution sensor and still crop in when needed.
But you can resample images to improve their DPI for printing. True it's not going to improve optical resolution. But neither will a sensor with more megapixels if it already has enough to resolve the optical image created by the lens. So I think for bird photography high quality lenses and good composition, so images don't need to be cropped in post processing are more important than megapixels.
Indeed, in the case of bird photography it is very important to have enough resolution to be able to crop. These are special cases of photography where, without a doubt, resolution rules. But also, sometimes agencies have an MPX floor so if your camera doesn't arrive you won't be able to sell your photos to them.
@@artberry Not only the optics but also the focusing speed, the frames per second and the more resolution you will have, you will be able to get closer without loss of quality, something that with a smaller resolution you will not be able to.
You’re right - I used to edit an image-lead fairly glossy / heavy paper magazine (you could buy in newsagents) and as long as the base image was good (I mean sharp, well exposed) we could usually get a double-page spread out of a 3mp image without any noticeable artefacts - and 6mp was never a problem.
It is easy. High MP crop is really useful when using prime lens and you don't have the reach (or even maxed out zoom). If you have the zoomies to churn out, just use zoom to do the work. It's just choosing how lazy or restricted you want to be.
Because essence of doing crop with enough MP is legitimately backed up by birding or sports people
It really depends what you do later, if all what matters is picture for social media then of course you don’t need extra detail of extra resolution, but on the other hand. after nice holiday you look back on some old photos, you like to check in the background for example name of restaurant or look closer at the flowers on the table then its amazing to have that big sensor and hi resolution. Its all about attention to detail
I agree with you for most types of photography. The output is the most important. If the output is instagram or the computer monitor I completelly agree. What about printing?
For portraits, landscapes, architecture, macro etc. there is no need for big resolutions.
What about wildlife photography? You can't be close most of the time, so you have to crop heavily sometimes. You still want/need to print 4000 by 6000 pixels at 240-300 dpi.
Then it becomes a budget choice between disk space and bigger lenses...
I love people that go against the flow! you've got a new subscriber
My digital camera journey started with a Canon Ixus (2 MB resolution). The image quality of my photos from that era is still a sort of OK (watched on a 27" 2K screen) and there are some photos which I really like despite the low resolution. The best camera is that what inspires and enables you to take great shots. Some years ago I purchased a Sony A7R III. Factually it did not inspire me the same way like my ancient A7. Consequently I sold it without any regret because I was/am using primarily vintage lenses so that many features of the A7R III did not translate into a real-life advantage for me.
George, you had me laugh out loud when describing the screen resolutions versus the actual megapixel size! I DIDN"T KNOW THAT!!! I have been reviewing old photos that I took on my Nikon Coolpix 990 back in the early 2000s. This camera cost me over a grand in January 2000 (just after launch) and was state-of-the-art at that time. It has a 3.3 Megapixel sensor and on my 33" LG or HP monitors (I run them side-by-side off my MacBook Pro) the pics are still stunning. I found your video by accident and I'm so glad I did as I am fed up with listening to 'photographers' telling me I need the latest squillion megapixels to get a good photograph. I cut my teeth on film, had my own darkroom at home and learned that photography is about 'SEEING' not about the number of megapixels you have. Well done for a great video... absolutely love it!
When you look at a well shot image from say, a Rollei 2 1/4 camera from 1960, you not only get amazing resolution, (let's say the film was Plus X, but back then you could probably get ASA 50 or even 25) the larger image can also give you more micro contrast and range of tones. It's very obvious when you look at the prints. This range of tones is really what I'm looking for when I think of higher resolution digital. Either the sensor offers it or it doesn't.
You can generate a fairly good-sized print from lower mega-pixel (6-12MP) cameras as well. Plus, AI optimization programs can easily boost resolution (through interpolation) by 200% that you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference when compared with native resolution. Very few people view A3 or A2 prints hanging on the wall up close.
That is also true! It was only when I finished this edit I realised I could have included Lightroom's enhance feature but would like to have a final product to showcase - a future video maybe!
Interpolation would be a good topic for George to make a vid on. I have no idea how that all works. I tried to find out about it before but didn't get far.
@@stevesvids Interpolation is essentially intelligently adding pixels (through machine learning ) making the best mathematical approximation of what a pixel may have been if it had existed naturally for any given desired resolution. There is a limit to what can be done and nothing is as good as originally captured data. However, it is impressive what is possible while indiscernibly affecting the visual quality to the human eye.
@@kbarrett1844 thank you..
@@kbarrett1844AI interpolation is definitely an interesting subject to get into, I do wonder where the boundary lies between it being the original photograph (i.e. interpretation of actual captured photons) vs digitally created art.
As an artist, all my life i've tried to make the most of the least possible, as a necessity at times, but always as a principle.
I've never seen anyone explain why I love shooting with my Lumix cameras, and why I've been so eager to get friends and partners into them, as much as you have in this video.
Well done, subscribed.
Great observation!. Not only that, I can get cinematic photographs on my old Canon G9 vs my Leica Q. If your a lens-based artist like me, what matters most is the art within the shot taken…and where it’s displayed. Thanks from Newfoundland.
If you dont crop a lot, megapixels don’t mean a lot. You only need 90,000 pixels per inch of printing. You need a little less than 9 megapixels to make. 8x12 print. So if you own a ten megapixel camera youre fine. It’s the dynamic range and color depth of the sensor that matters.
Very true. I didn't touch on those in detail in this video, it's hard to make tangible comparisons between two sensors or brands without just confusing yourself even more
@@GeorgeHolden I have an Olympus XZ1 that is at least twelve years old. With the newer editing apps out today that camera (and others like it) is better than it ever was in the past.
You can get excellent 18x12 prints out of a 6mp image. Nobody uses a loupe on a print when it's on the wall...
My Nikon D700 is 12M and it still happily shoots great pics. I have been in photography for 40 years or so and I was shooting 35mm before and never had issues in enlarging.
Unfortunately the marketing and social media hype in higher resolution has ruined photography in general.
If you are a good photographer and have a creative talent, you can shoot with a "pinhole" camera and get great images, so the idea of higher resolution is better, is a myth for general photography. But, if you want to do architectural photography or other photography that requires more res that is fine, that is why in the film days you had and still have medium and large format films.
Cheers
Thank you George for delving into this, and the piratical aspects of matching the system to application along with simple technical realities often you related, which are obscured by marketing hype are important take-aways you shared exceptionally well.
That being the case, there are other technical elements that comprise effective resolution and image quality other than just sensor megapixels, those being: Lens resolution, diffraction, diffusion, aberration and what is commonly referred to as 'micro contrast'. Sensor noise, dynamic range and the way the image processing engine and algorithms can also effect the overall fidelity of an image. How images are digitally developed in post and and displayed effect how an image is ultimately seen as much or more than the camera sensor size and resolution, and any element in that chain can make or break the presentation of an image.
Over the 50+ years of messing about with dozens of cameras, lenses, filters, film, prints motion pictures in film and digital formats, when it comes to digital cameras, I've observed that the optical performance of the lens is the ultimate delineating element of an imaging system in terms of apparent detail and fidelity. It's easy to find images taken with a 10mp compact digital camera that appear more detailed then a full-frame 35mm camera with 4x the megapixels.
I've owned and shot sub 1", 1", 4/3", APS-C, H & full-frame 35mm, 645 and 2x2 and 6x9 medium format, and 4X5 cameras in film and digital. Over the last 10+ years I've used 4/3" sensor cameras for about 75% of images produced, and the rest in crop or full-frame 35mm cameras, a Pentax 645Z and a Fuji GFX50s and cameras with larger sensors, generally produce superior image quality when used with optics designed to take advantage of the sensor.
The biggest apparent difference I see between say a 20mp sensor M43 camera with a top quality prime lens, and a full-frame 35mm or Medium format camera with 50mp sensor is not raw resolution, but tonal quality, contrast and natural look. If exposed and processed optimally, I find with larger sensors, skin, hair, eyes are more natural, and defined, as are are trees, grass, water, sky and clouds, and more so in less than optimal lighting conditions. I believe that has to to with the higher inherent electronic noise levels in the smaller sensors how that noise is processed in-camera that degrades quality of the image as well. Generally, the smaller sensor system will have a lower image signal to noise ratio and a higher noise floor that limits the quality an image.
While a low-contrast -low-detail scene may look the same with a modern 100mp Medium format system as a 10 year old pocket camera when viewed on a mobile device, a high-contrast, high-detail scene on a high-resolution display or print, the higher performance imaging system should, and typically does surpass the low performance system.
And what about going forward? Large, gallery and commercial prints typically require a higher performance imaging system than Images shared on social media, but for how long? In a few years might newer display technologies such as VR and Mixed reality soon change that where we will be viewing immersive 100mp images through 20mp 3D glasses? And if such display become reality, will the 8mp image most in the future will care to view on such as display? I expect even in the future it will be the content of the image and how the image resonates with the viewer that will always matter as much or more than the technical capture of the image.
An interesting image no matter the technical quality will always be engaging and as you point out, if we are serious about sharing something meaningful with others, perhaps we should strive first and foremost to perceive what it is we see that is meaningful to us, and how to capture and share in a way that resonates and becomes meaningful to others. That perhaps the difference between the art of photographic imagery and taking a technically superior image.
Back in the 70's in high school, I had the good fortune to apprentice to a cinematographer on a film (One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest) that won as many awards as any film to date, and the technical quality of the the film was average at best for the time and very poor technically compared to what a $1,000 consumer camera can produce today, but it was how a moving story was captured in dramatic and moving ways that will be engaging forever, and one of many examples to help us become visual artists
Cheers! stay charged, moving, capturing, sharing and inspiring.
I'm feeling a streak of epiphanies reading your long comments. Grateful indeed. 💫
I have a Canon 80D, a Canon 6D, and a sony a7iv...yet my 12mp drone has taken my favorite shots this year because it can simply get shots the others can't. And they look great alongside shots from cameras with 3x the resolution and sensor size.
I wish I could fly a drone in the locations I photograph, but sadly I can not my main spot prohibits it because it's one of the most populated places for eagles and ospreys, and another is very close to a military base.
Old cameras downside isn’t that they are low res, its that they’re slow and a lot of them have bad autofocus that misses a lot of shots
And even though the resolution doesn’t matter the sensor size absolutely does
@@MrStruggle0 depends on what you are going for, at my local watering hole I see 1 guy with a medium-format camera, I imagine they are shooting a greater picture of an eagle in its habitat more so than the eagle perched or capturing a crappie.
Manual focus is another great option . I think we are very spoiled now days with digital and better AF systems. I shoot primarily with a Nikon D4 as my main event camera. Because of its amazing low-light handling and small RAW files. I can pull back 2 to 3 stops on exposure and not have much grain to deal with. My newer mirrorless suffers just pulling 1 stop back on exposure. Something about the older film grain looking DSLR sensors to me looks better than the digital grain you get in the mirrorless cameras.
@@simrtech3d I want one after shooting a Nikon D3 for an event or two. I ended up trading up to D4 which is may main camera currently. The D700 has amazing colors straight out of camera. Canon 5D is also an amazing budget camera that has amazing colors but dated AF system.
@@simrtech3d I don't' know what it is about the sensor on the D4, but it just really has amazing output. I spend 1/2 the time on my D4 photos when I do my other DSLR's in post. I even looked at buying a second D4 so I have a spare but man the D4 is a well built DSLR, last of it's kind since the D5 is more plastic then the D4 or D4s. I will say the D3 vertical grip was better.
brooooo this video is incredible and so motivating for me to shoot more with what i have instead of always trying to upgrade my gear. THANK YOU!!
I was stuck in the rut of always wanting to upgrade, spent thousands on the latest gear. My newest camera now is from 2016 and my most used camera is from 2004 (albeit a rare and desirable camera that wasn't cheap). I have way more fun now than I did with the latest and greatest. Admittedly, I don't shoot to live (pay the bills in IT), I live to shoot.
'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough' - Robert Capa
I'm using 16MP M43 Panasonics and the image quality is great. Years ago I used a Fujifilm Finepix F200 EXR (12 or 6 MP according to mode), a Canon Powershot S70 (7.1MP) and a Konica Minolta Dynax 7D (6.1MP) and before that a Canon Powershot G2 (4MP) . They were good too! I couldn't care less about megapixels for most purposes. Really, as you say, on screen it hardly matters. It's when you print that it matters more. What more moderns sensors give you is much better dynamic range and truly excellent low light performance. Older digital cameras produced some very horrible low light results.
I've been carrying around a Sony Cybershot DSC-T10 a friend gave me and I actually just genuinely love how "2006" it makes everything look. It's kind of like a time warp camera regardless of the results which look really nicely detailed and exposed on the little LCD screen but I have a memorystick duo card reader on the way so will have to wait and see how things look on a bigger screen. Certainly good enough for instagram!! Thanks for the explanation it helped a lot.
I’ve owned one of these - bought used with some wear and tear - and not only is the CCD sensor a beauty but it’s built like a tank. A great EDC camera 👍
Amen! One of the best videos I ever shot indoors was inside a museum in Alaska -low light-with a Panasonic Lumix Leica Lens 16 mega pixels. Images were extremely clear. 😎😎
Artists can produce stunning photos with any camera.
The problem especially nowadays is that few low-pixel-count camera have the functional niceties offered by high-pixel-count cameras.
One high-end video-centric exception is the A7SIII at 12MP.
Professionnal photographers don't need high-pixel-count cameras because they use the right lens to compose perfectly every time.
But many leisure photographers lust for 40MP at least.
And camera makers thrive largely by them.
I found the same myself. 16MP is plenty and there are some great 16-24MP cameras out there. Focus is far more important - less throw always. And composition and subject matter the most important of all.
Yep 👍
12mp is the sweet spot in digital photography in my opinion.🌟📷🌟
My first camera was a Nikon entry level thing that was 6MP. 12MP is good enough for most prints to probably 18”, you can certainly push that to twice that - you are never going to be that close to a 36” print
It’s worth noting that lens sharpness becomes more important when you are pushing the size of your prints. If you’re viewing stuff on a phone then 6MP is totally cool
I just couldn't get by without a ''reasonable'' camera with an optical zoom lens of at least 20x zoom ! High resolution is right at the bottom of my requirements list, as is changing lenses for ''close-ups'' !
That 4mp shot of the beach at 1:13 is gorgeous! Just goes to show it's not about having the flashiest gear
If I were to hire a photographer I would be choosing the person who's got a well-worn camera over the one with a bleeding edge and barely touched camera. Experience with your gear matters way more than what gear you have.
Great video. My first DSLR was the Nikon D50 with about 5MP. At the time I had a part time engagement as a freelance journalist for a hifi magazine. One of my pictures could cover a full page, looking great.
I've been using a camera from 2004 for almost a decade now. I'm the only person who even notices the grain at high isos and low resolution. Everyone else loves the photos. Old tech is fun and cool
Yep this is hilarious,the gear really isn’t that important, don’t get seduced by shiny new things! Spend the cash saved on travel and experiences.
Problem is… I’m getting seduced by banged up old things…
I've always had a pet peeve regarding tech. And that is the notion that yesterday's state of the art is today's trash. Yesterday's "state of the art" cameras were capable of producing perfectly fine images. But, people, in general, are always looking for something bigger and better. They want the next big thing whether it's megapixels or whatever. In fact, companies depend on this to stay in business. But, how much is enough? Many years ago a friend of mine owned a very high end audio company. And he was telling me about the specs of the equipment. In particular how it was good that the equipment produced sound that you couldn't hear. At some point I stopped him and said, "I don't need the best equipment. It just has to be good enough for me." And that's pretty much where I am with lots of things in life these days.
Completely agree, the beauty is sometimes in the character of the past state of the art rubbish. For me camera design is one thing that makes me enjoy a camera over others, and the cheaper older cameras fit the bill nicely
Angry audiophile noises. Blind test any audio tech: Lossless and >180 kbps compressed audio. A few with good hearing can somewhat differentiate the lower bound. >256 kbps is a 50/50. Might as well toss a coin instead.
I needed a camera to take photos. Got one. I needed an affordable digital audio work station. I got it. I always waited for bargains online for anything that I needed. People just sell things they no longer want, or use. I never cared about the mega pixels. I always cared about the picture. I use my phone to take photos too.😊
Capitalism and greed is what pushes the idea that the newest thing is the best thing because companies want their audience to consume (consumers). It's stupid and dumb, and even wasteful and insulting towards true innovation. A camera is a camera, a phone is a phone, a car is a car, a TV is a TV, and etc. While there might be differences, we're at a point where everyone is copying each other and the "new" things of today do not make those from the past obsolete. I have a 6D Mark II I bought used, though I was looking at the Canon 5D Mark II because I kept hearing great things about it- and some people still shoot with it. Some people shoot with vintage film cameras. A camera is a tool and it really does depend on how the photographer uses it.
You right, I almost agree.
I have taken photos since the day's of the Ilford Box Camera, I know nothing of the technicalities of modern photography but I do understand
what you say, I just rely on what my eye sees, If I like what I see I just keep going, I have Cameras from the beginning of Digital but never ever
paid thousands for Camera or Lenses.
Resolution isn't just down to pixels though. It's more subject matter and the lens being used. A close up portrait will look fine on any sensor with a good lens as the amount of detail needed to be rendered is close together. I shoot for large Edinburgh posters and my closeups taken with 16mp m43 looked far sharper and more detailed than others who would have been still using DSLRs in 2013. Group shots and landscapes do need larger pixel counts and better lenses however. Not just for print but also the benefits are seen on screen. In terms of low light that also rings true. Yes the low pixel count helps gather more light for video on the A7S but the higher pixel count of the A7R downsampled will improve noise and retain more detail. Live shots from my 24mp or 42mp cameras get squeezed to 16mp for this very reason. Clients will still be able to get a good poster image should they want to use a live shot.
I used an A7iii with a 24MP sensor for many years. I found that to be a great resolution with plenty of options for cropping, but file sizes that were still manageable. With my iPhone 13 and its 12MP camera, on the other hand, I have definitely run into limitations with how much I could crop.
That being said, I still take way more photos on my iPhone than on the Sony, because it’s so much more convenient to carry. And 12MP is fine most of the time.
But if I’m going to carry around a separate camera in 2024, I probably want at least 20MP. And even smartphones now are going higher than that.
I agree with you as my main camera I shoot with is still my Panasonic G70 with 16 MP and that's more than enough. In addition to cropping, there is perhaps another thing that you haven't gone into here: even if you don't usually need the megapixels for display, they are a valuable reserve for post-processing in Lightroom. Because if you apply different filters to the image or rotate the image slightly, you will benefit from more image information.
I have 3MP shots from a canon Powershot A30 (the early 2000s ) - the colours and sharpness are simply beautiful. And if you need more MP then there are plenty of apps that will boost it 2x or 4x with very good quality.
I have a mft camera with 20 mp. In lightroom, under photo, enhance, the program fixes the image. After that, I can print the image in 100*70 cm format with excellent quality. Yes, even pictures taken with the iPhone 11 can be printed in large format. So, better invest in some rammine for the computer. This editing doesn't take long and goes smoothly. Thanks for highlighting this.
Thanks for speaking the truth and shedding some light for all the enthusiastic photographers.
the most important is the camera sensor size but if have a large mega pixels its a strength to the resault of the picture,more flexible and good for zooming in the devices screen.more size of the sensor and pixel the resault is more goodness
In grad school I used a Canon 5d classic. For my thesis show I made 20x30in prints. And even with the 12 megapixel sensor, they look stunning. I'll be it with a little bit of tweaking the sharpness and adding a touch of noise after enlarging, final image is were perfect.
I make calendars each year (DIN A3). That worked with an 8MP camera if I took the whole picture, but not much cropping was possible (or the SW would warn you about detail loss). Then with 16 and 24MP it happened much rarer. I still would like to have more pixels if the need for more cropping arises (wildlife or some interesting detail). But going with the resolution you really have and need in the end is reassuring.
Loved this and your whole style of presenting. Thank you!
Apparently, you don't shoot wildlife. Most of the times, one cannot get closer to wildlife, and 50 Mp or so do come very handy. Also, pixel size is not important for noise performance. With 48 Mp sensor, you can just reduce the resolution in post to 12 Mp by combining 4 pixels into one, and get the same performance as if you were using 12 Mp sensor to start with. It's the whole sensor size, not the pixel size, that matters.
You are right but it is a special type of photography where high resolution, long and bright telephotos, great focusing capacity, resolution and dynamic range at high sensitivities are very important. But the author makes street where all that is not important.
I’m just a hobbyist photographer, but this made me realize there is more to the MP marketing than I was aware. Now to try and wrap my head around that math and cropping explanation you gave. 🤔
Wonderful video George! I absolutely love how you communicated this concept, i couldn't agree with you more.
I used a Fujifilm XT-5 for my wedding business for a full year. The resolution was overall a hindrance to me. The buffer was slower when shooting burst, my computer was slightly slower when working with the files, i had to spend more on storage because the files were massive. The low light performance was significantly worse than a lower resolution sensor as well.
Theoretically my images were sharper, however nobody other than me would notice this. I could crop the images more, however that's a skill issue more so than a feature imo.
Unless you're a professional photographer in a niche that demands high resolution, anything over 24 is overkill. If you're a hobbyist, resolution matters even less. It's just marketing.
Might as well shoot video instead of burst..just imagining that. I printed at a custom lab for 15 years, and got stuck with a lot of wedding pics. Usually 2 1/4 VPL negs. Only at the end of the run there did I start working in digital. What a break not having to reproduce tons of dodging and burning on a run of 20 or more prints... Too bad Fuji hasn't come up with a sim for VPL. I'd be quite happy for a Nacho Libre look in a sim.
I love the way you think and present these notions. I have a Canon G1x that I love for the size and quality. Only downside is focussing but because it can go fully manual, that is not even an excuse. We should apply your way of thinking to all aspects of life!
I was a wedding and portrait photographer back in the film and early digital days. The cameras I had back then (Nikon D1X, D100, Fujifilm S-3 Pro) were 5.7 to 6 megapixel cameras. From those cameras I printed images up to 20x24 inches for my clients. Now days I just shoot for fun using everything from a 10MP point and shoot to 24MP Nikon and Fuji. I really don't think that I need anything more than that.
20x24?? With 6 megapixels? WOw that's so large, how about the photo quality? Still sharp?
@@Rudyalfons100 I printed these images for my wedding and portrait clients a little over 20 years ago. They looked good to me, but more importantly the client loved them. Back twenty to twenty-two years ago six megapixel was the best available in 35mm format digital. I'm not sure whether a six MP would hold up to a 24MP side by side in detail and sharpness today, but definitely sharp enough for most people even today in standard size prints in my opinion.
@@lawrencelunsford6028 I see, I'm still beginner btw. So we don't really need that much of megapixels, right? Unless we want to make a large banner. But for potrait photos (12R - 16R size) or things like that, under 20MP are still relevant today, right? Because I was wondering why modern digital camera like Sony a7s only has 12 megapixels, even my phone has 50 megapixels 🤣 I know 50 megapixels look so lame 🤣 but pretty good for zooming or croping. Thx
@@Rudyalfons100 It all depends on your intended use in my opinion. What is your end product going to be? If you're just posting on the web and making occasional prints anything in the 6-12 MP range would be fine. Today I'd use my 12-24 MP cameras, but that's because I have them where it wasn't available 20+ years ago. Sensor size if a factor too. Your iPhone sensor is much smaller than a full frame or APS-C. Welcome to the hobby/addiction! :)
I used one of those Canon G9s for years and really enjoyed it for just about everything outdoors/good light. Even bought after market accessories for it like a metal/nicely tooled grip. Had a couple friends pick up the later models as they saw the shots I was getting from it.
I use a Nikon D700 and I plan to buy another. It was so good when it came out, manufacturers added video functions to keep selling camera bodies.
I started photography because of you. Actually, after watching your Canon G9 video, I started hunting for one and ended up with a G10. Now I'm in a CCD rabbit hole and have been collecting cameras 🤣
That's amazing, thanks so much for keeping up with the channel. Hope you're not hoarding too many CCD cameras, it's a dangerous game 😅
Spare some for us none sir 😅
Wait till you try Sigma Foveon sensor.... 😉
Thanks for this video. It's exactly why my D700 is my tool and probably continues until eternity.
Camera's I want to own someday. Nikon D700, Fuji x100s, then the Nikon Z9. I have one of my dream camera's which is the Nikon D4, I still cannot believe I own one after 10 years of waiting. But the D700 is next on my list, if only I can resist buying a D800e.
Amen! My Digital cameras are the Nikon D3, D700, and D300. They are all superb.👍🏆📷
@@sn4rl277 D800e.👍
@@sn4rl277I just bought the iconic Nikon D700 and it's pics are fantastic.
The Nikon D700 series and its successors are my favorite Nikon cameras, ever. Currently have a D750, and will probably buy the D780 as my ‘last’ DSLR. I used Nikon Z mirrorless for the last couple of years, but I always seem to go back to DSLRs. They just feel right.
Would love to see you extend the concept of this video into printing as well, especially in light of how far the technology has come in regard to almost lossless upscaling.
Even before that was possible, a lot of photographers when printing on inkjet printers, needlessly stuck to the 300 dpi standard when printing at 150 dpi achieved a larger print at a very acceptable level of sharpness, smooth gradients in skies, etc.
Great video, cool to see the math sitting under the surface of the images we make with our older, funkier cameras. I’ll walk a bit taller next time I choose the EP3, GF1 or G9 for my random walk over my state of the art 40mp beast :-)
I get this, however, the cameras with bigger resolutions tend to be more expensive and thus also have greater dynamic range and superior auto focus. The jump in dynamic range from a Canon 5D Mrk II to a Canon R6 is quite remarkable, even more so the auto focus and sharpness of the photos.
A 27-inch iMac has a Retina display (5120 × 2880px) - that works out at 14.75 MP. Once you allow for a slight crop the minimum sensor resolution to get the best out of that monitor would be 16MP.
I used a Nikon D700 @12MP a lot. The rather low resolution was never an issue.
Great camera!
Resolution is measured in dpi, while MP (megapixels) refer to size: 16MP is the result of multiplying the number of pixels contained on the larger side of the image, by those on the smaller side. Example, If you have a picture with 1,200 pixels on one side and 800 on the other side, it will be 960,000, roughly 1MP. But you can have two copies of the same 15x10 cm image, one at resolution low-res 72 dpi, and the other at higher resolution with 300 dpi.
Again: Megapixels MP = size. Resolution dpi = quality of image.
You make some great points in this video. And I'm already on board with you, I mostly shoot with older M4/3 cameras featuring 16 & 20 sensors. And I'm good with the image quality. Great video thanks for sharing.
Awesome explanation. Always thought this but had no looked for an explanation as of why. Important thing to take into account, marketing ALWAYS promotes the MP of the camera, regardless if mobile or body camera, and always misleads buyers. It has always bother me to know a phone could have 106MP on such tiny sensor. Greetings from Costa Rica.
Very true. If you are starting out and strapped for cash, get a Canon 5D Mk1. The large pixels allow a lot of post-processing. I used one for many years commercially with no complaints. I did invest in Canon's 28-70L f2.8 lens, which is heavy but excellent quality and very versatile - it's the lens that counts, more than the camera. In fact, I now use a micro 4/3 Olympus OM10 camera or Sony A7 for travelling and hobby photography.
Excellent video, you make a lot of sense here. I like using older cameras as well, been doing some reviews on my channel about older cameras and they are proving very popular, more so than newer cameras.
Love your vids, it get rid of my stress.. this is now my comfort zone 😁
That's so great to hear, always happy to have you!
, 100% agree. I realized the same thing about megapixels a while back,.Our monitors and daily screens are not even close to using what our cameras can produce, nowhere near. I looked up IG resolution and it was 600x600 at the time. I think they have increased it but only by a small amount. But ever since then I started caring less about MPs and more about composition. And my $20 or less old point and shoot collection grew from there, no need to raise my shutter counts on my DSLRs for daily shooting. Anything above 5 MP is enough for 4x6 prints and enough for even a 4k monitor. Obviously if the screen is bigger the more flaws you notice, but even then its not a big deal, just move onto the next image. What really made me stop caring so much is knowing that the majority of people will view my images on a phone. That also why IG doesn't care to make higher MP images the standard, view time, screen size and viewing distance doesn't justify going bigger. For online sharing I make my images 1600 or 1200 at max with 240 dpi, dpi goes a lomg way in preserving image quality. Files come out to 800kb -1mb and still look good on all my screens. Less MP on a camera does limit cropping though, thats about it, so just don't crop, problem solved lol.
So true 😄 I have a 5d classic and I tend to choose that over my newer nikon, just for the enjoyment I get shooting with it and the images it produces! Plus being only 12 megapixel you would never tell
I only tend to take the newer nikon if I know there's fast moving subjects or for surf photography etc
Cheers mate good video 😁
I need a large, grippable, and convenient camera with at least 24 megapixels for comfortable cropping. It should have many controls to operate blindly without navigating through menus. It must be full-frame. It should be heavy for good balance with heavy lenses. It must accept old manual focus lenses so I can use vintage optics. It should also be weather-sealed against rain, dirt, and drops - it needs to be rugged.
Those are all my modest requirements for the camera :)
My first digital camera was a 3.2mp point and shoot. I took some lovely photos on that. Granted you're not making posters out of those shots but for sharing online or standard small prints it was fine. I'm only shooting 20mp these days (Canon 6D). Unless you're a crop monster or want to cover the size of a football pitch with a picture then resolution is bottom on my list of considerations when buying a camera
Bigger photosites is what you're experiencing, and yes in most cases higher quality output.
Digital cameras have a tug and pull effect each new generation.
The D3 as old as it is, is still King of full frame 🤷🏾♂️ The Z9 and other stacked sensor's are becoming better at color. Hasselblad 1Dx, Z9, R5, a7IV all great. I think we passed the wrong limit, b/c I don't like the image quality coming from these cameras.
I think its the pixel pitch being so small now. The camera quality today is looking more and more like smartphone output to me 😅
Alexa35: 28mm x 19.2mm
Super35: 24.89mm x 18.66mm
APS-C: 24mm x 16mm
20 or 24 megapixels is more than enough for anyone out there who isn’t doing massive prints of their shots, they both give enough wiggle room for cropping and reframing in post and still get enough resolution for it to look good on most devices where people are looking at their photos.
Many years ago I was using a Canon 5D with the 24-105 f/4 lens which had 12mp max. I was quite happy with the creamy smooth images I was getting. But, one day, I set it for lower resolution, like 3mp maybe. I did this because I was just shooting for eBay and didn't want to resize them. But then I went out shooting for myself and forgot to reset the size. When I got back I was looking through the images and I was shocked. The images were sharper than usual. It confused the heck out of me, but there was no denying it. I still don't understand it, but it was such a surprise.
yup image quality is way more important, I use old dslrs with 8-10MP and that's more than enough for me. If I want a closer shot I have telephoto lenses
this raise me 2 possible questions:
- why did you bought a 4K monitor, same kind of feedback will say that Full HD is far enough for the size of the monitor....
- or at the opposite : if you buy an 8k monitor in 2 or 3 year, you could consider 33MPix sensor is what you'll need ... and you will be disappointed with your low res photos
The low light performance with small resolution large sensors is basically a myth re-told by (too) many and mainly true for video (where you don't shoot raw formats), but not for photography. The level of detail that can be preserved with noise reduction applied is much greater on e.g. a A7RIV than on the A7sIII for the same photo, if you zoom in both to the same degree (but not both to 100% picture resolution). So yes, full frame bigger resolution can produce less noisy and sharper images that full frame lower resolution cameras. Can we see the difference on an Instagram post? Less likely.
Great points and I totally agree- in fact I owned and loved my Canon G9. To get some further perspective, why not visit some of the release reviews of some of these now ancient cameras- to hear them being assessed as state of the art- and regularly employed as such- makes you realise that it's the eye behind the camera that really matters. Pros were using the Canon 5D as 12MP was the pinnacle, no doubt being sniffy about the 8MP camera they'd part-ex'd to upgrade. I've made amazing (by my admittedly low standards) images from really basic cameras.
It's the subject, the framing, the light, the timing that matter.
Not the megapixels.
Cropping, printing, sharpeness... there is a multite of reasons.. I agree you don't need an a7r or a7cR like me LOL but there is something to that.. being able to zoom in - yes people pinch their fingers and zoom in can you believe that? and also it gives a similar vibe to film to me where while it's not more organic but it almost feels like magic having so much detail in there. And it actually don't cost much more so why not have all the latest bells and whistles while having all of the above?
This is why I love my Olympus/OM System Cameras and won't be changing systems anytime soon, 20 megapixels is more than enough and the auto focus & image stabilisation is among the best
I agree that sometimes the MP number isn't as relevant, but the lens that is on that A7 is so much better than a point an shoot.. For me, I have a plan with my small point an shoot camera, or project. I label the tiny little nikon coolpix as "people at work" when I see a cool photo of "people at work" i pull it out and snap a photo. it's fun to download all of those photos together. It also forces me to look for poeple at work to use that little gem.
Spot on video and conclusion! In a perfect world - one where we could have gigapixel pocket-sized cameras with virtually no noise at ISO 1 billion, then we'd have nothing to talk about. But, in reality, digital cameras have been more than good enough for a vast amount of general photography for many, many years. When you start chasing the new tech bleeding edge you can convince yourself that nothing less than the new new thing is worth using - but really that's seldom true. There is no free lunch in digital camera tech. At any point in time there are tradeoffs between sensor size (i.e. resulting camera and lens size), resolution, noise (high ISO), and dynamic range. My first DSLR was an 8Mp Olympus E-300 Four Thirds camera. I try to get in close so don't need to crop much, and to this day the photos I shot with that way back when still stand up.
I know I’m gonna do the actually guy, but actually, what you think is « resolution » is called « definition ». Resolution is the number of pixels per inch (or per centimeter as all things should be).
I would still argue that higher definition sensors are still superior for the sharpness of the image, given the lens is good enough. Not only the crop is still very useful in a lot of other fields than street photography, the more pixel you have, given your lens is perfect, the more sharpness you will get. Just that at some point, the resolution of the print or screen will limit the usefulness of that. I’d say it’s more to optimize your lens more than anything.
And given noise is easier to remove than blur, I’ll take the better resolution.
When you talked about the low light performance, that reminded me of someone that said that full frame has better low light performance than APS-C but the compared the A7R5 and the Fuji X-T5, which both have roughly the same resolution (photosites are roughly similar). If the Sony is better, it’s not because of the sensor size. Anyway, photography, immarite, lots of stuffs to know!
great one. For me 12 Mpix is totally enough for 99% situations. I have old G7.. and i love it. it has Such a sharp (L ) lens! amasing oldie. it goes from 28mm thou. still good!
very good points many digital photographers, especially pixel peeper bunch, don't quite realize ... those having come from film photography backgrounds get this quite easily and quickly when transitioning from the 'old' film medium into the 'new' digital one ... but those born and grown into the digital system, might find it hard at first to grasp the notions of resolution, definition, image clarity and so on ...
here's what i have been saying all along about digital sensor size vs resolution 'ideal' number of pixels for a long time:
APS-C 8MP (12MP max!)
FF 20MP (30MP max!)
MF 40MP (60MP max!)
and by "max!" above, i mean only if the sensor is of high quality (say back-illuminated for example) then it can have that many pixels with minimal to no noise ...
"old" cameras like the Canon 10D and 5D, or the 20D as well are very good cameras with great sensors! I read one day an article from NASA that the moon and apollo shots all were taken with 1,2 mp cameras, properly stitched they all look great! And you are right, what use is a 5K screen as in my Imac 27" late 2015 if I only watch videos from the sixties on it?
I guess you have to understand the concept called pixel and dot, how a sensor works and how you screen handels all this info....
You absolutely need a higher megapixel count yes processing and all matters too, but at the end of the day if you want maximum results higher the megapixel count the better imho.
I have an A3 print on my wall, I took it using my 1500mm fl F5 telescope, of the moon. it's RAZOR sharp, hence I was so happy with it.. and it wasn't full moon, it was just past the 1st quarter so craters were obliquely lit giving lovely long shadows.. anyway.. the camera?... Canon 30D.. 8MP.. more than enough for A3... many other images from that camera at A3 knocking about the house.. rarely is the sharpness something that draws you in to "see how much you can see".. because you don't do that with portraits, but the moon shot does that.. and pulls it off.
I thought this for years, too. But then I upgraded from 12 MP to 45 MP full format. I'll never go back.
1. In portrait- and model photography you will usually get 5 - 15 usable crops from one image giving you the freedom to select from. You don't waste the time on the set with different zooms.
2. For landscape you get the resolution for those big calenders I love to produce each year.
3. And for wildlife you often need this extra "tele" that your biggest lenses don't provide.
4. At the same time the autofocus of these MP-monsters has improved a lot.
But you are right: most images will be shown on an iPhone. In my experience most iPhone users don't even know how to find the camera settings and will be ok with this very capable photoshop built into their smartphone. However, they will be very disappointed when trying to produce calendar images. Most, not all. :-)
7RV: you make a foto of a crowd and gets tons of portraits. One click, lots of results.
That's about resolution.
Less pixels do NOT perform better in low light. More pixel == more information. Even if two of four pixels show blur, the other two are showing more information than ONE pixel of a lower resolution sensor. More pixel ==better low light ALLTOUGH there is more blur.
Realistically you get tons of quite bad portraits....
@@GeorgeHolden good enough for facebook, instagram, mobile phones etc - as you said about low resolutions: low resolution is suitable for most of the use cases. But it's a poor decision to rely on that, because there are no further options to crop.
I had them all and I still like my 7 MP Panasonic camera. It's making really great pictures. But it's no match to the 7RV.
@@GeorgeHolden well - yes and no... I'm using group fotos with "good enough" portraits for using them as avatars in accounts. People like this...
I really don't think that REAL portraits, where a person should be shown in an impressive way can made by taking group fotos :-D
Glass… beats the resolution race. My studio uses a Nikon 850 45MP. The lenses are ok. Got a a TS lens… boom! More detail than ever.
Good points! I remember Ken Rockwell pointing this out fairly often on his site.
sometimes its art approach, sometimes it abt capturing the moment, for ordinary people.
even with small screen, tech nowadays allow us to zoom in easily, in a group photo you would love to see everyone's smile at the highest quality as possible to save that scene forever.
not saying many people do that, but that what i do when i had my camera with my friends and family
I wish what I had known at the beginning was to buy the best and most expensive, highest IQ and widest aperture lens possible for what I want to shoot, and whatever camera was over 12mp for it.
I just did a friend's album cover and epk...
with a fuji xpro1. Now, I shot in raw and ran it through light room. However, it forced me to compose better because I couldn't crop.
I think when you look at what the human eye is capable of picking up in resolution... and what cameras have to offer: camera capabilities have surpassed human capabilities.
I think a high resolution camera (something like 36 MP or bigger) is definitely nice for making huge prints, like the ones you see on art galleries. Well.... usually landscape or fine art folks.
Most of us hobbyists rarely do it. And usually post on social medias/websites. 24 MP or 16 MP is still very usable. Remember, processing big RAW files (e.g GFX 100 RAW file is around 400 MB) takes more computing power and storage :p
That's one of my secret reasons, I love the smaller files and not worrying so much about storage 😅
After a while away I’m back to my photography and joined the digital revolution, finally. Having had a lot of satisfaction from 35mm film I realised that chasing massive megapixels didn’t make sense. The maths of megapixels to dpi and print size spoke volumes about camera sales talk vs actual use. My focus turned to getting the best camera with megapixels being the compromise variable. Very happy owner of an 18mp dslr that left money to spare for very nice glass. I can’t see me printing larger than A4 so I should avoid any megapixel-envy😂
My most used digital camera these days - Epson R-D1 - 6MP. Does my X-T2 have far higher resolution - yes. Is it fun to shoot with - yes. Is it as fun to shoot with as the R-D1 - Not even close!
This is a very informative video. After watching it, I ditched my interchangeable lens camera and took photos using an iPhone 5S.
PS:
Next time when you promote obsolete or low MP cameras, please hide your Sony Mirrorless so that the trolls have no evidence to call you a hypocrite.
Get the gear you need for your use.
I find that I have to actually DOWNRES the pictures I shoot. Because well.. it is too many megapixels at times. Still, nice to have it.
And this also meant the search for the "walk around camera" was made easier. Slightly older, sensor doesn't needs 100Mpixels, far from, I know that with 12-16Megapixels and a good lens I have more then enough.
Great video and too true. Ive been shooting fashion/portraits professionally for 20 years now. Owned and shot with dozens of cameras from tiny sensor point and shoots to medium format and everything in between. I am no longer shooting for publications or in store ads where you needed more resolution. These days, mostly everything I shoot is for social media and people are viewing them on 5-6 inch smartphone screens. Zero use for high resolution cameras. In fact, I have grown tired of the over-sharpened, digital look with zero character that pretty much every modern mirrorless camera and lens produce these days. I have mostly gone back to shooting older CCD sensor cameras that have a much more filmic look and lots of character to the photos. Funny thing is, Ive had a lot more people ask me how I got that look or what camera I shot with then I ever did when using modern mirrorless cameras. Fun stuff.