As someone that prints professionally, this is a good video for people to watch. One thing I would add is DPI does not exactly = PPI but is a good guide the print resolution is set depending on the paper used (the heavier the paper the more DPI, too much DPI on a lightweight paper and it wont absorb the ink correctly) The more MP you have, the more options you do have for printing though, getting it right in camera is always the easiest though. One thing to remember when photographing for print, is to think about the paper size and aspect ration. Most cameras shoot 3:2, full frame, or most APS-C cameras which results in a native print size of 6" x 4", 12" x 8", 18" x 12" etc or 4:3, M43 and medium format (Fuji GFX) which results in a native print size of 8" x 6", 16" x 12" etc. So it is important when shooting to frame for the print size you are thinking of printing. If you use a Full frame camera e.g. a Sony A7 series, and fill the frame, but then want to print 16" x 12" you will lose whatever is in the top or bottom of the frame, as you took the photo in a 3:2 ratio but are printing 4:3
DPI is a characteristic of the printer. Early laser printers printed at 300 DPI, that's where that number comes from. Epson dot matrix printers printed 180 or maybe 360 DPI. I don't think modern inkjet printers print at an effective 300 DPI, I think 360 DPI is more likely, for compatibility with earlier Epson printers. I'm hedging my bets with "effective" because there are separate jets for each colour, and I don't know how they're organised. I have seen claims of printing at much higher resolutions, but not when printing a single colour.
@@oneeyedphotographer Every modern printer is different, and getting the info is actually not that easy, EPSON quote Nozzle configuration e.g. the SC-600 (which was a good entry level Pro photographers printer) has 180 Nozzles per colour and has 8 colours (only 7 in use) but they quote a droplet size, and quote the print resolution of 5,760 x 1,440 DPI.... All these are far more than we ever ask it to do when printing, What I would add to anyone printing for themselves and does not want to waste paper, your screen is backlit, the paper is not, so you will probably need to increase the brightness before you print (set screen brightness to 50% may help) and use soft proofing, if you can, to see on screen what the photo will look like on the chosen paper
12 MP images if sharp to begin with can readily be interpolated with any decent photo editing software to 13"x 19" without noticeable degradation. If you need to go bigger, or crop, or start with a less-than-perfectly-sharp image, using a tool like Topaz Gigapixel can do an astoundingly good job of emulating a medium format, high MP camera
I would love to like this video twice! For the kind of work I do, 24mp is more than enough. I’ve never had a client tell me that my images didn’t have enough resolution. My Nikon D750 still delivers stunning images and partly because I get it right in the camera.
24 for most people but marketing needs more people to purchase the high res models to bring the price down so if some people needlessly purchase the high res models then it spreads the cost, everybody wins.
Yes, I am in a Leica Q2/Q3 group and someone was insistent they NEED 60MP, because they crop a lot. Well, if you need to crop all your photos, you're probably using the wrong lens or camera.
@@StreetPhotographyChina The only example I can think of besides wildlife is travel. Like using the A7CR with one compact prime lens for lowlight capability and bringing nothing else with you. If all you have is lets say a 35mm, then inevitably you're probably going to want to crop and can plan for that with a high res sensor.
@@StreetPhotographyChina The correct lens for me is regularly a tilt shift lens. I put the camera in the correct position, the best lens is one of the four I own so I choose one, then crop later as I wish. Sometimes to make more than one photo.
One reason someone would use a higher megapixel camera for wildlife is from what I've seen the extra cost for the camera body with those higher megapixels seems in general to be less than the cost of a high quality zoom lens - so cropping for those people I would think is very important.(trying to keep equipment costs down). Another reason for higher megapixel cameras is a very small area of photography - taking shots for CGI work, like making 'natural' textures. In such cases, there really is no upper limit to how much megapixels could give benefit, i.e. the more is always better.
Cropping a wide shot cannot produce the (usually) desired bokeh / narrow depth of field / background separation, especially from distance. So you can't really use a smaller focal length and crop to get the similar effect. But if you have no budget for a 500mm lens, then of course, cropping is the only choice. For CGI that is well beyond the level of my knowledge so I will bow to your superior knowledge on this.
The best video I have seen explaining what megapixels you need . I am looking for a new camera and now I know how many megapixels I needed . I really appreciate your wise explanation !!!
I agree with you. Very well said. The only reason I like more megapixels, than I would normally need, is to aid in cropping. Mainly after shooting from the hip with a wide angle lens involving street photography.
What a lot of folk don't know or seem to forget is that to calculate the increase in resolution one needs to look at the linear increase in the pixels not the area increase. So to keep the maths simple, 24mp IS NOT double the resolution of 12mp. 3000X4000 = 12mp for a 100% increase in resolution we have to double the linear measure, so it would be 6000X8000 = 48mp. 24mp represents only a c50% increase in resolution over 12mp. 48mp represents slightly under 50% increase over 24mp. Then we should consider the aesthetics of the images. My 16mp Fujifilm and Pentax images just look nicer to me than their newer 24mp equivalents on the same size sensor. I imagine cramming more pixels into the same sensor size would only make things worse. I don't want to spend megabucks to find out!
That's the double edged sword of modern cameras. The autofocus, evf, and screen resolutions keep getting better, which is really attractive. But as the pixel density increases (primarily for marketing) the images are theoretically getting worse. Granted improvements in sensor tech might allow some leeway, but still.
But surely if you go from 12M to 24MP you ARE doubling the number of pixels from 12 million to 24 million. And yes, there ARE negative consequences to keep increasing pixels on a sensor that remains the same size. That is why we have medium format 100 megapixel cameras. That's one reason why smartphone cameras are bad in low light situations.
@@StreetPhotographyChina Yes, you are doubling the number of pixels but not doubling the resolution. Perceived resolution works on a linear basis, so as a rule of thumb you have to quadruple the number of pixels to double the resolution. Indeed to benefit from extra pixels you really need to increase the size of the sensor, all things being equal... which they rarely are of course. Increasing the size of the sensor (or with film, the negatives) does bring other benefits. The main ones being smaller enlargement to produce the same size image which negates to a degree any imperfections such as shake or dust on the sensor or film, and a better tonality overall to images (everyone on RUclips talks about the depth of field separation which is not necessarily a benefit at all. That depends on what you want from your image. In portraits it may be but in landscapes it may not). The obvious downsides to larger sensors is of course greater expense and bigger and heavier lenses, and to a lesser degree the cameras themselves. I shoot APSC, FF, 35mm and 120 film, and for most images the format and sensor or film (other than the choice between B&W and colour) does not matter at all. The subject, lighting,composition and technique is of far greater importance. Only ourselves and possibly photo editors really care about resolution. Most people who see our images do not even notice resolution beyond a relatively low bar.
@@k1k13004 Area is not the same as resolution. Look it up. Resolution is based on a linear measurement. It is widely recognised that the max resolution the eye can see is 300dpi - a linear measurement. A 10X10 inch print at 300dpi would be 9,000,000 dpi squared[(10X300)X(10X300)]. To double the resolution we need to go to 600dpi - which would be 36,000,000 dpi squared [(600X6000]. It does not matter if it's dpi or pixels the principal is the same. In any event the point of the video is that really you do not need the high resolutions we see nowadays for the vast majority of what most people shoot. My point is that these big apparent increases are not actually that big in terms of resolution anyway and are really just a marketing ploy.
Thank you for this clear, understandable, but detailed explanation. As a budding hobbyist photographer about to buy my first “real” camera, this is very helpful.
Tbh I just upscale my photos for print using Ai upscalers like Topaz Gigapixel. So more megapixels for better prints matters even less now. The only time when megapixels really matter for me is when I have to crop a subject that occupies only a very small part of the shot, like when I'm doing bird photography.
Back in the early days of digital I was a wedding and portrait photographer. I used a Nikon D1X (5.7MP) and Nikon D100 (6MP). I printed images up to 20x24 inches which I sold to clients. I just recently got back in to photography after about a 15 year break and now I just do it for the pure joy of photography. My cameras now are between 6MP (D100, Fujifilm S3), 12MP (Nikon D700), 24MP (Nikon DSLRs and Fuji XT2). I don't think I need any more megapixels than what I currently have. While it would be nice to have the latest and greatest I'm content with what I have for what I do.
I genuinely feel 24MP is the sweet spot for resolution for most situations. But as you say, more recent models would be nice to have if finances were not an issue.
The noise performance is not worse in high mp cameras, it just looks worse because when zooming in to 100% it looks amplified compared to a lower mp camera . Realistically it performs better as the higher mp camera has more potential to catch fine details.
Before watching the video I was thinking that a 12MP final image size would probably be around the right size. And since I like to photograph wildlife I want to be able to crop the image a bit. So 18 MP seams like a good lower limit for me and I would not mind having 24 or a bit more. But don’t need 48 if I have an appropriate zoom lens.
They're photo sites and fewer photosites on the same size sensor means the photo sites are bigger to fill the void!! I have an Olympus E1 with 5 mega pixels and a long with the brilliant Olympus 14-54 lens, I get superb images up to A3 !
I do sports photography and 24MP is more than enough, sometimes too much to store. If I need to heavily crop, software now is very good at re-enlarging. I'd only go for high megapixel if I were doing landscape photography.
The 24 megapixels on my Nikon D7100 are more than adequate and allow for a decent amount of cropping when shooting wildlife and birds. And these shots are normally viewed on a 32 inch HD monitor.
I`m glad my Leica MD 262 has only 24mp. It`s a happy medium for me since I don`t care for anything bigger than my computer screen which has only a 2mp resolution and the images are fantastic...!
Indeed. My first DSLR was the 300D which I think was 6 megapixels and still have some fantastic images from it that I didn't realise were from that old antique until I checked the EXIF data.
I have cameras in the range between 20-32.5 MP and even though I may not necessarily need all the extra pixels, I've taken a crop of 32.5 MP image to make a print out of 20 MP, and then done an alternative crop and made a smaller print with far fewer. Sometimes even when you have a decent telephoto it's still not enough and having that little extra comes in handy. Another thing I like about taking higher res files and viewing them on screen is looking for all the little Easter eggs you can find in an image. It can be like a treasure hunt!
I chased the megapixel thing for quite a while. I shot film for 40 years with some digital for the last 10 of those years. I noticed that for 8x10 prints that once I got to 5 megapixels in 2004 that I could confidentially shoot much of my website and catalog photography at 5 megapixels. After I went into another field I just bought cameras for myself and I found that 16 was nice, as was 18. 20 is very nice. I did get 24 megapixels rather recently. I do like it but I don't like lugging it around. Thank you for confirming my own experiences.
Glad you found it helpful. I think you also illustrate very well that we all have different tastes and requirements, so what works for you is what's important.
@@andreverhagemusicnot necessarily. The more pixels on a sensor, the smaller they are. That means less dynamic range which can make pictures more dull.
I think that modern cameras are absolutely incredible and can take far better images than we actually "need" given the limitations of other technology (monitors, printing etc.) I think it really comes down to lenses, portability, durability, ease of sharing, computational/AI features etc. that distinguish the brands now. Even the cheapest camera will create incredible images that would have cost $$$$$ 10yrs ago.
Absolutely. Someone said the other day you can’t buy a bad camera these days. I don’t think that’s true because there are things like operating system, ergonomics etc but in terms of sensor image quality I think it’s true that it’s hard to find a bad one in 2024.
Great Vidoe, great explanation. Personally I use an 1D X with a 18.1 Megapixel sensor and never needed more, as long as you are not involved in technical photography or sell to clients who need high megapixel counts for whatever reason... in reality the 1Dx and good glass will handle anything you throw at it. They are now exceptionally cheap second-hand for a bullet proof DSLR ... and you literally can drive over with a truck LOL If my breaks, I will not go anywhere else, I will get another 1DX since quality / value is unmatched.
I agree with you 100%. I have some higher MP cameras, that I rarely use. There is no benefit for me, and their files clog up my storage and slow my older Mac (Intel version). I'm mostly a enthusiast photographer who does professional work. A lot of what I do for clients goes onto their websites, and I always have to reduce the image to 2 MP or less. I also do portraits, and 8" x 10" looks great using my 12 MP older cameras. In fact, I think they look better because you don't see a lot of the subtle skin imperfections that higher MP cameras show. I have shot large group photos and events with cameras in the 16-24 MP with absolutely no problem. I certainly could have shot them with my D700 or D3S if I had wanted to (12 MP). Currently, my walk around camera is a Canon M6II. I love that camera, but not because it has 30 MP... I simply don't need that resolution. Many years ago we had a professional "all family" photo taken (around 20 people), and the photographer was using an older Nikon which was somewhere in the 6-7 MP range. I was just visiting my parents who have the photo on their wall. Honestly, it looks great...I would never had said "Oh that is a low resolution image." It looked perfect. For me it is all about having accessible buttons/dials that make a camera usable for serious work. Cameras have been great since the mid-2000s. Yes, they have advanced in all areas. However, a good ol' 5D or D700 can still take fabulous photos. For many of us the improvements in dynamic range in the last 5 years really doesn't matter, and even those older cameras had pretty fantastic low light performance (not like the "seeing in the dark" abilities currently available). However, the one area where I am envious of new cameras is their AI focusing ability. That blows me away, but since I'm not a nature photographer, I really don't need it. I know some are thinking "you need it for sport too." However, the only sports that I shoot are my wife running races, and my my kids playing sports. Believe it or not, I have gotten great shots using old cameras and super-zoom bridge cameras. Not every shot may be in focus, but many are, and they look great. Just my two cents.
I found your video very enlightening. I have several cameras, my biggest is the Nikon D850, and I always find myself grabbing my MFT 20mg GX9. I can't tell the difference on my computer monitor, and carrying a smaller camera around is so much more convenient. Not a pro by the way.
Thank you for the comment, it's much appreciated and I am glad you found it helpful. This is a very good point - knowing what megapixels are needed makes it easy to decide what camera you need for any situation. I am also NOT a pro, more like an enthusiastic amateur.
6mp is enough for me. 2mp was enough for me in the early 2000s. Back then I was amazed when my uncle bought a 5mp camera. But that being said the images from a bigger sensor does look cleaner when I have to edit them or fix the exposure in lightroom.
I take mostly 'street' photos, and am very good at seeing the composition I want from the scene. The problem is that the 'story' I want to capture could have dissolved before I'm near enough to frame it with a prime lens, and using a zoom can often be too slow. I've lost some good shots by just not being quick enough to compose the shot. For this reason alone, my ideal camera would be something like a Leica q3. I could get immersive, close-up street shots on it's 28mm lens, but also capture a more distant scene or a situation that I don't want to get too close to for fear of attracting attention/influencing the story by my presence. I'm currently not in a position to upgrade from my 16mp camera so cropping is generally unsatisfactory.
Zone focusing is a GREAT way to take photos much faster on the street. I did a video where I take photos very quickly and you can see how I do it on the streets in this video (link below). The Q series is not really meant to take shots from far away and then crop although of course, if you have to you can ruclips.net/video/wc-0bvSdgGQ/видео.htmlsi=p3l9viH5XcNKqheJ
I take very nice photos on my 11mp ZVE1 (video low light beast). I just use them on social media, don’t crop heavily and cannot see any reduction in quality compared to say the A7Cii. I put some photos showing the quality in a video. There’s lots of comparison videos on RUclips. Sure if you want huge crops etc it’s not as good, and it’s got no mechanical shutter but I never use a flash anyway. The camera has outrageous dynamic range and unbelievable noise in low light also. The sensor is still the best video sensor on the market IMO, they even filmed ‘The Creator’ with that sensor.
I stopped worrying about megapixels in 2004/2005 when I was in a camera store looking at a Nikon D40 and he had his own poster sized image on the wall behind him with that camera that was 5 million megapixels. After that I just picked a camera I liked and couldn’t care less about megapixels.
You're clearly one of the smarter ones.The obsession with higher and higher megapixels is getting out of hand. Not necessarily the manufacturers who need to attract people to buy their brand, but the customers who think they need that kind of resolution. Appreciate the comment, thank you.
My first digital camera was the awesome Nikon 1Dh at 2.7mp I have and use many digital cameras these days the highest count being the Q2 with 48mp. Most of my work is for newspapers and RUclips content so imho 48mp is total overkill for me. I love the Q2 with its weather sealing but I’d be happy with the 24mp in the Q1 it’s plenty for my needs. Great video Peter cheers.
Thanks for the comment Paul. I’m on holiday in Italy right now. I have about 36GB left on my laptop hard drive. Today is day one of 7 and I’ve taken about 14GB of photos. So clearly I’m not going to have enough space to last the trip. If the Q2 had a 24MP sensor I would be fine. I mean it’s not a big deal I’ll delete poor shots and save some to a cloud drive but it’s not as convenient having such a big sensor pixel count.
By working with various image dimensions I found that 12 MP is not enough. Then 16 MP... not yet there. But 20 MP (my Sony RX100) or 24 MP (my Fuji) is enough and I am happy. No need for more.
IMO, even for cropping, 50MP should be enough, so using an APS-C lens on a full frame sensor would still give enough resolution. Cropping more, the quality of the optics will be a larger factor than sensor resolution.
Toss in lens quality as a variable. Do you have lenses that resolve well enough to fully utilize a 60mp sensor? Will your 'budget' lenses need to be upgraded as well? Bring $$.
PS thank you! I just stopped worrying about megapixels as a factor in my next camera purchase. There area lot of (relative) bargains inthe24 mp range now.
I do think 24MP is a nice sweet spot, allowing a reasonable amount of cropping if needed (and hopefully it usually isn't needed) and not having to spend a fortune on file storage and SD cards. Lens quality is also a factor a lot of people don't think about when going for high megapixels, so that's also a great point you raised.
Very well explained! 👍 While I have enjoyed 102MP as well, there are also other advantages to bigger lenses etc - but in general I am quite happy with my 26MP Fuji XH2S😊
I'm a fashion and beauty photographer, and high pixel count makes retouching easier, if you have good lenses. Or you go the other way and use old lenses, grain and low pixel cameras for a more artistic look
Thanks for commenting. Yes, if you do a lot of retouching, more pixels can be beneficial. You're also clearly a pro so you know what you need. I think it's more the enthusiasts that get caught up in marketing hype and end up with way more than they really require for most cases.
@@webersteve1547 Oh I agree with you but Fashion in terms of clothing will be much cheaper for clothing companies to use AI and beauty companies (makeup hair etc.) the same. With the economy the way it is. businesses are struggling and will continue to get worse, what choices will companies make in terms of cutting costs? Hire a photographer and models for thousands or use AI for hundreds.
I will never refuse higher megapixels, but anything over 10MPX is usable . Depends on many things. How much you need to crop, the medium to display the image on, and the rest you mentioned. A high mpx image can always be downsampled to reduce noise etc, so you don’t really gain anything by having a lower resolution sensor. But when you do need the high resolution…
That's fair enough, but if it's only occasionally you need to make use of the higher megapixel count then you could probably save some money, buy a lower megapixel camera and use the savings to buy some other accessories, or for printing costs. Of course if you have an abundance of funds, that's great!
@@oneeyedphotographerI wouldn't call 20mp crippling. I've taken good bird photos on a 12mp camera, just need to frame things properly and use your zoom and get closer to the action.
Shooting subjects like this gentleman suggests is the smartest way to get the most from you camera's sensor. I shoot the Sony a6700 with a 26mp sensor. It is sensational and produces great images. I just started shooting my new camera, the Sony ZV-E1 with a 12mp sensor. I had an absolute ball with that camera. I shoot like a journalist (I was one years ago), getting as much of the subject on the sensor. That's a trick everyone should employ. You won't need anything bigger than a 24/26mp sensor. But the images were beautiful on the ZV-E1. Focusing was spot on, videos were fantastic. I'm sure I can easily make an 11x14 or larger print with no degradation with images from that camera. From sunflowers to my granddaughter's birthday part, the images all came out great. Sure, cropping and blowing up those images will show signs of losing sharpness, but that is when you look at a print inches away from your eyes. I am going to use that ZV-E1 more and more. May become my favorite camera. And look, don't need to spend all that money for an overprices Leica sporting a Sony sensor. Sony is in many cameras, you just don't know it.
Thanks for sharing. The ZV-E1 looks like a great camera, full frame sensor, so you aren't packing too many pixels into a small space and you can change lenses. I am using the ZV-1 for my videos, not stills, it is MUCH cheaper but has a fixed zoom lens and isn't full frame, but makes great video footage (well, good enough for RUclips at least. Always good to see someone as obviously satisfied as you are with their kit. You can focus on capturing great pictures instead of what camera to buy next!
For normal photography 24 mp is quite enough. But since I shoot wildlife and aircraft it comes in very handy to crop them. I can crop my Z9´s images much more then my Z6´s images. I could buy bigger lenses but they are very expensive and heavy. So 40-60 mp works nice for me:-)
I think wildlife is definitely an area of photography where cropping is much more often needed, no matter how long a lens you have, you can't guarantee it will be enough.
Great video. I have a mix of various MP cameras up to 40mp, but truly enjoy my 12mp Nikon D700. I have done 20x30 prints and they are great. Years ago many photogs did billboard prints at 8mp. As the video says, viewing distance is different. It's still all about light, composition, and sometimes timing.
Yes, it's funny how it was perfectly okay then but now suddenly we 'need' more. Perhaps my view is skewed by the fact I have been without income for some time and it has made me realise how much you can make do with what you have, and not just with cameras.
as someone who went all away from 2mp and up, Id say 2mp tree branches break, 3mp still but better, 6mp good enough, 12mp nice, 24 can crop, more... get sharp lenses
My first "serious" digital camera was the 2002 6MP Canon D60 (yes D first) I have used this to print many A3+ (13 x19) prints that are perfect for normal wall mounted photos (some of these images have even cropped down to 3 or 4 MP). these days I own a couple of high end Canons (DRSLR and Mirrorless) and reality I'm not seeing any quality difference between my 30MP DSLR and my 24MP Mirrorless R6 and R8, hell I'm still using and pulling images off of 16MP 10 year old MFT cameras (G5 and GX7) that. give prints as good as these 24 and 30 MP Canons if used within (or even exploiting) their limitations - .... I'm sure that for certain photographers in fashion/portraiture/landscape work 60+ MP gives a genuine advantage, just I'm not one of those and I'm not even interested in to moving in to that resolution despite having hardware to handle it (Apple Studio Ultra SSD RAID etc)
TV's are the same. 4K from regular viewing distance is not noticeable until you get to a 200" TV. Pixel size, light output, color reproduction and contrast makes a TV better. Not the number of dots that no one can see. Only reason one can say that 4k looks better is because youtube has the worst bitrate for 1080p content. Bitrate matters on streaming.
Some large printed pictures are viewed at close distances... like a gathering of people, say in a group photo of school students. Would you not agree, that more pixels would be required for that situation?
Yes, of course. Also landscapes with a lot of detail. I personally rarely shoot and then print large group photos myself although I’m sure some people do.
Indeed. Unless you're wealthy, it's important to allocate the gear budget appropriately and a decent lens can and does impact image quality not just pixel count.
More pixels also over more room for noise reduction, the issue is not to do with individual cmos cell size but the effective coverage they have and any weird noise that might happen as you move away from classical physics. The reason for poor lowlite performyof phones has more to do with their tiny apature and total sensor size then the size of their individual CMOS cells.
Very good advice! Today I was reminding myself how one of my cameras works and was trying different megapixel settings. When viewed in my PC monitor there really wasn't a significant problem when I reduced the size right down to 4MP.
Thank you. Yes, indeed, if viewing on a monitor / screen, 4MP is a pretty decent amount unless you have a 4K monitor which is around 8.2 million pixels.
@@Ozpeter I thinl that's the smart move. My next video could be "How much resolution do you need on your monitor - it's less than you think". I have a regular 1080p monitor, don't think I will ever need 4K either.
@@StreetPhotographyChina I've a 60" 1080p plasma TV and it looks great, for that size I could see 4k being better, but I mean, it's a 60" diagonal print equivalent and only 2mp instead of 8mp, that's huge for a print of those resolutions and yet it would still look good. My 12mp 5D looks great when you frame things right, and my R6 with 20 is almost too many.
Very interesting and true ! I have a Canon R6 which is 'only' 20 Mp but I love it ! The biggest prints I make are 60 x 90 cm and I don't have them printed out that often, maybe 1 a year.
How are the 60 x 90cm prints? That's a really great endorsement for not needing 60MP. I've never printed that large, but now I think I might have a go.
@@StreetPhotographyChina The are great ! And even with my old 1DIII (12 Mp) I didn't see any pixels on a 60 x 90 cm print. And not even noise at iso 3200 ! A print is different from pixelpeeping on your computer !
I shot headshots for a client advertisement that was going up on a billboard. I shot it with a Sony A7IV (33 Megapixels). It was a job for a client and advertising agency, although I didn’t need the 61 MP of the A7RV, I would not have been comfortable with fewer than 33 MP for that job.
Thanks for sharing. You're doing professional works so I think that's fair enough. I think it's when amateurs and enthusiasts claim to NEED 60MP that it can sometimes raise an eyebrow.
@@StreetPhotographyChina I agree. These manufacturers have all of these influencers selling the fact that newer, more and bigger is better. They make hobbyist and amateurs feel as though some high end features designed with a specific purpose and workflow in mind are necessary for any and everyone.
Since the majority of photos are viewed on a screen these days, Megapixels are actually almost irrelevant. Megapixels don't compensate for a poor image, whether due to lens, settings, or composition and story. Back in the day. I was always disappointed in my 35mm film images. I wasn't into developing myself. I was at the mercy of the local print shop! My uncle who did his own developing could turn a meh photo into a stunner. These days, software has eliminated that frustration entirely for me. However, no-one wants to flip through physical albums of photos anymore nor buy a print to hang on their wall. It's all digital. Any photo on a phone can look pretty good! I do print a few for my own wall decor and don't worry about the pixels, even though I am a pixel peeper! 😊
Thanks for sharing. Yes, the majority of digital images are never printed and only viewed on a smartphone, tablet or a monitor. Of course, some people do print their work and in certain situations, a higher megapixel count can be an advantage.
That's not true. If you're making product photographs and need to carry the depth of field you have the ability to pull the camera back and crop in to achieve a sharp subject front to back. Say a car at 3/4
Thanks for the informative video, I believe cameras, phones, computers etc are all just drip-fed technology that's carefully marketed to us to not only believe we always 'need' more, but of course, to make us want it. Otherwise we wouldn't buy next years model.
Yes, I think that's precisely what marketing is meant to do, the issue is whether or not we are influenced by it. I think Apple's iPhone is a good example. The pro models have 120hz screen refresh rates while my humble basic iPhone only has 60hz. I can honestly say I have never sat in front of my phone thinking "damn, I wish I had twice the refresh rate". Thanks for sharing, appreciate the comment.
It's not how many I need, it's about how many I want 😂. Also sometimes when you less expect it, it'll come handy. Specially if you shoot action or wildlife and might have to crop and have no time to compose.
Yes indeed. If you want 60MP then of course go for it. And yes, some types of photography are more likely to require cropping for sure and would benefit from more pixels.
I used to shoot with the Sony A7Riv. It’s overkill for most people. Unless you mega pixel peep it’s near impossible to tell the difference. I’m with Fujifilm X T5 and X H2s with 0 regrets. Can’t tell between 40 and 26 either lol.
Thanks for sharing. Did you find managing the Sony A7Riv files difficult in terms of time to process and download as well as finding storage space? My 85MB Leica Q2 files have meant I needed to buy a lot more hard discs. Glad you're enjoying the more modest megapixel camera. I think that's the main point - you can get great results without a huge megapixel sensor.
Higher megapixels are only useful if you crop, but they require ever bigger computer capacities. As a professional photographer in the 2010s, I used a 12 Megapixel Nikon D300. We enlarged these images to 90x60 cm (23x35 inch) every day on an Epson 7600 printer. The resolution, even close up, was superb. No pixel in sight anywhere. There is a physical limit to pixel size on the sensor. Higher pixel numbers are obtained by interpolation, which means subdividing one pixel into 4, 16 or more. You are not physically registering pixels any more. The camera software is inventing them on the spot.
Yes, there's really a limit to how many pixels can fit on a sensor before it starts to have negative impact on the image quality, which is why there are 100MP medium format cameras. Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it.
Very true. I am still using my D300s today. I also have a fullframe D610. Besides the difference in colours there is not much difference when printed. However, I did notice a difference when viewed on large ultra resolution 27 in ch monitor. At first this disturbed me a bit but then I realized photography is not about pixel peeping but printing.
@@StreetPhotographyChina I saw a video today where a D700 and Z8 were compared. The D700 stood up pretty well in raw, but raw or JPEG, the Z8 was better
Sometimes a tight crop in edit to get closer to a subject isn't as interesting as a wider shot, which can tell a more intriguing story. I always think a photo needs to portray a story. I hate posts of 20+ snapshots of just places. At car shows, for example, I'll rarely take a photo of a whole car, or a row of cars. It'll be an emblem or a detail, taken physically close to the vehicle. If you want close, get close, or use a long lens IMHO over a higher Megapixel camera
@@AllenReinecke "or use a long lens IMHO over a higher Megapixel camera" The cost of a good telephoto lens is typically much more than the cost of a camera with more megapixels. Many subjects can be skittish if you get too close. In such cases, cropping is the best answer - and to do that well a higher megapixel camera is very useful. "I always think a photo needs to portray a story. " That's a subjective matter. To me a 'story' is irrelevant. So a 'get closer to a subject' is just as interesting as a 'wider' shot - again, purely subjective.
Ironically the 5D has better lowlight. Even 3200 iso is pretty clean on it, the phone cheats by using a really long exposure and combining images. Don't be afraid to crank that 5D to the max!
The current iPhone having 48 MP and the Leica Q3 having above 60 MP have more or less the same reason: Being able to crop in to compensate for the lack of real "normal" lenses (they use wide-angle lenses as their "standard"). For cameras with interchangeable lenses or "universal" zoom lenses, around 24 MP is just fine. I had a Leica M9 and was quite happy with its 18 MP, but I would consider this the "low end". I would rather go after 24 or 25 MP.
I do think 24MP is the sweet spot, that's why I put that in the thumbnail (24mp vs 60mp). I do envy you, I would love to have a Leica M camera. Maybe one day. What lens did you usually shoot with? The Leica Q2 is fantastic but 28mm is sometimes a little wide.
@@StreetPhotographyChina No longer have a digital Leica (by now only a Leica IIIf is left, with some old screw-mount lenses), and not enough money for a Q3. My preferred lenses where the 50s (Summicron and Summilux), but the "original" Summilux-M 1.4/35 mm was my favorite for its unique look. I don't like 28 mm (I would tolerate it with the Q3 ;-)), even though the current Elmarit-M 2.8/28 is a really good performer.
@@c.augustin Those are some nice lenses. I think it's because I have been "stuck" with the 28mm that I long for something less wide, so maybe I am overcompensating but a 50mm 'cron' or Summilux would be what I would want first. Perhaps one day, if this channel ever becomes popular, LOL!
@@StreetPhotographyChina The 50 'cron (the non-apo, still sold version IV) would be my recommendation - good value for money, incredibly sharp, very reliable. I had one, a friend of mine still has it on his Leica M11 Monochrome (yes, he's that crazy ;-)), and the results are just gorgeous. The 50 'lux has its qualities, but I found it a bit heavy and bulky (for an M lens, that is ;-)). The 'cron it would be, maybe older versions (had the dual-range one, also very nice rendering, but overall less versatile than v4).
@@c.augustin Thank you. Back in the 80s I bought 2 CDs before I bought a CD player because I knew I would get one. I sometimes see Leica M lenses online for great prices and often thought I should get one, even though I don't have a body. Because one day .... Appreciate your advice on the 'cron' I will keep my eyes out for a reasonably priced copy.
Another thing about 24MP that no one seems to talk about is the noise level at the same higher ISO is typically noticeably better than the higher MP count sensors. IMO, the main advantage of the very high MP count images is for cropping. I made a few 16x20 and 20x30 prints from a 12MP Nikon D90, but no cropping. The quality of the prints are good. The results backup what the author of this video says.
@@ukyo2010 really? The noise level is better? With cameras like the 12mp A7SIII and the 60mp A7RIV, same sensor tech and size. The higher resolution sensor is still more detailed at high iso and when scaled down to 12mp just as noisy/clean as the 12mp camera.
@@OttoLPIf you do take advantage of the cropping, it ends up being worse in practice, like bird photos with 50mp vs 20mp cropped in absolutely far, the 50mp would be worse, but if you photograph correctly and don't need to crop a lot by using longer lenses and getting closer, they're the same.
@mikafoxx2717 yeah, that's the exact problem. A longer and still fast enough lens is 4x the price of a 50mp camera. And you're obviously already ad close as you can get.... The only difference you get with a lower res sensor is that you lose the option to crop, you gain nothing.
Higher MP arent for everybody. If people want or need, they get them. Its like people who drive a prius It does a job very basically with no frills,no excitement..fitting owners personalities. Then you have the rest of the world who like driving and demand more from a car..and life in general
If you intend to view your pics on a modern 4K TV, you need 9.8 mega pixels. You can round this out to 10 MP. 2 times this gives you enough room to crop/zoom. Which implies that 20mp is probably more than sufficient. One could argue that to view on an 8K screen you would need 4 times these many pixels. But let's be honest, most of us are never going to use an 8K screen at the right size or the right distance as amateurs/enthusiasts. 8K TVs may become cheaper and mainstream but for home use, you will never be able to see the difference betweek 4k and 8K on these screens. We need larger pixels or pixels with a great dynamic range because we definitely can make out the difference on an HDR screen. As HDR and WCG displays become more ubiquitous, capturing, processing and displaying wide dynamic range and colour gamuts may become more important. Bigger pixels might be more useful there.
What do we want? Bigger pixels. When do we want it? NOW! Yes, great point, which I hope I touched on. More pixels means smaller pixels and there are benefits to having bigger pixels instead of just more, more, more. Appreciate the comment, thank you.
I found this video very useful but realising I may have made an error in my choice of camera. I have a Nikon D3 with 12.8mp sensor. I plan on printing on A3+ paper size on a Canon Prograf 300 printer. What is your opinion of my set up? Thanks a million
My understanding is that at 300dpi, you would need a resolution of 4900 x 3500 which is 17MP. However, maybe you could print at a lower DPI and see if the image is okay, although at 270dpi I think you still need around 14MP. But try it and see. You may find it is fine for you.
For prints… you can’t get enough megapixels - BUT !!! The pixel count needs to be inline with the sensor size, otherwise it’s a waste of- 8-12 megapixels on a tony phone sensor is more than enough, but far too little on a medium format sensor (much bigger than full frame sensors)
@@StreetPhotographyChina don’t worry - a lot of photographers don’t know the tech of their cameras any ways - they just do as they always have before, or rely on a technician to make purchase decisions for them
The mega pixel race has been stagnant for years the D600 came out at 24MP and most still hover around there. The S series from Panasonic the Z5 and Z6 the R3 the R6ii R8 are still 24MP most cameras have been focusing on video features and mot photography. The higher end cameras got higher MP. But the midrange should be alot higher about 50MP
I use a Godox AD200Pro flash. It makes a big difference to image quality but it is sometimes inconvenient to carry around. I ALWAYS shoot RAW for digital although if you watch my channel often you will know I also shoot a lot of street portraits using film. Shooting RAW makes it much easier to brighten images if needed.
In around 40 years of taking photos I don't think I have ever printed larger than 16 x 20 inches for a friend's portrait. And that was really a once off 36 years ago. I suspect the majority of people would be the same, unless they're pros.
On my wall I have photos taken with Fujifilm X-T2 what is 24 mpix. Still, those prints are taken from JPGs what was only 6 Mpix and the quality on A3 sized prints are excellent. Also the bigger the picture the further the viewing distance, so yeah, on paper bigger than 6 Mpix is quite useless to me. Nowadays I also move many of my Canon R50 photos wirelessly to my iPhone and those are only 1 Mpix sized and 99 % of times that is more than enough in average usage. By average usage I mean that I can share those easily to my friends who anyway watch those on mobile devices. Also I can print 10x15 cm photos (4"x6" in USA I think) with good quality and most of the times I print only Instax Mini photos where 1 Mpix is much more than what is needed. Of course I store my original photos to memory card on full size and then save those sometimes to my computer, but in all realism, 99 % of my use cases those 1 Mpix smaller photos are more than suitable in almost everything. To blog, to social media, to prints, to share to others :)
Interesting, thanks for sharing. May I ask what type of photography you do and what are the limitations you are experiencing with 24MP that you aren't happy with?
My knowledge about resolution is minimal. Can anyone answer a question I have? On my Samsung phone, in the phone editing section, it asks whether you would like to increase the resolution. If I choose 'Yes' the image appears to be less sharp. I always choose 'No' as the picture is better whenkept at the original (Lower) resolution.
We can barely get half adequate bitrate for 4k on RUclips or such anyways, so I'm not holding my breath on 8K besides maybe future IMAX projectors. At the proper angle of view, 4k is already as much as we can perceive for image detail. Prints you might look up closer, but even so.
I enjoy challenging limitations, like using VGA webcams for studio photography-it's all fun. But you are wrong. If 15x10cm print requires 2MP image that doesn't mean that 2MP camera is enough. The problem is that digital cameras HAVE NO REAL COLOR PIXELS. That's why for the best quality, we need as many megapixels as possible - the more, the better. Yes, when it comes to print or web-sharing size, you don't need as many. You usually downscale. But if you compare, you would see that a downscale from 24MP to 3MP is much better in quality than a 3MP camera shot. A 12MP to 3MP downscale is also fine. We don't look for 24MP or 12MP full of details; we usually look for at least 2-4MP of details without compromise and digital ugliness. I'll repeat, this is very important: digital cameras HAVE NO REAL COLOR PIXELS. It's all a Bayer matrix: a 12MP camera has 3MP red pixels, 3MP blue pixels, and 6MP green pixels, all arranged in a grid pattern. Greens are denser (having diagonal green neighbors), while reds and blues have no same-color neighbors at all! Just think about it. Monochrome sensors are good in that regard, their pixels are real. Although arranged in a regular grid, they suffer more from moiré compared to analog medium (film). But for color, there's no perfect solution. Debayering algorithms differ, and there's no ideal debayering algorithm that would restore 12MP worth of details without artifacts. As I've said, there are huge gaps around red and blue pixels, and there's no information about the color of these missing pixels. For greens, it's the same-every second green pixel is missing. Available pixels get interpolated, but that doesn't mean we get a real 12MP result from a 12MP Bayer matrix. Instead, we get weird patterns and noise, known as debayering artifacts. To diminish debayering artifacts and reduce digital noise (each pixel itself is noisy but when we average we get less noise overall), it's helpful to have more megapixels. There's a diffraction limit, of course, so a very small sensor can't have too many pixels. By the way, not every lab can reproduce 300ppi with their equipment. They'd ask for 300ppi files but from my experience, result is often more comparable to 220ppi, which is enough for viewing a print while holding it in your hands. TL;DR: Downscaling is always better in terms of quality than using a 1:1 size. The reason is that 1:1 pixels are not real-just a debayered noisy mess. Also if your lens is sharp enough and you have lots of megapixels, you are free to crop more. For smartphones and their typically wide lenses, cropping is a great way to improve the visual quality of the image especially portraits (because wide-angle face close-ups aren't very appealing).
As someone that prints professionally, this is a good video for people to watch.
One thing I would add is DPI does not exactly = PPI but is a good guide
the print resolution is set depending on the paper used (the heavier the paper the more DPI, too much DPI on a lightweight paper and it wont absorb the ink correctly)
The more MP you have, the more options you do have for printing though, getting it right in camera is always the easiest though.
One thing to remember when photographing for print, is to think about the paper size and aspect ration.
Most cameras shoot 3:2, full frame, or most APS-C cameras which results in a native print size of 6" x 4", 12" x 8", 18" x 12" etc or 4:3, M43 and medium format (Fuji GFX) which results in a native print size of 8" x 6", 16" x 12" etc.
So it is important when shooting to frame for the print size you are thinking of printing. If you use a Full frame camera e.g. a Sony A7 series, and fill the frame, but then want to print 16" x 12" you will lose whatever is in the top or bottom of the frame, as you took the photo in a 3:2 ratio but are printing 4:3
DPI is a characteristic of the printer. Early laser printers printed at 300 DPI, that's where that number comes from. Epson dot matrix printers printed 180 or maybe 360 DPI. I don't think modern inkjet printers print at an effective 300 DPI, I think 360 DPI is more likely, for compatibility with earlier Epson printers. I'm hedging my bets with "effective" because there are separate jets for each colour, and I don't know how they're organised. I have seen claims of printing at much higher resolutions, but not when printing a single colour.
Thank you, this is valuable input
@@oneeyedphotographer Every modern printer is different, and getting the info is actually not that easy, EPSON quote Nozzle configuration e.g. the SC-600 (which was a good entry level Pro photographers printer) has 180 Nozzles per colour and has 8 colours (only 7 in use) but they quote a droplet size, and quote the print resolution of 5,760 x 1,440 DPI....
All these are far more than we ever ask it to do when printing,
What I would add to anyone printing for themselves and does not want to waste paper, your screen is backlit, the paper is not, so you will probably need to increase the brightness before you print (set screen brightness to 50% may help) and use soft proofing, if you can, to see on screen what the photo will look like on the chosen paper
12 MP images if sharp to begin with can readily be interpolated with any decent photo editing software to 13"x 19" without noticeable degradation. If you need to go bigger, or crop, or start with a less-than-perfectly-sharp image, using a tool like Topaz Gigapixel can do an astoundingly good job of emulating a medium format, high MP camera
Very helpful. Thank you
I would love to like this video twice! For the kind of work I do, 24mp is more than enough. I’ve never had a client tell me that my images didn’t have enough resolution. My Nikon D750 still delivers stunning images and partly because I get it right in the camera.
I don't only view big prints from a few meters away - its a great pleasure to stand up close and enjoy the little details of a landscape print.
99% do. Are saying you are closer than 30cm? If so, then you no longer looking a the picture.
That's a bit like looking at a small 6 x 4 print under a microscope. If that's your thing, go for it.
It's fun looking at the little details
@@paulneedham9885 50cm away on a 20 inch print is fine.
Try to solve this equation: (how many photos have you printed?) / (how many pictures have you taken?)
24 for most people but marketing needs more people to purchase the high res models to bring the price down so if some people needlessly purchase the high res models then it spreads the cost, everybody wins.
Agree.
Yes, I am in a Leica Q2/Q3 group and someone was insistent they NEED 60MP, because they crop a lot. Well, if you need to crop all your photos, you're probably using the wrong lens or camera.
@@StreetPhotographyChina The only example I can think of besides wildlife is travel. Like using the A7CR with one compact prime lens for lowlight capability and bringing nothing else with you. If all you have is lets say a 35mm, then inevitably you're probably going to want to crop and can plan for that with a high res sensor.
@@StreetPhotographyChina The correct lens for me is regularly a tilt shift lens. I put the camera in the correct position, the best lens is one of the four I own so I choose one, then crop later as I wish. Sometimes to make more than one photo.
One reason someone would use a higher megapixel camera for wildlife is from what I've seen the extra cost for the camera body with those higher megapixels seems in general to be less than the cost of a high quality zoom lens - so cropping for those people I would think is very important.(trying to keep equipment costs down).
Another reason for higher megapixel cameras is a very small area of photography - taking shots for CGI work, like making 'natural' textures.
In such cases, there really is no upper limit to how much megapixels could give benefit, i.e. the more is always better.
Cropping a wide shot cannot produce the (usually) desired bokeh / narrow depth of field / background separation, especially from distance. So you can't really use a smaller focal length and crop to get the similar effect. But if you have no budget for a 500mm lens, then of course, cropping is the only choice. For CGI that is well beyond the level of my knowledge so I will bow to your superior knowledge on this.
12mp is more than enough for the most part. Still rocking Nikon D700s
Yup. Arguably the nicest DSLR ever made.....
Best explanation of how many megapixels are good enough in photography. Excellent video!
Many thanks! Really appreciate you taking the time to leave a comment.
The best video I have seen explaining what megapixels you need . I am looking for a new camera and now I know how many megapixels I needed . I really appreciate your wise explanation !!!
Awesome, thank you! Appreciate the comment. Good luck with your new camera. Which ones are you considering?
I agree with you. Very well said. The only reason I like more megapixels, than I would normally need, is to aid in cropping. Mainly after shooting from the hip with a wide angle lens involving street photography.
Yes, I do that as well.
How about not using a wideangle lense if you don't want all the fluff in the image?
What a lot of folk don't know or seem to forget is that to calculate the increase in resolution one needs to look at the linear increase in the pixels not the area increase. So to keep the maths simple, 24mp IS NOT double the resolution of 12mp.
3000X4000 = 12mp for a 100% increase in resolution we have to double the linear measure, so it would be 6000X8000 = 48mp. 24mp represents only a c50% increase in resolution over 12mp. 48mp represents slightly under 50% increase over 24mp.
Then we should consider the aesthetics of the images. My 16mp Fujifilm and Pentax images just look nicer to me than their newer 24mp equivalents on the same size sensor. I imagine cramming more pixels into the same sensor size would only make things worse. I don't want to spend megabucks to find out!
That's the double edged sword of modern cameras. The autofocus, evf, and screen resolutions keep getting better, which is really attractive. But as the pixel density increases (primarily for marketing) the images are theoretically getting worse. Granted improvements in sensor tech might allow some leeway, but still.
But surely if you go from 12M to 24MP you ARE doubling the number of pixels from 12 million to 24 million. And yes, there ARE negative consequences to keep increasing pixels on a sensor that remains the same size. That is why we have medium format 100 megapixel cameras. That's one reason why smartphone cameras are bad in low light situations.
@@StreetPhotographyChina Yes, you are doubling the number of pixels but not doubling the resolution. Perceived resolution works on a linear basis, so as a rule of thumb you have to quadruple the number of pixels to double the resolution.
Indeed to benefit from extra pixels you really need to increase the size of the sensor, all things being equal... which they rarely are of course. Increasing the size of the sensor (or with film, the negatives) does bring other benefits. The main ones being smaller enlargement to produce the same size image which negates to a degree any imperfections such as shake or dust on the sensor or film, and a better tonality overall to images (everyone on RUclips talks about the depth of field separation which is not necessarily a benefit at all. That depends on what you want from your image. In portraits it may be but in landscapes it may not). The obvious downsides to larger sensors is of course greater expense and bigger and heavier lenses, and to a lesser degree the cameras themselves.
I shoot APSC, FF, 35mm and 120 film, and for most images the format and sensor or film (other than the choice between B&W and colour) does not matter at all. The subject, lighting,composition and technique is of far greater importance. Only ourselves and possibly photo editors really care about resolution. Most people who see our images do not even notice resolution beyond a relatively low bar.
@@richardhale9664 if your house has 200m² and mine has 100m², your house is 2 time biggers than mine, even if you went from 10x10 to 14x14
@@k1k13004 Area is not the same as resolution. Look it up. Resolution is based on a linear measurement. It is widely recognised that the max resolution the eye can see is 300dpi - a linear measurement. A 10X10 inch print at 300dpi would be 9,000,000 dpi squared[(10X300)X(10X300)]. To double the resolution we need to go to 600dpi - which would be 36,000,000 dpi squared [(600X6000]. It does not matter if it's dpi or pixels the principal is the same. In any event the point of the video is that really you do not need the high resolutions we see nowadays for the vast majority of what most people shoot. My point is that these big apparent increases are not actually that big in terms of resolution anyway and are really just a marketing ploy.
Thank you for this clear, understandable, but detailed explanation. As a budding hobbyist photographer about to buy my first “real” camera, this is very helpful.
Tbh I just upscale my photos for print using Ai upscalers like Topaz Gigapixel. So more megapixels for better prints matters even less now.
The only time when megapixels really matter for me is when I have to crop a subject that occupies only a very small part of the shot, like when I'm doing bird photography.
Back in the early days of digital I was a wedding and portrait photographer. I used a Nikon D1X (5.7MP) and Nikon D100 (6MP). I printed images up to 20x24 inches which I sold to clients. I just recently got back in to photography after about a 15 year break and now I just do it for the pure joy of photography. My cameras now are between 6MP (D100, Fujifilm S3), 12MP (Nikon D700), 24MP (Nikon DSLRs and Fuji XT2). I don't think I need any more megapixels than what I currently have. While it would be nice to have the latest and greatest I'm content with what I have for what I do.
I genuinely feel 24MP is the sweet spot for resolution for most situations. But as you say, more recent models would be nice to have if finances were not an issue.
The noise performance is not worse in high mp cameras, it just looks worse because when zooming in to 100% it looks amplified compared to a lower mp camera . Realistically it performs better as the higher mp camera has more potential to catch fine details.
I have 24MP and 40MP cameras. I vouch that the 40MP is much much better and I love the 40MP camera the most
Before watching the video I was thinking that a 12MP final image size would probably be around the right size. And since I like to photograph wildlife I want to be able to crop the image a bit. So 18 MP seams like a good lower limit for me and I would not mind having 24 or a bit more. But don’t need 48 if I have an appropriate zoom lens.
They're photo sites and fewer photosites on the same size sensor means the photo sites are bigger to fill the void!!
I have an Olympus E1 with 5 mega pixels and a long with the brilliant Olympus 14-54 lens, I get superb images up to A3 !
I do sports photography and 24MP is more than enough, sometimes too much to store. If I need to heavily crop, software now is very good at re-enlarging. I'd only go for high megapixel if I were doing landscape photography.
My first digital camera was a Nikon 1D with a 2.7mp sensor and I printed many 8x10 headshots that looked great.
Glad to hear it.
The 24 megapixels on my Nikon D7100 are more than adequate and allow for a decent amount of cropping when shooting wildlife and birds. And these shots are normally viewed on a 32 inch HD monitor.
I`m glad my Leica MD 262 has only 24mp. It`s a happy medium for me since I don`t care for anything bigger than my computer screen which has only a 2mp resolution and the images are fantastic...!
Good to hear, thanks for sharing.
I only have a 24mp crop sensor Canon 200d, and have no problem printing up to and including A2 which is plenty big enough
Indeed. My first DSLR was the 300D which I think was 6 megapixels and still have some fantastic images from it that I didn't realise were from that old antique until I checked the EXIF data.
I have cameras in the range between 20-32.5 MP and even though I may not necessarily need all the extra pixels, I've taken a crop of 32.5 MP image to make a print out of 20 MP, and then done an alternative crop and made a smaller print with far fewer. Sometimes even when you have a decent telephoto it's still not enough and having that little extra comes in handy. Another thing I like about taking higher res files and viewing them on screen is looking for all the little Easter eggs you can find in an image. It can be like a treasure hunt!
I chased the megapixel thing for quite a while. I shot film for 40 years with some digital for the last 10 of those years. I noticed that for 8x10 prints that once I got to 5 megapixels in 2004 that I could confidentially shoot much of my website and catalog photography at 5 megapixels. After I went into another field I just bought cameras for myself and I found that 16 was nice, as was 18. 20 is very nice. I did get 24 megapixels rather recently. I do like it but I don't like lugging it around. Thank you for confirming my own experiences.
Glad you found it helpful. I think you also illustrate very well that we all have different tastes and requirements, so what works for you is what's important.
Thank so much! Picture viewing is what matters to me. Your explanation is wonderful. 👍
Thank you. Appreciate the comment.
More megapixels wont make a lens sharper.
Absoultely.
It has nothing to do with your lens more pixels better prints and if your sensor sucks then your expensive lens will be worthless
@@andreverhagemusicnot necessarily. The more pixels on a sensor, the smaller they are. That means less dynamic range which can make pictures more dull.
@@nelsonclub7722 please explain how?
Agree
I think that modern cameras are absolutely incredible and can take far better images than we actually "need" given the limitations of other technology (monitors, printing etc.) I think it really comes down to lenses, portability, durability, ease of sharing, computational/AI features etc. that distinguish the brands now. Even the cheapest camera will create incredible images that would have cost $$$$$ 10yrs ago.
Absolutely. Someone said the other day you can’t buy a bad camera these days. I don’t think that’s true because there are things like operating system, ergonomics etc but in terms of sensor image quality I think it’s true that it’s hard to find a bad one in 2024.
Great Vidoe, great explanation.
Personally I use an 1D X with a 18.1 Megapixel sensor and never needed more, as long as you are not involved in technical photography or sell to clients who need high megapixel counts for whatever reason... in reality the 1Dx and good glass will handle anything you throw at it.
They are now exceptionally cheap second-hand for a bullet proof DSLR ... and you literally can drive over with a truck LOL
If my breaks, I will not go anywhere else, I will get another 1DX since quality / value is unmatched.
I agree with you 100%. I have some higher MP cameras, that I rarely use. There is no benefit for me, and their files clog up my storage and slow my older Mac (Intel version). I'm mostly a enthusiast photographer who does professional work. A lot of what I do for clients goes onto their websites, and I always have to reduce the image to 2 MP or less. I also do portraits, and 8" x 10" looks great using my 12 MP older cameras. In fact, I think they look better because you don't see a lot of the subtle skin imperfections that higher MP cameras show. I have shot large group photos and events with cameras in the 16-24 MP with absolutely no problem. I certainly could have shot them with my D700 or D3S if I had wanted to (12 MP). Currently, my walk around camera is a Canon M6II. I love that camera, but not because it has 30 MP... I simply don't need that resolution. Many years ago we had a professional "all family" photo taken (around 20 people), and the photographer was using an older Nikon which was somewhere in the 6-7 MP range. I was just visiting my parents who have the photo on their wall. Honestly, it looks great...I would never had said "Oh that is a low resolution image." It looked perfect.
For me it is all about having accessible buttons/dials that make a camera usable for serious work. Cameras have been great since the mid-2000s. Yes, they have advanced in all areas. However, a good ol' 5D or D700 can still take fabulous photos. For many of us the improvements in dynamic range in the last 5 years really doesn't matter, and even those older cameras had pretty fantastic low light performance (not like the "seeing in the dark" abilities currently available). However, the one area where I am envious of new cameras is their AI focusing ability. That blows me away, but since I'm not a nature photographer, I really don't need it. I know some are thinking "you need it for sport too." However, the only sports that I shoot are my wife running races, and my my kids playing sports. Believe it or not, I have gotten great shots using old cameras and super-zoom bridge cameras. Not every shot may be in focus, but many are, and they look great. Just my two cents.
I found your video very enlightening. I have several cameras, my biggest is the Nikon D850, and I always find myself grabbing my MFT 20mg GX9. I can't tell the difference on my computer monitor, and carrying a smaller camera around is so much more convenient. Not a pro by the way.
Thank you for the comment, it's much appreciated and I am glad you found it helpful. This is a very good point - knowing what megapixels are needed makes it easy to decide what camera you need for any situation. I am also NOT a pro, more like an enthusiastic amateur.
6mp is enough for me. 2mp was enough for me in the early 2000s. Back then I was amazed when my uncle bought a 5mp camera. But that being said the images from a bigger sensor does look cleaner when I have to edit them or fix the exposure in lightroom.
You have made a highly technical video in absolutely non technical terms. Thank you very much.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for commenting.
I find 20 megapixels is generally excellent for my needs and might actually be overkill.
I have a Sony Rx10iv, a 20mp camera. And it is indeed an excellent camera for my needs.
I take mostly 'street' photos, and am very good at seeing the composition I want from the scene. The problem is that the 'story' I want to capture could have dissolved before I'm near enough to frame it with a prime lens, and using a zoom can often be too slow. I've lost some good shots by just not being quick enough to compose the shot. For this reason alone, my ideal camera would be something like a Leica q3. I could get immersive, close-up street shots on it's 28mm lens, but also capture a more distant scene or a situation that I don't want to get too close to for fear of attracting attention/influencing the story by my presence. I'm currently not in a position to upgrade from my 16mp camera so cropping is generally unsatisfactory.
Zone focusing is a GREAT way to take photos much faster on the street. I did a video where I take photos very quickly and you can see how I do it on the streets in this video (link below). The Q series is not really meant to take shots from far away and then crop although of course, if you have to you can ruclips.net/video/wc-0bvSdgGQ/видео.htmlsi=p3l9viH5XcNKqheJ
I take very nice photos on my 11mp ZVE1 (video low light beast). I just use them on social media, don’t crop heavily and cannot see any reduction in quality compared to say the A7Cii. I put some photos showing the quality in a video. There’s lots of comparison videos on RUclips. Sure if you want huge crops etc it’s not as good, and it’s got no mechanical shutter but I never use a flash anyway.
The camera has outrageous dynamic range and unbelievable noise in low light also. The sensor is still the best video sensor on the market IMO, they even filmed ‘The Creator’ with that sensor.
Thanks for sharing. Glad to hear you're getting great results with just 11MP.
I stopped worrying about megapixels in 2004/2005 when I was in a camera store looking at a Nikon D40 and he had his own poster sized image on the wall behind him with that camera that was 5 million megapixels. After that I just picked a camera I liked and couldn’t care less about megapixels.
You're clearly one of the smarter ones.The obsession with higher and higher megapixels is getting out of hand. Not necessarily the manufacturers who need to attract people to buy their brand, but the customers who think they need that kind of resolution. Appreciate the comment, thank you.
My first digital camera was the awesome Nikon 1Dh at 2.7mp I have and use many digital cameras these days the highest count being the Q2 with 48mp. Most of my work is for newspapers and RUclips content so imho 48mp is total overkill for me. I love the Q2 with its weather sealing but I’d be happy with the 24mp in the Q1 it’s plenty for my needs. Great video Peter cheers.
Thanks for the comment Paul. I’m on holiday in Italy right now. I have about 36GB left on my laptop hard drive. Today is day one of 7 and I’ve taken about 14GB of photos. So clearly I’m not going to have enough space to last the trip. If the Q2 had a 24MP sensor I would be fine. I mean it’s not a big deal I’ll delete poor shots and save some to a cloud drive but it’s not as convenient having such a big sensor pixel count.
@@StreetPhotographyChina or buy an external HD mate that's what I had to do haha. Enjoy Italy.
Megapixels aren't just about making big prints. They're about being able to move backwards and crop in to maintain depth of field
By working with various image dimensions I found that 12 MP is not enough. Then 16 MP... not yet there. But 20 MP (my Sony RX100) or 24 MP (my Fuji) is enough and I am happy. No need for more.
IMO, even for cropping, 50MP should be enough, so using an APS-C lens on a full frame sensor would still give enough resolution. Cropping more, the quality of the optics will be a larger factor than sensor resolution.
Toss in lens quality as a variable. Do you have lenses that resolve well enough to fully utilize a 60mp sensor? Will your 'budget' lenses need to be upgraded as well? Bring $$.
PS thank you! I just stopped worrying about megapixels as a factor in my next camera purchase. There area lot of (relative) bargains inthe24 mp range now.
I do think 24MP is a nice sweet spot, allowing a reasonable amount of cropping if needed (and hopefully it usually isn't needed) and not having to spend a fortune on file storage and SD cards. Lens quality is also a factor a lot of people don't think about when going for high megapixels, so that's also a great point you raised.
Very well explained! 👍 While I have enjoyed 102MP as well, there are also other advantages to bigger lenses etc - but in general I am quite happy with my 26MP Fuji XH2S😊
Thanks for sharing
I'm a fashion and beauty photographer, and high pixel count makes retouching easier, if you have good lenses. Or you go the other way and use old lenses, grain and low pixel cameras for a more artistic look
Thanks for commenting. Yes, if you do a lot of retouching, more pixels can be beneficial. You're also clearly a pro so you know what you need. I think it's more the enthusiasts that get caught up in marketing hype and end up with way more than they really require for most cases.
Someday your genre will be obsolete because of AI
@@LetsBHonest someday people will appreciate "real photography" and "real creativity" over "just another image" 😉
@@webersteve1547 Oh I agree with you but Fashion in terms of clothing will be much cheaper for clothing companies to use AI and beauty companies (makeup hair etc.) the same. With the economy the way it is. businesses are struggling and will continue to get worse, what choices will companies make in terms of cutting costs? Hire a photographer and models for thousands or use AI for hundreds.
My old Nikon D70 at 6 meg makes really nice 8x10.
I think what we should remember the PC you'll need to edit the higher mp's
I will never refuse higher megapixels, but anything over 10MPX is usable . Depends on many things. How much you need to crop, the medium to display the image on, and the rest you mentioned. A high mpx image can always be downsampled to reduce noise etc, so you don’t really gain anything by having a lower resolution sensor. But when you do need the high resolution…
That's fair enough, but if it's only occasionally you need to make use of the higher megapixel count then you could probably save some money, buy a lower megapixel camera and use the savings to buy some other accessories, or for printing costs. Of course if you have an abundance of funds, that's great!
@@StreetPhotographyChina That's ridiculous. If I buy a low megapixels camera, I am forever crippled.
@@oneeyedphotographerI wouldn't call 20mp crippling. I've taken good bird photos on a 12mp camera, just need to frame things properly and use your zoom and get closer to the action.
Shooting subjects like this gentleman suggests is the smartest way to get the most from you camera's sensor. I shoot the Sony a6700 with a 26mp sensor. It is sensational and produces great images. I just started shooting my new camera, the Sony ZV-E1 with a 12mp sensor. I had an absolute ball with that camera. I shoot like a journalist (I was one years ago), getting as much of the subject on the sensor. That's a trick everyone should employ. You won't need anything bigger than a 24/26mp sensor. But the images were beautiful on the ZV-E1. Focusing was spot on, videos were fantastic. I'm sure I can easily make an 11x14 or larger print with no degradation with images from that camera. From sunflowers to my granddaughter's birthday part, the images all came out great. Sure, cropping and blowing up those images will show signs of losing sharpness, but that is when you look at a print inches away from your eyes. I am going to use that ZV-E1 more and more. May become my favorite camera. And look, don't need to spend all that money for an overprices Leica sporting a Sony sensor. Sony is in many cameras, you just don't know it.
Thanks for sharing. The ZV-E1 looks like a great camera, full frame sensor, so you aren't packing too many pixels into a small space and you can change lenses. I am using the ZV-1 for my videos, not stills, it is MUCH cheaper but has a fixed zoom lens and isn't full frame, but makes great video footage (well, good enough for RUclips at least. Always good to see someone as obviously satisfied as you are with their kit. You can focus on capturing great pictures instead of what camera to buy next!
For normal photography 24 mp is quite enough. But since I shoot wildlife and aircraft it comes in very handy to crop them. I can crop my Z9´s images much more then my Z6´s images. I could buy bigger lenses but they are very expensive and heavy. So 40-60 mp works nice for me:-)
I think wildlife is definitely an area of photography where cropping is much more often needed, no matter how long a lens you have, you can't guarantee it will be enough.
And also if you definitely need more resolution for printing, nowadays there is very powerful AI upscaling software which can do it amazingly.
Yes indeed. I didn't want to complicate the video by covering that aspect but AI these days can do anything. Thanks for commenting.
I have D850 set to 24mp and that's perfect setup for image quality and cropping if needed
Thanks, yes, I feel 24MP is really a nice sweet spot to aim for.
Great video. I have a mix of various MP cameras up to 40mp, but truly enjoy my 12mp Nikon D700. I have done 20x30 prints and they are great. Years ago many photogs did billboard prints at 8mp. As the video says, viewing distance is different. It's still all about light, composition, and sometimes timing.
Yes, it's funny how it was perfectly okay then but now suddenly we 'need' more. Perhaps my view is skewed by the fact I have been without income for some time and it has made me realise how much you can make do with what you have, and not just with cameras.
@@StreetPhotographyChina I agree. Plus all of a sudden, every year or so newer cameras appear that we just have to buy. It's insane.
as someone who went all away from 2mp and up, Id say 2mp tree branches break, 3mp still but better, 6mp good enough, 12mp nice, 24 can crop, more... get sharp lenses
My first "serious" digital camera was the 2002 6MP Canon D60 (yes D first) I have used this to print many A3+ (13 x19) prints that are perfect for normal wall mounted photos (some of these images have even cropped down to 3 or 4 MP). these days I own a couple of high end Canons (DRSLR and Mirrorless) and reality I'm not seeing any quality difference between my 30MP DSLR and my 24MP Mirrorless R6 and R8, hell I'm still using and pulling images off of 16MP 10 year old MFT cameras (G5 and GX7) that. give prints as good as these 24 and 30 MP Canons if used within (or even exploiting) their limitations - .... I'm sure that for certain photographers in fashion/portraiture/landscape work 60+ MP gives a genuine advantage, just I'm not one of those and I'm not even interested in to moving in to that resolution despite having hardware to handle it (Apple Studio Ultra SSD RAID etc)
72 ppi for screen will do the job 300 ppi for print is better (the more pixels in the photo the better for print. Dpi is the inkt dots on your paper
TV's are the same. 4K from regular viewing distance is not noticeable until you get to a 200" TV. Pixel size, light output, color reproduction and contrast makes a TV better. Not the number of dots that no one can see. Only reason one can say that 4k looks better is because youtube has the worst bitrate for 1080p content. Bitrate matters on streaming.
This. I'd take a 1080p OLED over a bargain bin 4k monitor that looks like trash.
not true. even a crappy crt is good enough at normal viewing distance if the content you watch is in 320p. It all depends on the content you watch.
Some large printed pictures are viewed at close distances... like a gathering of people, say in a group photo of school students. Would you not agree, that more pixels would be required for that situation?
Yes, of course. Also landscapes with a lot of detail. I personally rarely shoot and then print large group photos myself although I’m sure some people do.
Good advice. For me about 20mp is ideal and I do not do video so am able to buy used pro level gear at great prices and spend the extra on good glass.
Indeed. Unless you're wealthy, it's important to allocate the gear budget appropriately and a decent lens can and does impact image quality not just pixel count.
More pixels also over more room for noise reduction, the issue is not to do with individual cmos cell size but the effective coverage they have and any weird noise that might happen as you move away from classical physics. The reason for poor lowlite performyof phones has more to do with their tiny apature and total sensor size then the size of their individual CMOS cells.
Very good advice! Today I was reminding myself how one of my cameras works and was trying different megapixel settings. When viewed in my PC monitor there really wasn't a significant problem when I reduced the size right down to 4MP.
Thank you. Yes, indeed, if viewing on a monitor / screen, 4MP is a pretty decent amount unless you have a 4K monitor which is around 8.2 million pixels.
@@StreetPhotographyChina sadly I don't have a 4k monitor because I spent all my money on cameras 😁
@@Ozpeter I thinl that's the smart move. My next video could be "How much resolution do you need on your monitor - it's less than you think". I have a regular 1080p monitor, don't think I will ever need 4K either.
@@StreetPhotographyChina
I've a 60" 1080p plasma TV and it looks great, for that size I could see 4k being better, but I mean, it's a 60" diagonal print equivalent and only 2mp instead of 8mp, that's huge for a print of those resolutions and yet it would still look good. My 12mp 5D looks great when you frame things right, and my R6 with 20 is almost too many.
Very interesting and true ! I have a Canon R6 which is 'only' 20 Mp but I love it ! The biggest prints I make are 60 x 90 cm and I don't have them printed out that often, maybe 1 a year.
How are the 60 x 90cm prints? That's a really great endorsement for not needing 60MP. I've never printed that large, but now I think I might have a go.
@@StreetPhotographyChina The are great ! And even with my old 1DIII (12 Mp) I didn't see any pixels on a 60 x 90 cm print. And not even noise at iso 3200 ! A print is different from pixelpeeping on your computer !
I shot headshots for a client advertisement that was going up on a billboard. I shot it with a Sony A7IV (33 Megapixels). It was a job for a client and advertising agency, although I didn’t need the 61 MP of the A7RV, I would not have been comfortable with fewer than 33 MP for that job.
Thanks for sharing. You're doing professional works so I think that's fair enough. I think it's when amateurs and enthusiasts claim to NEED 60MP that it can sometimes raise an eyebrow.
@@StreetPhotographyChina I agree. These manufacturers have all of these influencers selling the fact that newer, more and bigger is better. They make hobbyist and amateurs feel as though some high end features designed with a specific purpose and workflow in mind are necessary for any and everyone.
Since the majority of photos are viewed on a screen these days, Megapixels are actually almost irrelevant. Megapixels don't compensate for a poor image, whether due to lens, settings, or composition and story.
Back in the day. I was always disappointed in my 35mm film images. I wasn't into developing myself. I was at the mercy of the local print shop! My uncle who did his own developing could turn a meh photo into a stunner. These days, software has eliminated that frustration entirely for me. However, no-one wants to flip through physical albums of photos anymore nor buy a print to hang on their wall. It's all digital. Any photo on a phone can look pretty good!
I do print a few for my own wall decor and don't worry about the pixels, even though I am a pixel peeper! 😊
Thanks for sharing. Yes, the majority of digital images are never printed and only viewed on a smartphone, tablet or a monitor. Of course, some people do print their work and in certain situations, a higher megapixel count can be an advantage.
That's not true. If you're making product photographs and need to carry the depth of field you have the ability to pull the camera back and crop in to achieve a sharp subject front to back. Say a car at 3/4
I’ve recently sold my Sony a7iv and lens collection because I was loaned a Fuji X-T1 with the 16mm F1.4.
Thanks for the informative video, I believe cameras, phones, computers etc are all just drip-fed technology that's carefully marketed to us to not only believe we always 'need' more, but of course, to make us want it. Otherwise we wouldn't buy next years model.
Yes, I think that's precisely what marketing is meant to do, the issue is whether or not we are influenced by it. I think Apple's iPhone is a good example. The pro models have 120hz screen refresh rates while my humble basic iPhone only has 60hz. I can honestly say I have never sat in front of my phone thinking "damn, I wish I had twice the refresh rate". Thanks for sharing, appreciate the comment.
It's not how many I need, it's about how many I want 😂. Also sometimes when you less expect it, it'll come handy. Specially if you shoot action or wildlife and might have to crop and have no time to compose.
Yes indeed. If you want 60MP then of course go for it. And yes, some types of photography are more likely to require cropping for sure and would benefit from more pixels.
I used to shoot with the Sony A7Riv. It’s overkill for most people. Unless you mega pixel peep it’s near impossible to tell the difference. I’m with Fujifilm X T5 and X H2s with 0 regrets. Can’t tell between 40 and 26 either lol.
Thanks for sharing. Did you find managing the Sony A7Riv files difficult in terms of time to process and download as well as finding storage space? My 85MB Leica Q2 files have meant I needed to buy a lot more hard discs. Glad you're enjoying the more modest megapixel camera. I think that's the main point - you can get great results without a huge megapixel sensor.
Very Informative, Thank you. Cleared up some misconceptions I had. Cheers from Australia.
Glad it helped, appreciate the comment. Don't get many Aussies on this channel, so it's great to have you.
10 Megapixels is decent value for an A4 or A3 print, so if you have around 15 megapixels so you can crop the edges, it's a solid outcome.
Higher megapixels are only useful if you crop, but they require ever bigger computer capacities.
As a professional photographer in the 2010s, I used a 12 Megapixel Nikon D300. We enlarged these images to 90x60 cm (23x35 inch) every day on an Epson 7600 printer. The resolution, even close up, was superb. No pixel in sight anywhere.
There is a physical limit to pixel size on the sensor. Higher pixel numbers are obtained by interpolation, which means subdividing one pixel into 4, 16 or more. You are not physically registering pixels any more. The camera software is inventing them on the spot.
Yes, there's really a limit to how many pixels can fit on a sensor before it starts to have negative impact on the image quality, which is why there are 100MP medium format cameras. Thanks for commenting, I appreciate it.
Very true. I am still using my D300s today. I also have a fullframe D610. Besides the difference in colours there is not much difference when printed. However, I did notice a difference when viewed on large ultra resolution 27 in ch monitor. At first this disturbed me a bit but then I realized photography is not about pixel peeping but printing.
@@StreetPhotographyChina I saw a video today where a D700 and Z8 were compared. The D700 stood up pretty well in raw, but raw or JPEG, the Z8 was better
Sometimes a tight crop in edit to get closer to a subject isn't as interesting as a wider shot, which can tell a more intriguing story. I always think a photo needs to portray a story. I hate posts of 20+ snapshots of just places.
At car shows, for example, I'll rarely take a photo of a whole car, or a row of cars. It'll be an emblem or a detail, taken physically close to the vehicle.
If you want close, get close, or use a long lens IMHO over a higher Megapixel camera
@@AllenReinecke "or use a long lens IMHO over a higher Megapixel camera" The cost of a good telephoto lens is typically much more than the cost of a camera with more megapixels. Many subjects can be skittish if you get too close. In such cases, cropping is the best answer - and to do that well a higher megapixel camera is very useful.
"I always think a photo needs to portray a story. "
That's a subjective matter. To me a 'story' is irrelevant. So a 'get closer to a subject' is just as interesting as a 'wider' shot - again, purely subjective.
Learned a lot from this so thabk you!
Thanks, appreciate the feedback.
…brilliant explanation, well done, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for commenting.
Jesus Christ the video I have been looking for, years now, thank u so much!
Glad I could help!
Still use a 5d mark 1. Good enough for most work. I miss the low light capabilities, but my pixel 6 phone makes up for it. Bought all of this used.
Indeed, the original 5D, sometimes now referred to as the 5D Classic, is a fantastic camera.
Ironically the 5D has better lowlight. Even 3200 iso is pretty clean on it, the phone cheats by using a really long exposure and combining images. Don't be afraid to crank that 5D to the max!
Grate subject thank you even replies , very useful.
Glad it was helpful!
The current iPhone having 48 MP and the Leica Q3 having above 60 MP have more or less the same reason: Being able to crop in to compensate for the lack of real "normal" lenses (they use wide-angle lenses as their "standard"). For cameras with interchangeable lenses or "universal" zoom lenses, around 24 MP is just fine. I had a Leica M9 and was quite happy with its 18 MP, but I would consider this the "low end". I would rather go after 24 or 25 MP.
I do think 24MP is the sweet spot, that's why I put that in the thumbnail (24mp vs 60mp). I do envy you, I would love to have a Leica M camera. Maybe one day. What lens did you usually shoot with? The Leica Q2 is fantastic but 28mm is sometimes a little wide.
@@StreetPhotographyChina No longer have a digital Leica (by now only a Leica IIIf is left, with some old screw-mount lenses), and not enough money for a Q3. My preferred lenses where the 50s (Summicron and Summilux), but the "original" Summilux-M 1.4/35 mm was my favorite for its unique look. I don't like 28 mm (I would tolerate it with the Q3 ;-)), even though the current Elmarit-M 2.8/28 is a really good performer.
@@c.augustin Those are some nice lenses. I think it's because I have been "stuck" with the 28mm that I long for something less wide, so maybe I am overcompensating but a 50mm 'cron' or Summilux would be what I would want first. Perhaps one day, if this channel ever becomes popular, LOL!
@@StreetPhotographyChina The 50 'cron (the non-apo, still sold version IV) would be my recommendation - good value for money, incredibly sharp, very reliable. I had one, a friend of mine still has it on his Leica M11 Monochrome (yes, he's that crazy ;-)), and the results are just gorgeous. The 50 'lux has its qualities, but I found it a bit heavy and bulky (for an M lens, that is ;-)). The 'cron it would be, maybe older versions (had the dual-range one, also very nice rendering, but overall less versatile than v4).
@@c.augustin Thank you. Back in the 80s I bought 2 CDs before I bought a CD player because I knew I would get one. I sometimes see Leica M lenses online for great prices and often thought I should get one, even though I don't have a body. Because one day .... Appreciate your advice on the 'cron' I will keep my eyes out for a reasonably priced copy.
6 mega pixels is good enough to print A3 format
It's been a loOOong time since I watched a video from start to finish. It was worth my time.
I need ALL the MP's I can get! 75-100 would work!
Very interesting and helpful 👍👍 But I really do love my Leica M11!!
Trust me if money wasn’t an issue, I would be an M11 owner as well.
4-8MP is enough
Its about lens and your settings that creates sharp images
I find that 24 Megapixels is the sweet spot for me. I can crop it a bit and still get good pictures.
Yes for sure, with 24MP you are very well covered for 99% of situations. Thanks for commenting.
Another thing about 24MP that no one seems to talk about is the noise level at the same higher ISO is typically noticeably better than the higher MP count sensors. IMO, the main advantage of the very high MP count images is for cropping.
I made a few 16x20 and 20x30 prints from a 12MP Nikon D90, but no cropping. The quality of the prints are good. The results backup what the author of this video says.
@@ukyo2010 really? The noise level is better? With cameras like the 12mp A7SIII and the 60mp A7RIV, same sensor tech and size. The higher resolution sensor is still more detailed at high iso and when scaled down to 12mp just as noisy/clean as the 12mp camera.
@@OttoLPIf you do take advantage of the cropping, it ends up being worse in practice, like bird photos with 50mp vs 20mp cropped in absolutely far, the 50mp would be worse, but if you photograph correctly and don't need to crop a lot by using longer lenses and getting closer, they're the same.
@mikafoxx2717 yeah, that's the exact problem. A longer and still fast enough lens is 4x the price of a 50mp camera. And you're obviously already ad close as you can get....
The only difference you get with a lower res sensor is that you lose the option to crop, you gain nothing.
Excellent video, totally agree.
Thank you, appreciate the comment.
Great video! Exactly what I was looking for on this topic.
Thank you. Appreciate the comment.
Love your presentation. Thank you for making it real!
You are so welcome! Appreciate the comment.
Higher MP arent for everybody.
If people want or need, they get them.
Its like people who drive a prius
It does a job very basically with no frills,no excitement..fitting owners personalities.
Then you have the rest of the world who like driving and demand more from a car..and life in general
If you intend to view your pics on a modern 4K TV, you need 9.8 mega pixels. You can round this out to 10 MP. 2 times this gives you enough room to crop/zoom. Which implies that 20mp is probably more than sufficient.
One could argue that to view on an 8K screen you would need 4 times these many pixels. But let's be honest, most of us are never going to use an 8K screen at the right size or the right distance as amateurs/enthusiasts. 8K TVs may become cheaper and mainstream but for home use, you will never be able to see the difference betweek 4k and 8K on these screens.
We need larger pixels or pixels with a great dynamic range because we definitely can make out the difference on an HDR screen. As HDR and WCG displays become more ubiquitous, capturing, processing and displaying wide dynamic range and colour gamuts may become more important. Bigger pixels might be more useful there.
What do we want? Bigger pixels. When do we want it? NOW! Yes, great point, which I hope I touched on. More pixels means smaller pixels and there are benefits to having bigger pixels instead of just more, more, more. Appreciate the comment, thank you.
I found this video very useful but realising I may have made an error in my choice of camera. I have a Nikon D3 with 12.8mp sensor. I plan on printing on A3+ paper size on a Canon Prograf 300 printer. What is your opinion of my set up? Thanks a million
My understanding is that at 300dpi, you would need a resolution of 4900 x 3500 which is 17MP. However, maybe you could print at a lower DPI and see if the image is okay, although at 270dpi I think you still need around 14MP. But try it and see. You may find it is fine for you.
For prints… you can’t get enough megapixels - BUT !!! The pixel count needs to be inline with the sensor size, otherwise it’s a waste of- 8-12 megapixels on a tony phone sensor is more than enough, but far too little on a medium format sensor (much bigger than full frame sensors)
Yes I probably should have mentioned that I was assuming a standard full frame 35mm sensor. Medium format of course is a different situation.
@@StreetPhotographyChina don’t worry - a lot of photographers don’t know the tech of their cameras any ways - they just do as they always have before, or rely on a technician to make purchase decisions for them
The mega pixel race has been stagnant for years the D600 came out at 24MP and most still hover around there. The S series from Panasonic the Z5 and Z6 the R3 the R6ii R8 are still 24MP most cameras have been focusing on video features and mot photography. The higher end cameras got higher MP. But the midrange should be alot higher about 50MP
Yes, video has become very important. My original Canon 5D didn't even have video capability.
How did you get such a clear photo in broad daylight. Do you mostly shoot in raw or just go straight jpeg
I use a Godox AD200Pro flash. It makes a big difference to image quality but it is sometimes inconvenient to carry around. I ALWAYS shoot RAW for digital although if you watch my channel often you will know I also shoot a lot of street portraits using film. Shooting RAW makes it much easier to brighten images if needed.
Nicely explained- thank you.
Glad you liked it. Appreciate the comment.
24MP is good enough for normal using. You can ask yourself, how many large prints will you do and how many pictures will you crop?
In around 40 years of taking photos I don't think I have ever printed larger than 16 x 20 inches for a friend's portrait. And that was really a once off 36 years ago. I suspect the majority of people would be the same, unless they're pros.
Very informative and interesting.
Glad you enjoyed it
On my wall I have photos taken with Fujifilm X-T2 what is 24 mpix. Still, those prints are taken from JPGs what was only 6 Mpix and the quality on A3 sized prints are excellent. Also the bigger the picture the further the viewing distance, so yeah, on paper bigger than 6 Mpix is quite useless to me.
Nowadays I also move many of my Canon R50 photos wirelessly to my iPhone and those are only 1 Mpix sized and 99 % of times that is more than enough in average usage.
By average usage I mean that I can share those easily to my friends who anyway watch those on mobile devices. Also I can print 10x15 cm photos (4"x6" in USA I think) with good quality and most of the times I print only Instax Mini photos where 1 Mpix is much more than what is needed.
Of course I store my original photos to memory card on full size and then save those sometimes to my computer, but in all realism, 99 % of my use cases those 1 Mpix smaller photos are more than suitable in almost everything. To blog, to social media, to prints, to share to others :)
I am too used to 36mp and above. 24mp is not detailed enough for me.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. May I ask what type of photography you do and what are the limitations you are experiencing with 24MP that you aren't happy with?
My knowledge about resolution is minimal. Can anyone answer a question I have? On my Samsung phone, in the phone editing section, it asks whether you would like to increase the resolution. If I choose 'Yes' the image appears to be less sharp. I always choose 'No' as the picture is better whenkept at the original (Lower) resolution.
24mp enough until 8k monitors and video becomes the norm.
We can barely get half adequate bitrate for 4k on RUclips or such anyways, so I'm not holding my breath on 8K besides maybe future IMAX projectors. At the proper angle of view, 4k is already as much as we can perceive for image detail. Prints you might look up closer, but even so.
Happy with my 20M Olympus EM1X 👍
Good Job.
Many many thanks
Nice video I actually learned something
Thank you. What part did you find useful?
I enjoy challenging limitations, like using VGA webcams for studio photography-it's all fun. But you are wrong. If 15x10cm print requires 2MP image that doesn't mean that 2MP camera is enough. The problem is that digital cameras HAVE NO REAL COLOR PIXELS. That's why for the best quality, we need as many megapixels as possible - the more, the better. Yes, when it comes to print or web-sharing size, you don't need as many. You usually downscale. But if you compare, you would see that a downscale from 24MP to 3MP is much better in quality than a 3MP camera shot. A 12MP to 3MP downscale is also fine. We don't look for 24MP or 12MP full of details; we usually look for at least 2-4MP of details without compromise and digital ugliness. I'll repeat, this is very important: digital cameras HAVE NO REAL COLOR PIXELS. It's all a Bayer matrix: a 12MP camera has 3MP red pixels, 3MP blue pixels, and 6MP green pixels, all arranged in a grid pattern. Greens are denser (having diagonal green neighbors), while reds and blues have no same-color neighbors at all! Just think about it. Monochrome sensors are good in that regard, their pixels are real. Although arranged in a regular grid, they suffer more from moiré compared to analog medium (film). But for color, there's no perfect solution. Debayering algorithms differ, and there's no ideal debayering algorithm that would restore 12MP worth of details without artifacts. As I've said, there are huge gaps around red and blue pixels, and there's no information about the color of these missing pixels. For greens, it's the same-every second green pixel is missing. Available pixels get interpolated, but that doesn't mean we get a real 12MP result from a 12MP Bayer matrix. Instead, we get weird patterns and noise, known as debayering artifacts.
To diminish debayering artifacts and reduce digital noise (each pixel itself is noisy but when we average we get less noise overall), it's helpful to have more megapixels. There's a diffraction limit, of course, so a very small sensor can't have too many pixels.
By the way, not every lab can reproduce 300ppi with their equipment. They'd ask for 300ppi files but from my experience, result is often more comparable to 220ppi, which is enough for viewing a print while holding it in your hands.
TL;DR: Downscaling is always better in terms of quality than using a 1:1 size. The reason is that 1:1 pixels are not real-just a debayered noisy mess. Also if your lens is sharp enough and you have lots of megapixels, you are free to crop more. For smartphones and their typically wide lenses, cropping is a great way to improve the visual quality of the image especially portraits (because wide-angle face close-ups aren't very appealing).