As a landscape photographer I’ll take all the pixels I can get. I don’t print anything less than 36x24 and larger. A D850 with a couple of Otis lenses work quite nice. I disagree with some of the comments, bill boards are not the same as gallery prints, people stand closer and can see the detail in a large print.
I made my first 4 megapixel photo of my 6 year old son 20 years ago. It printed great! I now own a 20 megapixel Canon R6, and make many beautiful photos effortlessly.
Love it! One thing people always forget to describe is how many megapixels a lens can give a sensor! The highest rated lenses in the world range in the 42 to 47 megapixel range almost always (full frame). There are just a few 35mm camera lenses that rate above this and they are rarely ever used at the sharpest f-stop and lowest ISO. This is the only way you can go above 47 megapixels. This means 99.9% of all the photos taken from 35 mm full frame cameras are in the -30 something range to 40 something range for megapixels. A Sony A7R4 for example is a colossal waste! 60 megapixels. There’s only one lens (The Sony 90 mm macro) maybe two in the world that can give it anything near that resolution! What this means is that megapixels above about 42 to maybe 47 actually produces LOWER quality images for 99% of the photos that people take. Fuji GFX 100 is another example of a colossal waste. They have no lens that you can put on that camera that can supply that sensor 100 megapixels!!!!! Not even close. For the largest sensors like Hasselblad or Phase 80 is probably the high end. Many people who push professional enlargements for world-class galleries know this today. And so many have sold off their overly high megapixel systems for a little bit lower. This is what I do for a living full-time and I have never seen an impressive file from an overly high megapixel camera. At about 5:20 hours I do think you might have missed something. People are printing world class resolution at the largest sizes in history right now. For those folks, we are printing 600 PPI and even 1200 PPI images (not to confused with dpi) at 10 foot regularly. 80 inches, 72 inches, 60 inches, 50 inches, 45 inches, 36 inches… this is where matching your sensor resolution with your lens resolution becomes very critical! And for 35mm cameras the sweet spot is between 42 and 47 megapixels. Unless you’re shooting with one of the aforementioned lenses which almost nobody does. This is where coupling the right resolution of lens with the right resolution of sensor is critical. And it makes a huge difference. And the only way these images can turn out world class is by shooting them at the lowest ISO and the sharpest f-stop and exposing them substantially to the right for maximum quality data. Also avoiding many things that people regularly do in postprocessing like using the Sharpening Slider in Lightroom, or clarity in Lightroom, or texture in Lightroom and some other things. As far as smart phones going to 40 mega pixels etc. that’s just utterly insanity. The amount of megapixels that the lenses can actually feed that sensor are probably down in the 10 to 20 range at the very, very highest. So I love your video.
Great point. All lenses have a maximum resolution they can render and vary greatly between manufacturers. Completely agree that 60mpx on a full frame is a waste as no lens can render that resolution. It’s just marketing hype for people who buy based on numbers.
Thanks for the video! Very helpful! People must know that the quality of the photo it depends on the sensor size, while resolution only matter when you want to print it. Thanks so much!
The best lens is in the world (shots at the very sharpest F stops and lowest ISO) are only giving a 35 mm sensor, at best between 40 and 47 megapixels. Any more megapixels than that actually becomes a detriment to the photo file for sheer detail and enlargement potential for quality. I make world class enlargements under confidential Aliti agreement for the highest and nature photography galleries internationally and I have never seen a 35mm camera over 47 megapixels produce a better product. If I was given the Sony A7R4, I would sell it for the A7R3. In which we can make much better enlargements. Go for quality not quantity.
I appreciate small, fine details. The range 24 - 36 MP for me is right. Whenever possible I shoot RAW to have greater postprocessing capability. It also easily translates to medium sized prints. Whenever tempted to purchase a medium format kit, I always remind myself "how often I print big?"
I upgraded from a Nikon D5300 24mp to a D7500 20 MP camera.The photos from the D7500 are way better in everyway. I can also crop far more with the 20mp files and still have them crystal clear. Also I can shoot in much lower light with higher ISO and still get better photos then the D5300 in brighter light.So more megapixels does not always mean better photos. It depends on the camera, lens as much as anything.
All I can say is Thank for a clear explanation on the subject of megapixels , I shoot with a Nikon d750 and was considering upgrading to the d850 for printing larger prints and clearly don’t see any point at this stage.
Actually the Nikon D850 has one of the highest rated quality sensors Of all 35mm cameras. With the exception of the Panasonic Lumix S1R. If you couple that with Nikon‘s very high-quality glass and use a great F stop you are reaching the maximum quality of detail. Staying between 40 and 47 megapixels. These files can be enlarged to enormous proportions and look fantastical if you have the unique skill sets.
This video is great. Thank you for providing it for us! I shoot at 24MP on a APS-C camera and I find myself zooming in and cropping images a lot and sometimes lose some focus and dynamic range. Would a full frame 30MP camera help me with keeping some of that focus and dynamic range?
the focus is on you when shooting, you can't fix that in post and its not the fault of whatever sensor you have or how many megapixels it has, just get better at choosing the correct focus point or learn to focus stack (when the type of photographs you take allow for it), also get better at your composition so you don't need to crop so much of your image. as for dynamic range, that has nothing to do with megapixel count either. different camera's have different sensors and processors, for more dynamic range you need to see what range the manufacturers quote, these days dynamic range has moved from 12 stops to closer to 15 stops, but the human eye still sees around 20 stops. to get closer to the dynamic range of the human eye you should consider learning how to take proper HDR photo's but there really is no point worrying about it. in terms of display, many LCD screens can display a dynamic range of 1,000:1, while the latest camera CMOS sensors can capture 23,000+:1. however paper reflectance has a range of just 100:1.
This sensor size numbers as you say are not what you get.. Due to imperfect lenses (and no lens is anywhere close to perfect) you will be lucky to get approximately half of the resolution from your sensor and most lower end lens/cameras will get lower than that. Lens quality plays a big role in what you will get as well as other factors.
Absolutely. In fact it’s rare that anyone shoots in the 40 to 47 megapixel range unless they’re using the sharpest lens in the world for their 35mm system, at the sharpest F stop. And there’s only a few lenses that can do that. Otherwise we’re usually shooting in the 20 to 30 something range.
I always go back to using my old Nikon D50 camera only 6mp and always gives me brilliant results, I have higher resolution cameras and two Canon 5Ds mk1 and 2 but unless cropping I'm not worried about the mega pixel count.
Great video. I own the a99 mark 1, 24mp and I use most of minolta´s top lenses plus several top zeiss lenses. I photograph many concerts indoor, often with artificial Light. Classical concerts make for very messy pictures ( music stands, parts of arms and instruments.....) so the I often have to crop. These crops look great (sharpness, contrast, noise etc). Nót because of the nr of pixels (or the lack thereof) but due to the lens quality.
I was shooting with a 28 megapixel camera but some of my 14 and 16 megapixel cameras produced better photo results. I think the issue with very high pixel counts produces pixel clutter in some photos.
Actually, it is a sensor format as well as a mount format. Four Thirds as it was known originally has a sensor size approx 2x crop factor (18 mm × 13.5 mm) when compared to full frame and the sensor has a 4:3 ratio (this is where the name comes from) instead of the typical 2:3 ratio found in other systems. Micro four thirds (MFT) means it's a mirrorless system and the mount format has been adopted by numerous manufacturers like Olympus, Panasonic, and Blackmagic making the lenses interchangeable across multiple manufacturers.
@@JacobthePoshPotato The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube (analogue) of 4/3 inch diameter. So a Four-Thirds (4/3) digital sensor is the same imaging size as the 4/3" tube used in analogue cameras and "Micro" refers to the system being mirrorless. With MFT/Four-Thirds mount, the sensor size is defined by the standard hence a Four-Thirds sensor format.
@@MartyKPhotography Ok thanks for the clarification. This has been a point of confusion for me as many videos talking about Sensor sizes list the standard sizes as Full frame, Cropped, and MFT which implies the only cameras are mirrorless.
What you just explained is absolutely true. I shoot with a 24 MP camera and I can print great-quality photos on 20x30-inch canvas (I am pretty sure I can go up to 40x60, but never tried; after all is still a 100 DPI print). Once just for fun, I tried to compute the resolution needed for a billboard, and including the obvious crop I determined that a 6-8MP camera would be enough for a high-quality image. Also, the space needed (especially for RAW files) and the computing power needed to process an enormous file, should be considered. And what's the point in having a 60 MP camera when the lens resolves at best about 40MP?
So having a Fujifilm xpro1 at 16mp it is perfect for taking a photo and printing it. However moving to the Xh1 at 24mp it has certainly has helped for framing if you need it. Any more Mp I believe you do not really need. If however you are taking photos on your phone the 12mp average is a good resolution. Mostly because you have a 24 focal length equivalent and you can zoom. But now we are getting more camaras on the phone we really should go to 6mp
In my film only days, I calculated that I would need a 36-megapixel digital camera to duplicate the image quality I was getting on my 35mm film camera. My first digital camera was 2.1 megapixels. My second was 5, then 12, then 24.
My current cameras have 26-61 megapixels. Most of my photography is landscapes. I don't think I need more than that. But, I wouldn't be surprised if I own a 100 megapixel camera in the future.
I have a A7R4. It has 61 megapixels. I shoot bird sometimes. The longest lens I own is 500mm. I can shot in crop mode and then I have a 650mm equivalent zoom at 22mp. It’s nice to have that option without having to buy longer glass. I also print huge prints. The megapixels do have an advantage
The problem is that no lens can give your sensor 61 megapixels. If you look at the sharpest lenses in the entire world they land around 40 to 47 megapixels. So you have a larger file that’s actually softer. If you put that same lens on the Sony a 7R3 you would have a much better relationship between the lens and the sensor. And you could actually get equal to better results when cropping. People are very confused about this. The maximum megapixels that can hit the Sony sensor are in the 40 to 47 range not 60. Making enlargements for world-class nature photography galleries full time, the A7R4 actually produces less quality results for enlargements than does the Sony A7R3. In fact the Sony a 7R2, which has a little bit less quality of a sensor than the a7r3, can match the Sony a7R4 head to head with current cutting edges sizing and sharpening protocol. I have many of these tests on my computer. If you want to get maximum sharpness we have to strive for a matching of the sensor resolution with the lens resolution.
Thank you so much ! That was so informative, I want to take product photos for my website. I tried with my iPhone 8 which has 12 mp, but when I crop the image, I considerably lose quality... so I am looking for a cheap camera !
Pixels doesn't have to be smaller. You can also have distance between each pixel. A 20mp crop sensor can have the same size pixels as a 20mp large format sensor, but the large format sensor has greater distance between each pixel.
I have never come across an image sensor that leaves gaps between pixels as it would reduce the quality of the image but if you know of any send me a link ask I would love to have a read about it.
I did product photography withna nikon d5100 with either a kit lens or a tamron lens and it worked great however when i did a model shoot i think the images couldnt really be blown up and were lacking clarity we used lighting maybe i needed to flash but i thinkni did, it didnt compare to my canon friends model photography. So is it the lens glass???the nikon had around 24mp but my. Friends canon was a full frame 30mp i think
I’m just new about learning photography. My first owned mirrorless camera has 16 megapixels and APS-C frame - is that good enough for printing and posting photos online? I was thinking to upgrade my camera but after watching this and learning more about cameras, I still want to use it for the meantime.
Your camera is definitely good enough for printing. Just be aware of print size. As you print larger and view your print from further away, you can reduce the dpi resolution and still have the print look amazing.
The problem... cropping is more or less always a thing especially if you use prime lenses I was pretty shocked as i realized my 26MP full frame camera is "only" 10MP in 1,6x crop mode, where as my old Canon EOS 550D has 18MP on crop directly...
As a guess I would say about 9megapixels to 15megapixels. It gets a bit complex because that depends on the film you use so a low ISO film of 25 would be able to capture more detail than a 800 iso film. When it comes to dynamic range that too is subjective but I would guess about9-16stops as film handles highlights better than digital.
Relatively I have to agree with you in theory, however, I am sure you know better than me that the results are way far from what we think theoretically, I refer you to tonies video on megapixels One the other hand I have noticed with my Sony a7r4 Investing in higher megapixel save you tons of money on other stuff, I, for example, bought the 16 to 35 GM & 70 to 200GM didn't care about the 24-70 I can crop as much as I want megapixels are the cheapest investment. Thank you for the video I have learned a lot from it and would love to see more videos from your channel
You could get even better results by using the Sony a 7R3 and then cropping that and then slightly sizing it up using cutting edge protocol. Literally better quality. The Sony a 7R4 over shot megapixels by at least 13. This creates a larger but softer file.
Good video, however my screen is 5120x1440 (32:9 ratio) and I seat 70cm away from it... I shoot raw but really need to do panorama shooting to have good pictures. the 26M is just large enough and leave very little cropping. I agree that a new technology of sensor is going to be required soon. At least for APS-C to stay relevant (I use Fuji).
For video, 1080p is fine. That’s what all my videos are but you can do them in 4K if you like. With video, it’s not really about megapixels but what format your camera supports. If you’re shooting still to add to a video, thats already covered in my explanation where I talk about displaying your photos on fullHD and 4K screens.
Wife pro has 5 cameras, one full frame but 90 percent on two Olympus pro models. Why I ask? Weight, weight. Weight. She had pictures blew up to poster size.
Hello, excellent review! I have a question. I own the d810 which is 36mp. If I set it to medium size resolution ( it's 22mp if I m right) do the camera use less pixels or the pixels somehow getting bigger to full the size of sensor? Do I gain something by setting it to medium resolution? Like more dynamic range? Thanks
Thank you. I'm glad you liked the video. Setting it to medium resolution will give you smaller files to work with which can help with processing speed depending on the computer you use. If you shoot in burst mode, you can shoot more images before the camera buffer fills up. I shoot with the D850 and only set it to full resolution when doing commercial studio work. All other times I just shoot medium resolution. If you shoot full resolution and downscale in post, you typically end up with sharper images. I'm not sure how Nikon does the scaling on their sensor and if this applies when changing resolution in camera.
You’re a marketeers nightmare; undoing all their hard work and arually ‘educating’ their consumers on the facts 🤣🤣 So over chasing gear. This was really helpful.
Why are there so many of these videos talking about how many MP "YOU" need, telling you what you need. How do these people know what I need? MP is just another photography tool. If needed, it's needed. If not needed, then not needed. There is no rule of thumb saying 12MP or 60MP is enough. Those shooting wildlife, sports, and street photography, etc, the high MP is a vital tool. When I shoot wildlife, even 33MP just does not cut it.
i love my old gfx 50r 51mp, 20mp green recevers20mp red and 10mp blue receiving pixels, so if im taking a picture of a sky with clouds all blue the picture is max 10mp since onley the 10mp blue recivers recorde the blu collors AND NOT THE RED AND GREEAN the red and green pixels cant record blue its impossibel
The red green and blue pixels on your sensor all combine into a single rgb pixel in your image so the resolution doesn’t change with colour. The reason you have more physical pixels of certain colour on the sensor is because it ur eyes perceive different colours differently.
Photograpy is made to be printed. Images are for computer screen. I dont work for computer screen because I am a photograph since i was 16 yo and now I am 71. So your explanation for mega pixel is irrelevant in photography.
I'll never understand why people get so worked up and 'can't wait' for the next 45, 50 or 60MP sensor to arrive. As you ably illustrated, the vast majority of 'togs don't need it. 24MP and 45MP large prints of the same scene, viewed from a normal viewing distance, will be indistinguishable. 12 and 45 would probably yield the same result. Besides, it's not about the resolution; it's about composition, light and interest. Good point about retouching; not something I've considered. I have heard that some fussy (and possibly ill-informed) clients in certain markets insist on very high resolution images. MP = Marketing Ploy. And if you have to crop you have the wrong glass, were standing in the wrong place or didn't plan your shoot.
This is one of the best explained and informative videos I have ever come across. Not just for photography but in general
I’m glad you found this helpful.
Totally agree. Way too few subs on this channel
Thanks. I think you just saved me from wasting a good chunk of money on needless megapixels.
What is important is the dynamic range and the level bit colours your camera can produce.
Exactly! Sadly, many people think more mega pixels are a guarantee of great results without any downsides.
As a landscape photographer I’ll take all the pixels I can get. I don’t print anything less than 36x24 and larger. A D850 with a couple of Otis lenses work quite nice. I disagree with some of the comments, bill boards are not the same as gallery prints, people stand closer and can see the detail in a large print.
I made my first 4 megapixel photo of my 6 year old son 20 years ago. It printed great!
I now own a 20 megapixel Canon R6, and make many beautiful photos effortlessly.
Love it!
One thing people always forget to describe is how many megapixels a lens can give a sensor! The highest rated lenses in the world range in the 42 to 47 megapixel range almost always (full frame). There are just a few 35mm camera lenses that rate above this and they are rarely ever used at the sharpest f-stop and lowest ISO. This is the only way you can go above 47 megapixels. This means 99.9% of all the photos taken from 35 mm full frame cameras are in the -30 something range to 40 something range for megapixels.
A Sony A7R4 for example is a colossal waste! 60 megapixels. There’s only one lens (The Sony 90 mm macro) maybe two in the world that can give it anything near that resolution! What this means is that megapixels above about 42 to maybe 47 actually produces LOWER quality images for 99% of the photos that people take.
Fuji GFX 100 is another example of a colossal waste. They have no lens that you can put on that camera that can supply that sensor 100 megapixels!!!!!
Not even close.
For the largest sensors like Hasselblad or Phase 80 is probably the high end.
Many people who push professional enlargements for world-class galleries know this today. And so many have sold off their overly high megapixel systems for a little bit lower. This is what I do for a living full-time and I have never seen an impressive file from an overly high megapixel camera.
At about 5:20 hours I do think you might have missed something. People are printing world class resolution at the largest sizes in history right now.
For those folks, we are printing 600 PPI and even 1200 PPI images (not to confused with dpi) at 10 foot regularly. 80 inches, 72 inches, 60 inches, 50 inches, 45 inches, 36 inches… this is where matching your sensor resolution with your lens resolution becomes very critical!
And for 35mm cameras the sweet spot is between 42 and 47 megapixels. Unless you’re shooting with one of the aforementioned lenses which almost nobody does.
This is where coupling the right resolution of lens with the right resolution of sensor is critical. And it makes a huge difference. And the only way these images can turn out world class is by shooting them at the lowest ISO and the sharpest f-stop and exposing them substantially to the right for maximum quality data. Also avoiding many things that people regularly do in postprocessing like using the Sharpening Slider in Lightroom, or clarity in Lightroom, or texture in Lightroom and some other things.
As far as smart phones going to 40 mega pixels etc. that’s just utterly insanity. The amount of megapixels that the lenses can actually feed that sensor are probably down in the 10 to 20 range at the very, very highest. So I love your video.
Great point. All lenses have a maximum resolution they can render and vary greatly between manufacturers.
Completely agree that 60mpx on a full frame is a waste as no lens can render that resolution. It’s just marketing hype for people who buy based on numbers.
The is one of the best camera videos online! You have just supported my use of my 12mp Nikon D700 and 16mp Nikon D4!
Thanks for the video! Very helpful! People must know that the quality of the photo it depends on the sensor size, while resolution only matter when you want to print it. Thanks so much!
Very well explained for amateur dudes like me who don't understand all the professionnal giberish. Thank you !
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent explanation! I always wondered why Canon and Nikon flagships have only a modest megapixel count.
The best lens is in the world (shots at the very sharpest F stops and lowest ISO) are only giving a 35 mm sensor, at best between 40 and 47 megapixels. Any more megapixels than that actually becomes a detriment to the photo file for sheer detail and enlargement potential for quality. I make world class enlargements under confidential Aliti agreement for the highest and nature photography galleries internationally and I have never seen a 35mm camera over 47 megapixels produce a better product. If I was given the Sony A7R4, I would sell it for the A7R3. In which we can make much better enlargements. Go for quality not quantity.
Because high pixel counts throttle frame rates and take longer to send to media outlets.
I would have written "modest"....
I honestly don't know how you don't have more subscribers. Your videos are simply amazing.
I appreciate small, fine details. The range 24 - 36 MP for me is right. Whenever possible I shoot RAW to have greater postprocessing capability. It also easily translates to medium sized prints. Whenever tempted to purchase a medium format kit, I always remind myself "how often I print big?"
I upgraded from a Nikon D5300 24mp to a D7500 20 MP camera.The photos from the D7500 are way better in everyway. I can also crop far more with the 20mp files and still have them crystal clear. Also I can shoot in much lower light with higher ISO and still get better photos then the D5300 in brighter light.So more megapixels does not always mean better photos.
It depends on the camera, lens as much as anything.
the best explanation i have seen so far
Thanks
Absolutely first class. Thank you.
I want a 500mp camera or a 10 x 8 field camera.
Low megapixel cameras are not better in low light. This is a misconception brought by viewing images in 1:1 size.
All I can say is Thank for a clear explanation on the subject of megapixels , I shoot with a Nikon d750 and was considering upgrading to the d850 for printing larger prints and clearly don’t see any point at this stage.
Actually the Nikon D850
has one of the highest rated quality sensors Of all 35mm cameras. With the exception of the Panasonic Lumix S1R.
If you couple that with Nikon‘s very high-quality glass and use a great F stop you are reaching the maximum quality of detail.
Staying between 40 and 47 megapixels. These files can be enlarged to enormous proportions and look fantastical if you have the unique skill sets.
Great video!! Simple, straightforward, easy to understand.
This video is great. Thank you for providing it for us! I shoot at 24MP on a APS-C camera and I find myself zooming in and cropping images a lot and sometimes lose some focus and dynamic range. Would a full frame 30MP camera help me with keeping some of that focus and dynamic range?
No
the focus is on you when shooting, you can't fix that in post and its not the fault of whatever sensor you have or how many megapixels it has, just get better at choosing the correct focus point or learn to focus stack (when the type of photographs you take allow for it), also get better at your composition so you don't need to crop so much of your image. as for dynamic range, that has nothing to do with megapixel count either. different camera's have different sensors and processors, for more dynamic range you need to see what range the manufacturers quote, these days dynamic range has moved from 12 stops to closer to 15 stops, but the human eye still sees around 20 stops. to get closer to the dynamic range of the human eye you should consider learning how to take proper HDR photo's but there really is no point worrying about it.
in terms of display, many LCD screens can display a dynamic range of 1,000:1, while the latest camera CMOS sensors can capture 23,000+:1. however paper reflectance has a range of just 100:1.
how do i use older lenses on my new camera,,,please put a video on it too, your explanation is amazing
This sensor size numbers as you say are not what you get.. Due to imperfect lenses (and no lens is anywhere close to perfect) you will be lucky to get approximately half of the resolution from your sensor and most lower end lens/cameras will get lower than that. Lens quality plays a big role in what you will get as well as other factors.
Absolutely. In fact it’s rare that anyone shoots in the 40 to 47 megapixel range unless they’re using the sharpest lens in the world for their 35mm system, at the sharpest F stop. And there’s only a few lenses that can do that. Otherwise we’re usually shooting in the 20 to 30 something range.
I always go back to using my old Nikon D50 camera only 6mp and always gives me brilliant results, I have higher resolution cameras and two Canon 5Ds mk1 and 2 but unless cropping I'm not worried about the mega pixel count.
I like mine! Old, primitive but fun. great colours.
Great video. I own the a99 mark 1, 24mp and I use most of minolta´s top lenses plus several top zeiss lenses. I photograph many concerts indoor, often with artificial Light. Classical concerts make for very messy pictures ( music stands, parts of arms and instruments.....) so the I often have to crop. These crops look great (sharpness, contrast, noise etc). Nót because of the nr of pixels (or the lack thereof) but due to the lens quality.
Brilliant presentation
Thank you
Very well explained video, very nice job !
I really enjoyed this very informative video. No hype, just facts, clearly explained. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it :)
I was shooting with a 28 megapixel camera but some of my 14 and 16 megapixel cameras produced better photo results. I think the issue with very high pixel counts produces pixel clutter in some photos.
Had a Nikon V1 once. 1 inch sensor with only 10 megapixels that gave buttery smooth photos.
Thank you for the clear explanation!
Micro 4/3 is not a sensor format. It is a lens mount format. They really are not interchangable as only the only Micro 4/3 cameraa are mirrorless.
Actually, it is a sensor format as well as a mount format. Four Thirds as it was known originally has a sensor size approx 2x crop factor (18 mm × 13.5 mm) when compared to full frame and the sensor has a 4:3 ratio (this is where the name comes from) instead of the typical 2:3 ratio found in other systems. Micro four thirds (MFT) means it's a mirrorless system and the mount format has been adopted by numerous manufacturers like Olympus, Panasonic, and Blackmagic making the lenses interchangeable across multiple manufacturers.
@@MartyKPhotography Is a MFT sensor different from a 4/3" sensor?
@@JacobthePoshPotato The imaging area of a Four Thirds sensor is equal to that of a video camera tube (analogue) of 4/3 inch diameter.
So a Four-Thirds (4/3) digital sensor is the same imaging size as the 4/3" tube used in analogue cameras and "Micro" refers to the system being mirrorless.
With MFT/Four-Thirds mount, the sensor size is defined by the standard hence a Four-Thirds sensor format.
@@MartyKPhotography Ok thanks for the clarification. This has been a point of confusion for me as many videos talking about Sensor sizes list the standard sizes as Full frame, Cropped, and MFT which implies the only cameras are mirrorless.
Excellent and clear explanations thank you
What you just explained is absolutely true. I shoot with a 24 MP camera and I can print great-quality photos on 20x30-inch canvas (I am pretty sure I can go up to 40x60, but never tried; after all is still a 100 DPI print). Once just for fun, I tried to compute the resolution needed for a billboard, and including the obvious crop I determined that a 6-8MP camera would be enough for a high-quality image. Also, the space needed (especially for RAW files) and the computing power needed to process an enormous file, should be considered. And what's the point in having a 60 MP camera when the lens resolves at best about 40MP?
Thank you so much - this was a really great explanation!
Thank you; great clarification on a largely un clear subject!!!
So having a Fujifilm xpro1 at 16mp it is perfect for taking a photo and printing it. However moving to the Xh1 at 24mp it has certainly has helped for framing if you need it.
Any more Mp I believe you do not really need.
If however you are taking photos on your phone the 12mp average is a good resolution. Mostly because you have a 24 focal length equivalent and you can zoom. But now we are getting more camaras on the phone we really should go to 6mp
So Is 24 MP crop sensor camera is enough for portrait photography and retouching ?
Definitely.
Najbolje si objasnio i svaka cast
In my film only days, I calculated that I would need a 36-megapixel digital camera to duplicate the image quality I was getting on my 35mm film camera.
My first digital camera was 2.1 megapixels. My second was 5, then 12, then 24.
My current cameras have 26-61 megapixels. Most of my photography is landscapes. I don't think I need more than that. But, I wouldn't be surprised if I own a 100 megapixel camera in the future.
8K is 33.2MP. That should be the new minimum size for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.
I have a A7R4. It has 61 megapixels. I shoot bird sometimes. The longest lens I own is 500mm. I can shot in crop mode and then I have a 650mm equivalent zoom at 22mp. It’s nice to have that option without having to buy longer glass.
I also print huge prints. The megapixels do have an advantage
The problem is that no lens can give your sensor 61 megapixels. If you look at the sharpest lenses in the entire world they land around 40 to 47 megapixels. So you have a larger file that’s actually softer. If you put that same lens on the Sony a 7R3 you would have a much better relationship between the lens and the sensor. And you could actually get equal to better results when cropping. People are very confused about this. The maximum megapixels that can hit the Sony sensor are in the 40 to 47 range not 60. Making enlargements for world-class nature photography galleries full time, the A7R4 actually produces less quality results for enlargements than does the Sony A7R3. In fact the Sony a 7R2, which has a little bit less quality of a sensor than the a7r3, can match the Sony a7R4 head to head with current cutting edges sizing and sharpening protocol. I have many of these tests on my computer. If you want to get maximum sharpness we have to strive for a matching of the sensor resolution with the lens resolution.
depends... in cases 4 pixels are enough for expressing graphic art
Thank you so much ! That was so informative, I want to take product photos for my website. I tried with my iPhone 8 which has 12 mp, but when I crop the image, I considerably lose quality... so I am looking for a cheap camera !
Super informative - Thanks so much!!!!!!!
I found the constant hand movement to be distracting, though :)
Appreciate the feedback. Sorry, I normally talk with my hands but will try to not do it so much in future videos :)
Thank you so much for the best explanation ever!👍
Master!! Thank you so much ❤
Pixels doesn't have to be smaller. You can also have distance between each pixel. A 20mp crop sensor can have the same size pixels as a 20mp large format sensor, but the large format sensor has greater distance between each pixel.
I have never come across an image sensor that leaves gaps between pixels as it would reduce the quality of the image but if you know of any send me a link ask I would love to have a read about it.
Great Video Marty. Ill be sharing this one.
Glad you liked it.
Well presented, detailed and easy to understand..i think 12mp is enough😁
I did product photography withna nikon d5100 with either a kit lens or a tamron lens and it worked great however when i did a model shoot i think the images couldnt really be blown up and were lacking clarity we used lighting maybe i needed to flash but i thinkni did, it didnt compare to my canon friends model photography. So is it the lens glass???the nikon had around 24mp but my. Friends canon was a full frame 30mp i think
Super informative, got the answers I needed - thanks.
Great to hear 😊
I’m just new about learning photography. My first owned mirrorless camera has 16 megapixels and APS-C frame - is that good enough for printing and posting photos online? I was thinking to upgrade my camera but after watching this and learning more about cameras, I still want to use it for the meantime.
Your camera is definitely good enough for printing. Just be aware of print size. As you print larger and view your print from further away, you can reduce the dpi resolution and still have the print look amazing.
Exactly what I was looking for! Thank you😭👌🏾👌🏾
Excellent explanation
Great explanation. Thank you
Great summary!
Really, very wonderful video. Very simple and powerful explanation.
very knowledgeble , thank you
Great video .... well explained
Thank you.
I didn't even blink..thnku...nicely explained
Spoken clearly and concisely. Thank you
I love my 8mp EOS 30d!
Thank you very much for information.
You are welcome
I have an EOS 1Ds MkII that has 17 megapixels. Its more than enough for a billboard size image.
This is a really good video!
Thanks. More coming in the new year.
The problem... cropping is more or less always a thing especially if you use prime lenses
I was pretty shocked as i realized my 26MP full frame camera is "only" 10MP in 1,6x crop mode, where as my old Canon EOS 550D has 18MP on crop directly...
That is why you should use crop lenses only as the last resort.
@@okaro6595 considering i also have aps c bodies and use mainly them
how megapixels were film cameras? by comparison in terms of resolution and dynamic range
As a guess I would say about 9megapixels to 15megapixels. It gets a bit complex because that depends on the film you use so a low ISO film of 25 would be able to capture more detail than a 800 iso film. When it comes to dynamic range that too is subjective but I would guess about9-16stops as film handles highlights better than digital.
@@sexysilversurfer cameras are turning into automobiles ... It's still a tool - pictures need to be taken
Great Explanation👍
I shoot very decent photos with a Canon 5D Mkii, 21.1 Mpx. Plenty enough and an absolutely great camera from 2009.
I just press the like 👍 button and subscribe
Because I found it very informative simple and point to point very helpful
Thank you! I really live it
Great... ❤️❤️
So an apsc crop sensor is hundred times better than a smartphone sensor, therefore its not necessary to buy a full frame camera???
Relatively I have to agree with you in theory, however, I am sure you know better than me that the results are way far from what we think theoretically, I refer you to tonies video on megapixels
One the other hand I have noticed with my Sony a7r4 Investing in higher megapixel save you tons of money on other stuff, I, for example, bought the 16 to 35 GM & 70 to 200GM didn't care about the 24-70 I can crop as much as I want megapixels are the cheapest investment.
Thank you for the video I have learned a lot from it and would love to see more videos from your channel
You could get even better results by using the Sony a 7R3 and then cropping that and then slightly sizing it up using cutting edge protocol. Literally better quality. The Sony a 7R4 over shot megapixels by at least 13. This creates a larger but softer file.
Good video, however my screen is 5120x1440 (32:9 ratio) and I seat 70cm away from it... I shoot raw but really need to do panorama shooting to have good pictures. the 26M is just large enough and leave very little cropping. I agree that a new technology of sensor is going to be required soon. At least for APS-C to stay relevant (I use Fuji).
Thanks...
Can you say how many mega pixels do I need to make you tube videos❓
For video, 1080p is fine. That’s what all my videos are but you can do them in 4K if you like. With video, it’s not really about megapixels but what format your camera supports.
If you’re shooting still to add to a video, thats already covered in my explanation where I talk about displaying your photos on fullHD and 4K screens.
You may not need many megapixels, but it is better to have them.
18" x 12" is maybe big in relation to snapshots, but pretty dinky to hang on a wall....
Perfect
Good Info..i was looking for this..
Glad to hear that
Wife pro has 5 cameras, one full frame but 90 percent on two Olympus pro models. Why I ask? Weight, weight. Weight. She had pictures blew up to poster size.
Hello, excellent review! I have a question. I own the d810 which is 36mp. If I set it to medium size resolution ( it's 22mp if I m right) do the camera use less pixels or the pixels somehow getting bigger to full the size of sensor? Do I gain something by setting it to medium resolution? Like more dynamic range?
Thanks
Thank you. I'm glad you liked the video.
Setting it to medium resolution will give you smaller files to work with which can help with processing speed depending on the computer you use. If you shoot in burst mode, you can shoot more images before the camera buffer fills up. I shoot with the D850 and only set it to full resolution when doing commercial studio work. All other times I just shoot medium resolution.
If you shoot full resolution and downscale in post, you typically end up with sharper images. I'm not sure how Nikon does the scaling on their sensor and if this applies when changing resolution in camera.
thanks bunches
do not agree I go close and look at prints.
great
You’re a marketeers nightmare; undoing all their hard work and arually ‘educating’ their consumers on the facts 🤣🤣 So over chasing gear. This was really helpful.
Good to know, so my sony a7 s2 is more than enough
lol. i was always wondering why a camera like p1000 only has 16MP and phone cameras nowadays have more than that. Now, I know. :p
Good info, I guess my Canon 7D is enough for most shoots I do.
I think the 7D is a hidden gem. A fantastic solid fast camera body and get the exposure right the sensor is fine up to about 1600 ISO, SO cheap now.
Why are there so many of these videos talking about how many MP "YOU" need, telling you what you need. How do these people know what I need? MP is just another photography tool. If needed, it's needed. If not needed, then not needed. There is no rule of thumb saying 12MP or 60MP is enough. Those shooting wildlife, sports, and street photography, etc, the high MP is a vital tool. When I shoot wildlife, even 33MP just does not cut it.
i love my old gfx 50r 51mp, 20mp green recevers20mp red and 10mp blue receiving pixels, so if im taking a picture of a sky with clouds all blue the picture is max 10mp since onley the 10mp blue recivers recorde the blu collors AND NOT THE RED AND GREEAN the red and green pixels cant record blue its impossibel
The red green and blue pixels on your sensor all combine into a single rgb pixel in your image so the resolution doesn’t change with colour. The reason you have more physical pixels of certain colour on the sensor is because it ur eyes perceive different colours differently.
Photograpy is made to be printed. Images are for computer screen. I dont work for computer screen because I am a photograph since i was 16 yo and now I am 71. So your explanation for mega pixel is irrelevant in photography.
I'll never understand why people get so worked up and 'can't wait' for the next 45, 50 or 60MP sensor to arrive. As you ably illustrated, the vast majority of 'togs don't need it. 24MP and 45MP large prints of the same scene, viewed from a normal viewing distance, will be indistinguishable. 12 and 45 would probably yield the same result. Besides, it's not about the resolution; it's about composition, light and interest. Good point about retouching; not something I've considered. I have heard that some fussy (and possibly ill-informed) clients in certain markets insist on very high resolution images. MP = Marketing Ploy. And if you have to crop you have the wrong glass, were standing in the wrong place or didn't plan your shoot.
My Samsung phone camera is 50mp and my Olympus camera is 20mp. The phone shots are total garbage while the camera shots are fantastic.
Minimum one gigapixels. :)
One gigapixel minimum. :)
12
I own a 24-megapixel camera, but only set it to 11 megapixels because I only post pictures online.