Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Just had a brief discussion in another topic – but wished to avoid Hijacking.

This was about the difference in detail between images shot with an R5 (45mpx) and a D5mklV (30mpx).
My cameras are M4/3 – a 16mpx and a 20mpx. As a one-time SOOC aficianado I still try to avoid the need for too much PP. When viewing pics on my Toshiba laptop or printing up to A4 on my Canon three-in-one I am not aware of any difference in detail, likewise when I occasionally have 16 x 20s printed by Whitewall.

So if there is a difference in detail evidenced between 30mpx and 45mpx – or, say, 20mpx and 24mpx - is this likely to be down to the cameras, or to the lenses, or camera / lens settings? would any difference be gained or lost due to the quality of viewing screens or to the printers or to the printer papers? Or to all of these possibilities together?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Yes all impact detail to some degree and improvements by one combination can be negated by another. And don't forget the algorithms of social media and websites.

Guzser02

Greetings from Puerto Rico.
I would suggest that the glass on any camera AND the sensor size/sensitivity play a critical part in image-making when it comes to either detail (small, medium or large), texture as they both relate to structure.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

I've always thought it depends on what you display them on. Anything bigger than 4,000 x 2,000 pixels (8mp) is going to be 'manipulated' if displayed on an HDTV screen.

When mp's come into play is when you only show part of the shot. I'm very late into 'new' TV's - only took the old CRT to the dump on Thursday (still worked better than Mrs. N's eyes - so it had to go).
I'll be able to find out if I am right soon.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I was told early on in the digital craze that there is no regulation as to pixel size. A manufacturer cam make the pixels really tiny so as to brag they have more than the competition. But if the sensor size is the same, a 16 MP camera can produce just as much quality as a 24 MP one. Unless things have changed, wouldn't this still be true?

ELNikkor

16x20's are no challenge to well-exposed, composed, focused micro 4/3rds, much less screens, unless zoomed way in. For my photo use, large pixels are more desirable than many pixels. The D750 with "only 24", is more than enough.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Although this post was identified as a 'Sony vs Canon' comparison of similar images and subjects, it also could be presented as a 24MP vs 22MP. Or, manual focus vs AF. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-651545-1.html

The images above are processed and cropped to be similar, then exported to the same pixel resolution of 2048px on the long side. That final LR export will give the posted file the identical pixel resolution. What I experience in the differences of these two cameras is slightly more cropping ability from the larger 24MP, most evident when shooting distant wildlife. I don't see differences in the details, beyond slight differences between the lenses, not the cameras.

I don't have any higher resolution cameras. But, being a Canon shooter, I review posted Canon images in detail. I can 'see' the resolution differences in the details of 30MP EOS 5DIV images with the same lenses as I shoot on my 22MP EOS 3DIII. There's minor, but still evident in processed and posted examples online. I can 'see' the difference too in the posted examples of 45MP EOS R5 examples, especially when coupled with overall sharper RF lenses.

Printing is easier to see, actually, especially for larger prints. Consider a 20x30in print. The typical 24MP camera can take an uncropped image and print at a resolution of 200 pixels per inch on the 20-inch side. Take a 16MP camera like the Nikon Df. That camera has 3280px on the short side for 164ppi print resolution at 20-inches. The 45MP camera like the EOS R5 will achieve 273ppi when the 5464-pixels are printed to 20-inches. You can stand back to a viewing difference and not see much / any difference, but up close nose-to-print, the higher PPI will show as more detailed.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Put more specifically, pixels don't matter as long as you have more than enough, but as soon as things start to get tight, a low pixel count will show its limitations sooner than a high pixel count. Cropping and wanting to make large prints are the two most common reasons for running out of pixels.

Actually that's not the whole truth. A higher pixel count will do a better job of providing microdetail, but microdetail is the sort of thing that you won't miss unless you're seeing side-by-side comparisons. Seen alone, a picture with a low level of microdetail (but otherwise good IQ) won't come across as being a poor quality image. When compared to a picture that has a high level of microdetail, the differences would be noticeable, but it's often the case that pixel-peeping would be necessary before the differences would be considered significant (i.e. highly noticeable). The good news is that NVD stands for normal viewing distance.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

All of the above. It's a weak-link-in-the-chain situation. Each link has to hold the chain together. But with modern cameras and images/prints appropriately viewed, resolution/fine detail rendition is typically more than required. Even for very large prints if you're going to view the prints appropriately. The bigger the print gets the further back you should stand to view it.

This was true with film as well. Larger 70mm and sheet films recorded much more detail than did 35mm film. Still a 35mm negative/slide could adequately serve to produce a highway billboard. The term pixel-peeper is derisive and meant to identify a problem.

Larger sensors have other advantages that can matter more. SNR is in part a function of sensor size and as such factors into the DR of the sensor. Smaller sensors have lower SNR = more noise = less DR.

Can you sort the two images below? I sized them both to 3400 pixels on the long side (slightly below max resolution for one of them) -- enough to make a very good 16 x 20 print and more than enough for viewing on a typical display. Both used their respective standard zooms with close focus capability (both very good lenses). One of the two sensors is 95% larger than the other and one of the two sensors has 78% more pixel resolution than the other.

(Download)


(Download)

BebuLamar

As for the quality of the viewing screen if you display the the entire image on the screen then unlikely you have a monitor that can display all of the details in your photograph. However, if you only display portion of the image, zoomed in then almost any monitor can show you the differences in details.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Excellent 💜🌈💜🌈💜

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

I've only owned 2 digital cameras -- Canon 5D MkII & Canon 5Ds
Put both on a tripod -- Use the same L grade lens
And
Yes indeed there is a very noticeable difference in detail

Which camera takes a better photo?? -- Well now --- That's all up to ME!!!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have a D810 and a D850. Most of the time, it is not possible to see any difference in the output of the two cameras. There are a few exceptions. For night sky images, there are a few situations where individual stars are resolved better and more clearly by the D850. That's because the actual sensor size and density can make a meaningful difference in tht situation. That would be a similar case to the R5 and D5 IV comparison.

The difference between 16 and 20 Mp is much more subtle. The reason is that even though 24Mp is 20% more than 20 Mp, the difference in the number of sensor sites i each row (or column) differs only by something like 4.5%. That's just not very much, and it doesn't have a huge difference on the visible resolution. And it's why my D500, with just under 21 Mp, gives up absolutely nothing important when compared to an image captured by a 24 Mp sensor. Sure there is a difference, it just doesn't matter. And other differences more than make up for the difference.

User ID

MP is by area but resolution is linear.

45MP is 1.5x 30MP. Therefor the increase in resolution is about 1.2x for a square format and a bit more for a 2:3 rectangle.

So if you shoot nearly identical rigs, except one is 30MP and one is 45, you can stand about 25% further away using 45MP and then crop to get the image size equal to the "lesser" rig's uncropped image.

The end result is two almost identical 30MP same size images, but with a slight difference in perspective. IOW 50% more MP is like having a built-in 1.25x TC.

For biffers, the pupil of the bird's eye is either 8 or 10 pixels depending on which camera was used, 30MP or 45 (same lens). The wing span could be either 6400 pixels or 8000 pixels depending on which camera.

So theres your difference. To some it will matter. Under less than ideal conditions the difference will be less visible (hand holding, high ISO, etc).

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You will see the difference when you crop. Keep in mind that a 45mp image is MUCH larger than a 16 or 20 mp image. Enlarge the image from a 16, 20, 24 or even a 36 mp image to the same size as a 45mp image, and you will see a difference as well.