Value of megapixels in a camera (Page 5): In addition to the replies that point out that the differences become more apparent with larger prints or closer pixel peeping (zooming in), I...

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

In addition to the replies that point out that the differences become more apparent with larger prints or closer pixel peeping (zooming in), I would add that the resolution differences can become mute with older lens designs that may not be able to resolve the image beyond what the 24 MP sensor is capable of thus a higher resolution sensor (i.e.36MP) would make no difference.

petrochemist Loc: UK

Back in the early days of digital, mega pixels were very significant. A 2MP image was likely to be noticeably better than a 1.3MP one.
By the time cameras had reached 6MP it was less of an issue. 6MP can print to A4/10x8 without issue, but moderate crops still showed real advantages to higher resolution.
Today's higher resolution cameras can out resolve many lenses so the extra resolution can be wasted. I find 24MP is quite enough for me & have no desire to go higher.
No doubt I'll still be tempted by new cameras for other reasons, like focusing speed, dynamic range, low light performance... But resolution disappeared from my list of priorities over 5 years ago.

JBRIII

For this use, everything has been covered, but in astronomy, they do discuss things such as bigger pixels (usually fewer, but bigger) have a greater well depth (number of photons which can be counted). This can result in a greater dynamic range, etc. for astro photos.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Rongnongno wrote:

You all can argue all you want. The final use is ... (show quote)

Wrong-no-go is at it again. It’s not a matter of not shooting properly. I was shooting eagles at Conowingo Dam last week. I was shooting with my Olympus E-M1X with a 100–400mm lens and the 1.4x TC. My equivalent focal length was 1120mm. I still had to crop quite a bit. There is nothing I could have done in the way of “shooting correctly” to avoid cropping. Oh and those 6’ prints, are they actually printing those at 300 dpi? I didn’t think so.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I like to print my photos. I could not believe the improvement on my 11x14 photos when I went from my Nikon D40 to the D3100. Same photo processor (Costco), but what a difference in print quality!

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Let us not forget sensor resolution.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

billnikon wrote:

I guess I have not lived yet. Below is an award winning photo of a Great Blue Heron using only a 16 meg. image that was cropped. Nikon D4s, 200-400 f4 Nikon lens.
I guess I have died. woo is me.

You wouldn't worry so much about what others think of your camera if you realized how seldom we do.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

imagemeister wrote:

We need to see a LARGE download - this means NOTHING ......I do not care how many "awards" it has won ......

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

billnikon wrote:

I guess I have not lived yet. Below is an award winning photo of a Great Blue Heron using only a 16 meg. image that was cropped. Nikon D4s, 200-400 f4 Nikon lens.
I guess I have died. woo is me.

Outstanding BIF 🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯

Nickaroo

CHG_CANON wrote:

For your questions, as asked, there's some amount ... (show quote)

This is a pretty good topic as I have found that my Nikon D500 only has 20.9 or 20.1 megapixels. Now, I have an old D750 which sports 24 and change of MP's. I have found that the Lab that I use can get 24 by 30 prints that really look great. Even my D5 can print like that. Now, when I went nuts with my D850, it seemed like I could print a Billboard. And now since I bought the Sony A1, which my Wife still has not realized what I have done, I think that my Sony could produce a print that could cover a Roof of A Stadium. I put it to the test and the print that I just had done as a gift for my Sister to put above her sectional is perfect. I did a Panorama of the Pictured rocks and I had BayPhoto Divide it up, my GOD it is the largest print that I could never have gotten with even my D850. That Sony A1 is one heckuva machine. Oh, and what I did with the Sony to hide from my Wife, I bought na really nice strap for it and stuffed the Sony strap in the box and then shoved the box in the utility room. Now watch, she will get on some cleaning kick and decide that that is the first room to organize.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

joecichjr wrote:

Outstanding BIF 🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯

Many thanks. And it was only a 16 meg camera that took the shot. And cropped. WOW
Again, many thanks

therwol Loc: USA

BurghByrd wrote:

In addition to the replies that point out that the differences become more apparent with larger prints or closer pixel peeping (zooming in), I would add that the resolution differences can become mute with older lens designs that may not be able to resolve the image beyond what the 24 MP sensor is capable of thus a higher resolution sensor (i.e.36MP) would make no difference.

This is true when it's true. From personal experience, older lenses, whether manual focus or autofocus, can vary widely in quality. The sharpest lens I own, and I've used it extensively and can make that statement, is a 55mm f/3.5 Micro that dates to the late 60s. The second sharpest is a 55mm f/2.8 AF Micro that dates to 1987. Admittedly, these two lenses don't have the versatility of a modern zoom lens with VR.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

therwol wrote:

This is true when it's true. From personal experience, older lenses, whether manual focus or autofocus, can vary widely in quality. The sharpest lens I own, and I've used it extensively and can make that statement, is a 55mm f/3.5 Micro that dates to the late 60s. The second sharpest is a 55mm f/2.8 AF Micro that dates to 1987. Admittedly, these two lenses don't have the versatility of a modern zoom lens with VR.

"The sharpest lens I own, and I've used it extensively and can make that statement, is a 55mm f/3.5 Micro that dates to the late 60s."
Yeah, me too.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

jradose wrote:

I have a question concerning megapixels in a camer... (show quote)

At high crops it does.
I have printed 16X20 prints from my 10D (6.5 mp) of a flamingo and I was amazed at the fine feather detail and the fine groves in the beak were sharp and clear.
But heavy cropping and printing to that size would likely be a fail.
MP have value but good glass, good focus and skill outweigh mp in most real cases unless severely cropping and then making huge enlargements in my personal experience.

spaceylb Loc: Long Beach, N.Y.