User ID

Acoarst thaz true of 16MP or even 24MP, but 36MP ?!? The image magnification of 45MP over 36MP is about 14%.

Obviously with best techniques 14% can be detected if you're really looking for it, but in most cases it's just not visible.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Thanks all for replies - interesting food for thought. A little while ago I brooched a similar topic to a friend who said "It's the shooter's need rather than the viewer's need." and "What the viewer sees depends on how long ago he had new specs"

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It is exactly the opposite. The number of pixels determine the theoretical resolution, no matter what the size of the photosites. Do you think a full frame sensor with 16 pixels will produce the same resolution as a full frame sensor with 16 million pixels? Each pixel is a discrete bit of information, and the more you have the more resolution is possible. Smaller pixels mean only less light gathering power, so more noise, and then there is something about diffraction, meaning that smaller pixels need a larger maximum aperture to reduce diffraction effects. So more pixels for a given sensor size means more theoretical resolution, but with more noise per pixel, when viewed at 100 percent. However, if you make the files the same size, then the noise becomes approximately equal.

Yes, higher pixel count will often increase detail using a good lens, but we are talking about viewing large files from a very close distance or at a high magnification. It is usually very subtle, and won't be obvious unless you are doing pixel peeping or inspecting a two foot print from inches away.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

It seems that pixel count now is not an issue anymore with 16mp and up cameras unless one is into heavy cropping.
Then the 45mp will beat the 20mp easily.
A larger issue though is actual sensor size and the ability to get isolation in the photo.
With a smaller sensor that seems to be more difficult unless one can find very large opening glass. The isolation is easier with FF and medium format sensors with slower lenses.

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

I own a 12 mp D3s that I also get detailed metal prints to 20X30.
So, if you are a competent photographer, you SHOULD not notice the difference.
Some here will say yes, some no, in my experience sharpness is more up to the photographer than the number of MP.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

My 10D as been printed at 16x20 and no one knew it was 6.5 mp.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I did a series of photos of the aftermath of the Japanese tsunami of 2011. The first time I arrived a few days after the disaster, the only still camera I had with me was a 12MP Canon Powershot. On later trips I packed along my Nikon D800, with 3x the number of pixels. This became an exhibition that had a number of showings in Japan and Germany, with prints 2x3 feet. On close inspection, the difference in resolution was noticeable, but from a normal viewing distance for a print that size, it was not obvious at all

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

Where I noticed the biggest difference between my 5D Mark IV and my R5 is when I was shooting birds that involved extreme cropping. I could crop further with the R5 and still get an acceptable image. On large prints of focus-stacked images, I could also see a difference, although not major.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

When it comes to evaluating the cameras only, my take on it is that the sensor is an analog device and it takes an analog-to-digital microprocessor to convert that signal for all of the "in camera" processing including that of the RAW format (which is a digital file).

So...is the resulting image we see really a sole function of the sensor or is it impacted by how the camera's microprocessor and firmware process that analog signal which is different from camera to camera?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Thats why, if you use your Nikon for taking JPEGs, you must always experiment and set your Picture Controls for best results. I do not know what other makers do, but Nikons tend to come from the factory set up to do very poor, very bland JPEGs until adjusted.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Pixel peepers, can see the differences. Those who enjoy viewing at normal distances can't tell the difference. There was a video a while ago, the creator shot the same pics a series of about 10 different scenes, each scene shot with M43 and FF higher resolution, and printed them 11x17 put them on a table and had experts review them. The experts couldn't' tell which image was take with what camera.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Simply put, the most import part of a digital picture is how good the lens is. A4 paper is quite small and a 6mpx sensor will do a fine job with that size print. Just go back and look at pictures made 20 years ago and see the quality that has been achieved with small sensors. I'm telling you, the lens is the most important part of photography.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Are you saying... photography is first and foremost about the optics?! ;)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If by difference in detail you are talking about resolution, it will depend on the ability of the lens to focus and the spacing of the pixels.

I would like to point out that the sensor is two-dimensional. That means that if you have two sensors, one with M pixels and the other with N pixels, the difference in pixel spacing is not M/N, it's the square root of M/N. (Assuming you're using the same lens and that the two sensors have the same aspect ratio).

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

I agree with jeep daddy. However, by extension, really high quality lenses show their mettle when paired with high resolution bodies.

Yes, attack the weak links. Whether it be body/sensor, lens, support, display/presentation or technique.

Don't expend all your resources on technical considerations; the artistic side requires attention and growth as well.