I've been reading reviews on the new A7 iii and all the pros say the same thing. 24 megapixel is more than adequate. Most of those pro reviewers also have the A7rii and still say 24 is fine.
I have made gorgeous 17 by 22 prints from a Nikon v1 d800 and xpro 1. Images taken in good light are wonderful from all three cameras. Only with significant cropping or in minimal light is there a difference. Under these conditions 36 mp always wins
duane klipping wrote:
If money is not a problem then go for the max. If down the road you think you need it you will have it. In photography you will aways find yourself wishing you had when you discover new methods or try new styles but fail because your equipment can't perform to your liking.
Agreed
You don't need it but if, in the future you want to make a large print, you'll wish you had it. If money isn't a problem, go for more.
Remember , he who dies with the most toys, wins.
Of course more MP means more datails in your your shots. But, are you going to notice the difference in normal A4 prints or displayed in a monitor? I think you will not notice unless you shots are expose in the monitors of time square NY. Of course you are going to crop mostly of your photos, but how many,5%,10%?. So instead to have a photo with 24MP you will end with 23 or 22MP photograph. On the other hand with 24MP the RAW shot is about 25MB, so in a 64GB card you store 2600 shots more or less, but wit a 42MP you will store roghly one half and this is not to much if you are travelling. Finally if you are a professional and you are going to go to extremes with your camera like safaris or astrophotography probably you will need the 42MP.
There is the false impression that more pixels is better. The smaller the size of the pixels the more difficult for them to catch light and the tendency is to spill that light into other pixels causing a reduction in quality.
Among the cameras that you are considering do not put pixels as a first. Consider first convenience, easy menus, comfort when hand holding and those parameters that are useful for your photography. If you are buying from Best Buy we all know you are not precisely dealing with knowledgeable sellers.
For your intended purpose you do not need 45 Mp. and I would say that 24 of them are about right but still a lot if you are not intending to crop often and make enlargements to 20x30 inches.
Remember, more pixels do not necessarily means better images.
I bought a refurb D7000 well aware that the newer 7200 had 24 mp vs. the 16 of the 7000. I have printed 1 shot I like on 4 13x19inch sheets and mounted on foam board, and find the fewer mp not a problem, however the image was not cropped. For your use, I would save the extra $.
MikeMc wrote:
Debating between a Sony a7iii or a7Rii or a7Riii. I will shoot landscapes, street scenes, family activities. I’d concluded that the 24 MP a7iii would be the best choice but a salesman at Best Buy makes the point that I might need the 42 mp of the a7Rxxx for cropping photos. I won’t be printing large images, mostly veiwing via hi def monitor. There are a couple minor differences from the a7R to the a7 like touch screen, larger battery, etc but 42 vs 24 mp seems to be the most significant. Will the mega pixel size matter?
Debating between a Sony a7iii or a7Rii or a7Riii. ... (
show quote)
So, by now you have gotten answers all over the place and are probably thoroughly confused.
All of your major pro sports cameras have less than 25 megapixels. Such as the Nikon D5, Canon 1DX Mark 2, and Sony's a9. Speed is very important in action sports, as well as fast quality lenses. Sony's new a9 gets 20 fps. The fastest, so far of any pro sports camera, that I know of. I doubt very seriously, if the successor to the D5, will ever go more than necessary in megapixels counts. I have gotten good results on 8X10 photos with just 5 megapixels.
Dr.Nikon wrote:
Bill brings common sense into the picture .., yep ... ......,However ...if you examine posts on this forum ... and go to his site...Regis who shoots with a Canon with 50 mega pixel plus ..., shows that there is no equal in clarity and detail to shooting with a high mega pixel camera ...
As stated .., the high mega pixel camera will not be of much use to a photographer who lacks the skills to use it... Regis demonstrates that his superb photographic skills coupled with so far the highest on the market mega pixel camera equals shots that are unequaled on this blog ..., period ..
Any evidence to the contrary would be welcome ...
Bill brings common sense into the picture .., yep ... (
show quote)
And here is something to note is that he , Regis, always shoots in Jpeg and does not shoot in Raw. He also shot great photos with his Canon 7D.....Rich
I bought an A7IIR and returned it. I now have a Fujifilm XT-2. Here is what I experienced. The images on the Sony were terrific, low light great. However the size of the files ate memory esp. on my computer. Anything I wanted to do was slow and I have a pretty fast iMac desk top. I believe that it is really geared for a professional. The XT-2 has wonderful low light capability and I have done blow ups with no loss of quality at 24mpx. It is also less expensive than the Sony.
leftj wrote:
So, by now you have gotten answers all over the place and are probably thoroughly confused.
No, englightened,not confused! I’m going with the a7III rather than the a7RII. I concluded that the a7III features such as the larger battery, touch screen, usb 3.1 outweighed the larger megapixel a7RII. I’ll start with the 24-105 f/4 G OSS.
The straw that broke the camel’s back was this input from Brian Smith: “You definitely pick up more detail with 42mp than with 24mp, yet I’ve printed 40″x60″ from 24mp Sony sensors at it looks amazing.
The larger battery alone is a huge reason to upgrade. Touch focus is quite nice for landscapes and architecture and if you tether, you’ll LOVE the speed of the USB 3.1 Type C connection.”
Thanks to all you folks for the very helpful comments.
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
MikeMc wrote:
Debating between a Sony a7iii or a7Rii or a7Riii. I will shoot landscapes, street scenes, family activities. I’d concluded that the 24 MP a7iii would be the best choice but a salesman at Best Buy makes the point that I might need the 42 mp of the a7Rxxx for cropping photos. I won’t be printing large images, mostly veiwing via hi def monitor. There are a couple minor differences from the a7R to the a7 like touch screen, larger battery, etc but 42 vs 24 mp seems to be the most significant. Will the mega pixel size matter?
Debating between a Sony a7iii or a7Rii or a7Riii. ... (
show quote)
Only if you print large from agressively cropped images. I have very good (no noise) 16X24 prints from my 18 mp Canon 7d. So if money is no concern, it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.