Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Do I need that many mega pixels?
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
Mar 10, 2018 05:40:30   #
roadsideron Loc: Apache Junction, AZ
 
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.

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 06:49:38   #
Archiefamous Loc: Manhattan
 
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

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 06:57:11   #
Skiextreme2 Loc: Northwest MA
 
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.

Reply
 
 
Mar 10, 2018 07:43:48   #
GED Loc: North central Pa
 
Gene51 wrote:
Yes. And the salesman was right on target. More pixels are for flexibility in cropping and fine detail capture for viewing at relatively short distances. You can make a very large print from as few as 6 mp, because the corresponding viewing distance increases and you simply cannot see the fine detail anyway, even if the image was produced from a 42 mp image.

For landscape, the extra pixels will minimize detail "clumping" which would make the higher mp camera better.

When viewed at 100%, the smaller pixels of a higher mp camera will be noisier, since individually they capture less light. But the image will be substantially larger. For a proper comparison, however, you would need to "downsample" the 42 mp image to 24 mp, which will produce an image with similar noise and slightly better fine detail, provided the cameras are in the same generation. Downsampling is merely resizing an image to a smaller pixel count, using interpolation. Noise is averaged among adjacent pixels, and the net result is less noise.
Yes. And the salesman was right on target. More pi... (show quote)



Reply
Mar 10, 2018 08:12:05   #
Leon S Loc: Minnesota
 
Remember , he who dies with the most toys, wins.

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 08:18:09   #
reguli Loc: Uruguay
 
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.

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 08:24:28   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
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.

Reply
 
 
Mar 10, 2018 08:26:46   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
Jim Bob wrote:
Exactly Bill, exactly. Thanks for bringing common sense and experience to bear on this issue.



Reply
Mar 10, 2018 08:29:46   #
rustfarmer
 
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 $.

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 08:33:06   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
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.

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 09:23:21   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
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.

Reply
 
 
Mar 10, 2018 09:45:56   #
bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.
 
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

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 09:47:30   #
Psdunner
 
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.

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 09:52:42   #
MikeMc
 
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.

Reply
Mar 10, 2018 09:58:42   #
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.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.