My response will exceed the range of the question. Read on , McDuff!!

Assume that your sensor is a brick patio of say 10 ft by 10 ft. We'll call that size a full frame patio. If it's made with big bricks (pixels) it takes less bricks to complete the 100 sq ft area. (OR more bricks if smaller bricks are used). If the bricks are different colors, a picture (mosaic) can be made by the bricklayer craftsman/artist. In this analogy the area of patio is the sensor size and the number of bricks is the megapixel "size". The patios come in only 3 or 4 different standardized sizes (Lets call those sizes Full frame, APSC crop, 1 inch and 4/3 ). The number of bricks determines how much detail it is possible to show regardless of what physical size the mosaic is. For given number of pixels, large pixels yield a larger sensor and smaller pixels mean a smaller sensor. Whether larger sensor size equates to greater sharpness (under ideal conditions) is open to debate. It just means that the pixels can be larger. Larger pixels can, but must not necessarily, have greater dynamic range and less noise. NOTE: all current sensors that I know of in major manufacturer's cameras seem to have better dynamic range and noise characteristics from larger pixels. It is up up to the camera buying public to choose:
1. sensor size
2. within the sensor size, the number of pixels that will yield, for their chosen type of photography, the best compromise between number of pixels and pixel size ie max obtainable detail vs dynamic range and noise.

My rant begins here!
Note that early digital cameras had few (3-6) megpixels yet produced some amazingly sharp photos. This brings into question how many pixels are really necessary and where the pixel overkill threshold lies. The current crop of multi mega mega megapixel cameras must of necessity have smaller pixels than they would if they had 1/2 the pixels in the same area of sensor. Because they have so many pixels , they can afford to throw many away through cropping without noticeably effecting the perception of sharpness in the photo. But, because they have such small pixels, they have diminished dynamic range and increased noise. Yet, sensors are arguably becoming capable of capturing more detail than the unaided human eye can perceive. Each new generation of sensor design seems to have better dynamic range and lower noise than does the previous generation at the same number of megapixels. (And at exponentially greater cost). Each of us must determine how much value we receive back from the additional dollars we must divert from our other needs or wants in order to get the latest high megapixel full frame camera body. Excess capabilities are a waste of dollars unless they are actual useful. How little can one spend in order to get a camera whose capabilities barely exceed their ability to utilize those capabilities? Where is the balance between cost and value best achieved?
BTW: I believe that dollars spent on high quality lenses return greater value than if spent on camera bodies. Good glass on a so-so consumer grade body will yield better crispness than mediocre glass on a super duper professional grade body. A good lens is a better long term investment since it will probably be used on several generations of camera bodies. Hope this helps. I also hope my (far too obvious) personal preferences have opened some new ways of looking at wise expenditures for you to consider. I also hope that you feel free to totally ignore my rant.

My response will exceed the range of the question. Read on , McDuff!!
Dear photogeneralist:

I like your analogy the best and like speters wrote......the better glass is a more important factor in determining what one achieves when trying to get a specific end-result.

I didn't think yours was a Rant at all but rather another eye-opening essay on what gives in Layman's Terms.......a Breath of Fresh Air so to speak.

Thank you.







Assume that your sensor is a brick patio of say 10 ft by 10 ft. We'll call that size a full frame patio. If it's made with big bricks (pixels) it takes less bricks to complete the 100 sq ft area. (OR more bricks if smaller bricks are used). If the bricks are different colors, a picture (mosaic) can be made by the bricklayer craftsman/artist. In this analogy the area of patio is the sensor size and the number of bricks is the megapixel "size". The patios come in only 3 or 4 different standardized sizes (Lets call those sizes Full frame, APSC crop, 1 inch and 4/3 ). The number of bricks determines how much detail it is possible to show regardless of what physical size the mosaic is. For given number of pixels, large pixels yield a larger sensor and smaller pixels mean a smaller sensor. Whether larger sensor size equates to greater sharpness (under ideal conditions) is open to debate. It just means that the pixels can be larger. Larger pixels can, but must not necessarily, have greater dynamic range and less noise. NOTE: all current sensors that I know of in major manufacturer's cameras seem to have better dynamic range and noise characteristics from larger pixels. It is up up to the camera buying public to choose:
1. sensor size
2. within the sensor size, the number of pixels that will yield, for their chosen type of photography, the best compromise between number of pixels and pixel size ie max obtainable detail vs dynamic range and noise.

My rant begins here!
Note that early digital cameras had few (3-6) megpixels yet produced some amazingly sharp photos. This brings into question how many pixels are really necessary and where the pixel overkill threshold lies. The current crop of multi mega mega megapixel cameras must of necessity have smaller pixels than they would if they had 1/2 the pixels in the same area of sensor. Because they have so many pixels , they can afford to throw many away through cropping without noticeably effecting the perception of sharpness in the photo. But, because they have such small pixels, they have diminished dynamic range and increased noise. Yet, sensors are arguably becoming capable of capturing more detail than the unaided human eye can perceive. Each new generation of sensor design seems to have better dynamic range and lower noise than does the previous generation at the same number of megapixels. (And at exponentially greater cost). Each of us must determine how much value we receive back from the additional dollars we must divert from our other needs or wants in order to get the latest high megapixel full frame camera body. Excess capabilities are a waste of dollars unless they are actual useful. How little can one spend in order to get a camera whose capabilities barely exceed their ability to utilize those capabilities? Where is the balance between cost and value best achieved?
BTW: I believe that dollars spent on high quality lenses return greater value than if spent on camera bodies. Good glass on a so-so consumer grade body will yield better crispness than mediocre glass on a super duper professional grade body. A good lens is a better long term investment since it will probably be used on several generations of camera bodies. Hope this helps. I also hope my (far too obvious) personal preferences have opened some new ways of looking at wise expenditures for you to consider. I also hope that you feel free to totally ignore my rant.

A lot of this is telling in why I can still make lovely photos with my little 8MP Canon pocket cam, or 10MP Sony DSLR, or 16 & 20MP, my old Nikon D90 makes wonderful photos, as does my D7100. The older sensors had larger pixels, and worked well, the newer sensors, smaller pixels, dense packed, are an improvement, not a panacea, although I often think that for most of us it is less important than good glass and great technique. For "artistic shooting" it is probably not a concern at all, for "technical shooting" it would be a greater concern. Perhaps we worry to much about pixels and not enough about technique or vision. That said, I'd love a 40-50MP rig, if I had the glass to support that capability.

For historical reasons, FF digital sensors are about 35.9 mm x 23.9 mm (1.4" x .94"), the same size as 35mm film. For years, the camera manufacturers tried to get the highest pixel count they could in that format, which can capture higher resolution (sharper) images. Right now the top end is about 46Mp or 8256 x 5504 pixels. There is a trade off between the size of each individual pixel in the sensor and noise. The larger the pixels the more light it captures resulting in less noise. So more (smaller) pixels means more noise, right? Not really because sensor technology is constantly improving and they have constantly reduced noise in while increasing pixel count. So how many pixels do you need? There are 2 answers: 1) as many as you can afford; 2) 24Mp or 6000 x 4000 pixels will do for most any type of photography. Of course you can get away with less, but why? Very good quality dslr 24Mp bodies are going form $600 to $1000. If you want to go much lower go with a smart phone. My iphone 8+ has 2 x 12Mp cameras in it and it won't be too long before they are at 16Mp.

Note: Don't put a low quality lens on a high quality sensor camera. You are wasting a good camera. Get as close to your subject as you can to avoid cropping as you are just throwing away resolution. Practice good technique to avoid camera shake and buy high quality glass with VR (won't need VR for wide angle lenses).

This is the reason why I continue to use my Nikon D3s for my low light work. It is still one of the best sensors at capturing low light output. It is "only" 12 megapixel, but they are huge megapixels in size. I tried the Nikon D5 (20 mp) in the same gym setup and it brought along more noise with the image. I could not see any inherent differences in the brightness/sharpness of the D5 image. So I decided to stay with the D3s because it is less work to remove the noise. I think the practical limit was reached around 16 megapixels. More is not always better, but size does matter....

PIXELS are just numbers in files. They have no physical size! What you are obviously referring to is the size of the individual sensels — the millions of color-filtered, monochrome devices on the sensors that convert photons to electrons.

To create a pixel, those electrons are amplified, then digitized, then (if we’re making JPEGs in-Camera), they are matrixed with many adjacent sensel values to create a series of red, green, and blue values that we call a pixel. The raw, digitized data may also be saved in a file for later processing. In any event, it’s important to know that each pixel is created from several to many sensels.

The distinction is important for understanding digital imaging. DOTS and SENSELS have size. Scanners divide up each scanned line into cells called dots. Printers represent pixels with many dots. Monitors use red, green, and blue phosphor dots to display pixels.

Pixels can be displayed or printed at practically any size.

My response will exceed the range of the question. Read on , McDuff!!

Assume that your sensor is a brick patio of say 10 ft by 10 ft. We'll call that size a full frame patio. If it's made with big bricks (pixels) it takes less bricks to complete the 100 sq ft area. (OR more bricks if smaller bricks are used). If the bricks are different colors, a picture (mosaic) can be made by the bricklayer craftsman/artist. In this analogy the area of patio is the sensor size and the number of bricks is the megapixel "size". The patios come in only 3 or 4 different standardized sizes (Lets call those sizes Full frame, APSC crop, 1 inch and 4/3 ). The number of bricks determines how much detail it is possible to show regardless of what physical size the mosaic is. For given number of pixels, large pixels yield a larger sensor and smaller pixels mean a smaller sensor. Whether larger sensor size equates to greater sharpness (under ideal conditions) is open to debate. It just means that the pixels can be larger. Larger pixels can, but must not necessarily, have greater dynamic range and less noise. NOTE: all current sensors that I know of in major manufacturer's cameras seem to have better dynamic range and noise characteristics from larger pixels. It is up up to the camera buying public to choose:
1. sensor size
2. within the sensor size, the number of pixels that will yield, for their chosen type of photography, the best compromise between number of pixels and pixel size ie max obtainable detail vs dynamic range and noise.

My rant begins here!
Note that early digital cameras had few (3-6) megpixels yet produced some amazingly sharp photos. This brings into question how many pixels are really necessary and where the pixel overkill threshold lies. The current crop of multi mega mega megapixel cameras must of necessity have smaller pixels than they would if they had 1/2 the pixels in the same area of sensor. Because they have so many pixels , they can afford to throw many away through cropping without noticeably effecting the perception of sharpness in the photo. But, because they have such small pixels, they have diminished dynamic range and increased noise. Yet, sensors are arguably becoming capable of capturing more detail than the unaided human eye can perceive. Each new generation of sensor design seems to have better dynamic range and lower noise than does the previous generation at the same number of megapixels. (And at exponentially greater cost). Each of us must determine how much value we receive back from the additional dollars we must divert from our other needs or wants in order to get the latest high megapixel full frame camera body. Excess capabilities are a waste of dollars unless they are actual useful. How little can one spend in order to get a camera whose capabilities barely exceed their ability to utilize those capabilities? Where is the balance between cost and value best achieved?
BTW: I believe that dollars spent on high quality lenses return greater value than if spent on camera bodies. Good glass on a so-so consumer grade body will yield better crispness than mediocre glass on a super duper professional grade body. A good lens is a better long term investment since it will probably be used on several generations of camera bodies. Hope this helps. I also hope my (far too obvious) personal preferences have opened some new ways of looking at wise expenditures for you to consider. I also hope that you feel free to totally ignore my rant.

A lot of this is telling in why I can still make lovely photos with my little 8MP Canon pocket cam, or 10MP Sony DSLR, or 16 & 20MP, my old Nikon D90 makes wonderful photos, as does my D7100. The older sensors had larger pixels, and worked well, the newer sensors, smaller pixels, dense packed, are an improvement, not a panacea, although I often think that for most of us it is less important than good glass and great technique. For "artistic shooting" it is probably not a concern at all, for "technical shooting" it would be a greater concern. Perhaps we worry to much about pixels and not enough about technique or vision. That said, I'd love a 40-50MP rig, if I had the glass to support that capability.