GeneinChi Loc: Chicago, IL

This will probably open a giant can of worms so I apologize in advance. How many MP’s are really necessary for the average non-professional person taking pictures? By “average person” I mean someone posting on the internet, looking a photos on a computer or iPad, or cell phone. Maybe blowing up to 16x20 on a rare occasion. There are some really great deals on older cameras with 16 mp as an example. They don’t have all the bells and whistles of the latest and greatest but really, does everyone need 26,30,40 even 40mp’s? Just curious what your knowledgeable folks think. I know everyone has different needs but what do you consider adequate?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The more pixels one starts with allows more cropping before pixelation becomes evident.
Depends on the extent of the crop/blowup.
My current camera is 15Mp, my old bridge is 8Mp.
They work for me and I work with any limitation they present.
My next camera will probably be 24+ by default.
I don't need a 40Mp camera.
For other people, it does matter.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’ve done great looking 11x14 prints from my old 6mp D40. But I love the look of the shots from my 45mp Z7. It gives me a lot more leeway. While I’m a big believer in composing in camera sometimes you just can’t fill the frame, especially shooting wildlife. It’s great having the latitude for a major crop.

JohnCl Loc: Central Arizona

Sixteen megapixels should be fine. Think Kodachrome and frame properly to avoid cropping.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/we-should-stop-measuring-resolution-with-megapixels?fbclid=IwAR0qxclb9UPDKfez3x1BX5QMoas-SNvdhqt7ZPwJwA99aIFHrEjLOGgvZ9s
--Bob

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

The sponsor on TV Show, 'WKRP Cincinnati', was "Red Wiggler - The Cadilac of Worms"

RJW Loc: Oregon

I am an amateur photographer who started out with digital in 2006. The image displayed was taken by a 6 megapixal APS-C sensor camera and a Sigma wide angle lens. I had this image blown up to 24x36 on Kodak metal paper and it looks stunning to me and others that view it. Yes, if you get close and pixel peep, it does not have the clarity of todays sensors. However, we have amazing software today like Topaz Gigapixel and others that very effectively increase resolution and make large prints accessible to the average joe photographer. I now shoot with a 16megapixel micro four thirds camera and get again, stunning results. I have large poster prints done with my present camera that provide 100% satisfaction to my eye and my friends and family. Editing software of today provides incredible control over the end result of a RAW photo and again, I am 100% satisfied. I like staying with 16 megapixel because the size of the files are more managable on my laptop and external drives. I am on a Social Security budget and what I have now fits my lifestyle and I'm a happy camper with my photography. So speaks one of a large majority of retired amateur photographers. Thanks!

(Download)

MountainDave

I find it interesting that cameras designed for pros tend to have fewer MP than the less expensive cameras. For instance, Canon's R3 has 24MP. The 1 series had 20. Personally, I did switch from 30MP 5D IV to a 45MP R5, but MP is way, way down my list of reasons for making the switch. MP will not make a soft lens sharp or help with atmospheric distortions. It reminds me of horsepower wars. 750 HP may be nice to brag about but is of very limited use in the real world. There are reasons to buy a new(er) camera, improved AF being a good one, but I think we hit diminishing returns on MP some time ago.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

It depends. Whatever works for you is more than adequate. I have cameras having 3 thru 48 MP and they all have their purpose. I also find Topaz GigaPixel AI to be a great addition to my processing software.

bwa

User ID

My (upper tier) bodies go from 12 to 80MP, no oldies, all close to current.

You might notice that 20 to 30 is the middle ground, and thaz where most "ordinary users" wind up. There are plenty of extra pixels there for most purposes. 50 to 80MP is reserved for "extra special purpose".

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I believe the only really correct answer to your question is that "it depends." My favorite camera is my D500, which captures 20.7 MP images. The Fine/Large JPEGs will email just fine, and they will also post here without requiring any resizing. 16x20 prints are no problemat all.

On the other hand, I'd never go out for a night of star and sky photography without at least my D810 (36 MP) or preferably my D850 (45+ MP). When photographing a sky filled with thousands or millions of dimensionless, point-sized objects, the advantage comes from having the largest number of the smallest sensor elements possible.

There is a rabid disease in photography today driving a quest for the sharpest image possible. I do not subscribe to this thinking (although I do agree that a properly focused image is usually a fundamental requirement for a good photograph). The sharpest images I see are rarely the most artistic or even the most attractive.

So for me, it depends completely on the goal. Sometimes my D300 is just right at 12 MP. Your question is a valid one. But the answer is best learned through experience. Pay attention as you go. My feeling that for most folks doing most things, somewhere around 16-20 MP is probably just about right.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

We can take opinions or look at the industry for observations. Take all the major companies. They've standardized their products, both full-frame and cropped, in the 20MP to 24MP range. These cameras arrived in 2012, replacing the prior generation in the 16MP to 18MP range. And, their generation has lasted a lot longer than prior generations. The 'pro' cameras, up until this current mirrorless great-leap-forward, fall in this 20-24MP range.

What I miss beyond my own 24MP body is that 'deep crop' option. These are full-frame cameras, so the crop factor option could be another way to leverage today's 24MP sensors. My wildlife photography could make use of more pixels as I'm not going to add lenses beyond a 500mm option. For all other situations where I'm not limited on how close I can get to the subject, 24MP is a perfect size.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I'm not going to hem and haw, 24 Megapixels appears to be the sweet spot in my opinion.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It depends, as in all of photography, on what you are doing. I still find 16MP to be sufficient for 95% of anything I might want to do. Would more MP be useful on occasion? Sure. If I were a landscape photographer making mural size prints (60" by 40" and larger), I would want 50 to 100 MP. If I were a birder and/or a professional sports action photographer, I would want 30-50 MP so I could crop without losing too much detail.

Do I want more MP? Yes and no. I will upgrade this year to a Lumix GH6 (25MP sensor with 100MP high resolution mode), but for its video features, not its still features. The still features will be a nice bonus.

Here's a 16MP image that was processed in Lightroom using the Photo Enhance tool. It is sufficient for my needs. It is sized to make a 40" by 30" print. It was made on a seven-year-old Lumix GH4 (a Micro 4/3 camera!) with 12-35mm f/2.8 zoom (check the EXIF data). Be sure to view it at 100% in download mode.

(Download)

User ID

You can still buy a latest model (third generation) 12MP body. And its not the economy model, not at $4,000.

Its one part of a trio of similar cameras with different sensors, providing 12, 24, or 60MP according to the users need.