srt101fan

I don't think there's a "correct" answer to your question of how many megapixels are necessary. For me the appeal of higher resolution is that it allows more cropping when you deem it necessary or desirable.

I just posted this in another topic: "For some reason the idea of favoring higher resolution cameras because it allows greater flexibility in cropping gets roundly pooh-poohed here. It’s apparently some mysterious aversion to “throwing away pixels”.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Think back to when you knew nothing about 30 megapixel sensors. Would you still want to be that person?

Hip Coyote

Here is my understanding. This can be a quagmire and could open a can of worms...we shall see when the first snark hits. This has been a road hoed many times on this site.

Here is my basic understanding:

First, there is science about what is actually needed. There are charts avail which highlight the image size vs. viewing distance of the photograph. There is also the pixels per inch that are printed! (Take a look at this article: https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239). The human eye can only see so much resolution. According to fstoppers that equation is: 2/(viewing distance in inches x 0.000291) giving one pixels per inch resolution. According to this article, at 2500 yards, one pixel printed out could be 16 inches square! And still look smooth, good resolution to the human eye. The same calculation goes for photos in your house.

That is why there are billboards made with smart phone photos because the photo is viewed from 2500 feet, 25 inches. Get up close and you would see large dots of ink. At the Reagan Library there is a portrait of Reagan done in jelly beans...far away it looks like a portrait until the viewer gets a little closer. Same with mosaics. So viewing distance is important. For instance you would not put a 24x36 inch photo in a small hallway...as people passed, they would see the pixilation, dots, on the shot because they would be viewing it from about 1 foot away. Smaller prints viewed closer up need greater resolution...not less. So it is counter intuitive, but bigger prints actually do not need higher resolution when viewed from proper distances. This is why ardent pixel peepers are never going to be satisfied.

Second, higher resolution is helpful for those who need to crop a lot..it is a fact. I use m43 gear, so cropping is a challenge. How many times on this site have we seen people asking for help on their grainy pics only to learn that it was a crop of a crop of a crop?

Third...AI is somewhat changing all this...in my case, using a lower resolution sensor, I can upsize a shot using LR's enhance feature, and do pretty decent cropping. Is it in the 40mp range of quality? No, but good enough for me.

Fourth...IMO, there are graphics and lens quality issues as well. Nothing beats high quality lenses...one can have high mp and yet if a low quality lens is hung on the camera, all is lost.

To me, MP are like horsepower in a car. It makes for great press, but there is a lot more to a car than horsepower. I once read where a car engineer was talking about some Mustang they developed with less HP than the Shelbys...he said the hp had to match all the components, such as suspension, tires, transmission, etc...and the lower HP engine actually made for a better, if not faster (due to being able to control, shift, etc.) car. The entire system has to be configured to work well together.

This is a long Sunday morning way of saying, "I think I am right but let's see what others day...BurkePhoto?)

philo Loc: philo, ca

For me anything beyond 24mp tends to allow more camera movement. at my age any movement affects the image.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Wow, that is one outstanding image!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

That’s about the “size” of it.

When I was running all the digital production areas of a pro portrait lab, 8.2 to 12 MP was the norm. That didn’t stop us from making 40” by 96” pans on our Epson 9600…

It’s all about viewing distance and subject matter. A 4x5 print needs about 300 to 400 pixels per inch. An 8x10 needs 240 to 300. A 16x20 needs between 150 and 180, unless it’s a photo of 200 people — then it needs 300, because you’re pixel-peeping individual people…

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I had an exhibition of large prints (24 x 36 inches) of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami, that toured Japan and even went to Germany. Most images were taken with a 36 MP Nikon D800e, but some were taken with a little 12 MP Canon Powershot. On really close inspection, the difference in detail could be seen, but at normal viewing distances it wasn't obvious.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

I'm always planning on Photoshop in my "Darkroom" so 24mp is, so far, all that's been needed for me. A good deal of the time the viewing of the photo is done cropped and made significantly smaller for email or downloading for the net. Still having the original full size is useful at times.
The more megapixels the better you can pull out a small portion so think about YOUR use of the photos, are you taking snaps of the grandkids or are you doing security ???

WirtzWorld Loc: SE WI

I had been the proud owner of a canon 20d, until I wasn’t so proud anymore. I replaced it with a canon 5D and soon after added a 5DS r and never looked back. I sent that 20d to a needy friend in Alaska and he’s still using it. It still works after like 15-16 years. But the resolution from the 5DS r is simply amazing. If there were no mirrorless camera on the market I might be set for life.

tcthome Loc: NJ

I must admit to being a mp junkie but it doesn't make the photograph any better unless neededfor a extra large print or crop &, maybe macro. I believe 12- 20, 24 mp is plenty.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

If pricing is a concern, based on your stated requirements a 16mp camera will meet your needs.

r1ch Loc: Colorado

11

BebuLamar

While it's not average a 16MP camera is sufficient for all of the things you want and a bit short on the 16x20 enlargement. Of course provided that you don't crop. However, 16MP is far less than an average person wants.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

My Nikon Df has 16mp, which is more than enough for what you describe.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

See my image posted above.