selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If it sounds like a provocative question, it was intentional.

A discussion took place recently on another thread that got me thinking about it. So I did some comparison's using a 24MP A7 III and a 45.7MP Z7 using each camera's 85mm f/1.8 lens (at f/2.8). Those lens resolutions are very close according to DXOMARK.

I viewed the results on a 2k (1920x1080, about 2MP) and 4k (3840x2160, about 8MP) monitor and couldn't tell them apart.

I printed the original full-size images on 8.5x11 Red River UltraPro Satin paper at their best settings. I still could not tell them apart.

Then I exported each image at a width of 1920 and 3840 pixels as well as at their full resolution. They will be attached to the next post.

The only time I could tell them apart was at the full resolution pixel peeped at 100%. But the only way anyone can see that is on a monitor where the magnified image is way too big to fit the screen.

There is a message here and some of you aren't going to be happy with it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here are the illustrations.

You can see the difference in the last two images if you download them and view them at 100%.

But to make a fair comparison you need to make them the same size because only we will ever see both versions.

First the comparison of the two lenses at f/2.8 (the results are also close at f/5.6 and f/11)


A7 III 4k

(Download)

Z7 4k

(Download)

A7 III 24MP

(Download)

Z7 45,7MP

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

For most everyone, pixel resolution at 20MP is more than enough for any editing and / or printing needs. That 20MP to 20MP range is what the 'working professionals' need for a 2-page spread (magazine print), as if anyone was still printing or purchasing physical magazines in 2024. We see this reality in the slow upward migration of the top (flagship) pro DSLR models.

Examples:

Nikon
D3X - 24MP, 2010
D5 - 20MP, 2017
D6 - 21MP, 2020

Canon
1Ds-III - 21MP, 2007
1DX - 18MP, 2011
1DX-III - 20MP, 2016

Meanwhile, at the same time those flagship models were being released, all around the $6000 per body price range, even the entry-level models were reaching a standard 24MP resolution. The 'pro' full-frame models at one level-down from the 'flagship' bodies reached a 30- to 50MP range for the same timeframe, examples like the D810, D850 and 5DIV models, as well as the top full-frame mirrorless bodies typically all coming out around 45MP.

Personally, for my wildlife photography, I can 'see' the difference in cropping into the results in FF cameras with the same focal length lenses, where one body is 22MP and the other 24MP. I have more options with the images (camera) that has more pixels, even just a 2MP difference. I've also seen demonstrations of the massive print sizes and massive fine details of architecture and cityscapes captured at 45MP.

But again, for most everyone not shooting distant wildlife and not printing anything, buying bodies (sensors) beyond 24MP is just wasting money on capabilities you'll never need.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's where I was headed with this. But it also applies to distant wildlife and really large prints.

Anyone insisting that a high resolution body is in everyone's future simply hasn't or can't do the math.

As Paul Harvey used to say, "Here is the rest of the story:" High Resolution Sensors

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I did some posts a while back that were more focused on "did you need a full-frame camera?" But, the same question applies to do you need more than 22MP (or even 10MP)?

Links:

Do you really need a full-frame camera?

(pt II) Do you really need a full-frame camera?

Personally, I know which camera created each of these many similar image comparisons. But, the lenses were all upgraded along with the bodies, as well as a more experienced photographer was doing the work with that upgraded equipment. Sadly, the UHH community is so much more focused on the newest and typically redundant body, than instead seeking the best and forever lens models.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

I guess you guys just don't ever crop. An enviable luxury!

therwol Loc: USA

Yes, it does make a difference in cropped images, but otherwise it makes none the way that images are normally viewed and printed. Super large prints? Okay, but most people don't make them.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I still have that option with the Z7 but I have no incentive to take it further.

We have two obstacles to distant wildlife here in Florida - it's too flat (the grass can get in the way) and the heatwaves make it impossible after mid-morning. I could not use a 300mm lens by 10AM and the only way I could avoid the heatwaves was to get close to the birds where I can get away with a 150-600 zoom.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

NO. Not once the final print is made and displayed.
The viewer will either like it or not.

Nit-pickers, pixel peepers, those obsessed may wonder though.
But not the "normal" person viewing the image.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I mention cropping in the article as an alternative to getting a longer lens. Cropping can be a slippery slope.

A more practical solution might be an M43 camera with a long lens, maybe a teleconverter. It's got to beat lugging some of the heavy and expensive monsters made for full frame.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Photographers, especially here, are not normal.

Bill_de Loc: US

Yes, the sensor manufacturer.

---

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

THAT is a truism.....

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Making up for a short lens is one reason to crop, but there are others. I have been advised to be careful composing in the viewfinder, but that doesn't always work for me, or I'm not always good at it. Maybe it's the ADHD, maybe it's the laziness I've long been accused of, or maybe it's some of the things I like to shoot, or maybe all of the above and more, but I routinely choose to step back a bit, and then crop in post, even - perhaps especially - when I'm working up close with a 105 macro lens. Not infrequently, I end up cropping a large amount in the end, often much more than I would have anticipated. Then, the fat chip can save me.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Some photographers look down on zooming with your feet but that's probably because they prefer to lug a zoom (or worse, a superzoom) around with them. I don't. My only zoom lens is a 150-600 because zooming with my feet is not practical at long distances and movement can spook the wildlife.

On the other hand, my most used lenses are primes between 35mm and 135mm. Even my old limbs can manage that.

The only frustration I have is at car shows where I usually have only a 35mm lens. I can move in but when I back away someone inevitably gets in in the way and I have to wait for them to move on.