Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Anything over 20 MP is overkill for the fast majority of pictures I take. I routinely set my 31MP 5D4 to medium raw for around 19MP to save space and processing speed. The only time I use full resolution is for large groups. Big groups of 100 or more are usually enlarged to 24-30 inch panoramics which are viewed close. Small faces need all the MP you can get and lose detail at low resolution, unlike rocks, trees or other objects that make up an aggregate in a photograph. Several years ago we were producing 30x40 portraits with Nikon D200’s from medium jpegs and the images were fantastic when viewed from 6 feet or farther. Significant cropping is the only reason for super high megapixels.

twice_shooter

Here’s you answer ...

https://youtu.be/fzJsb56jrnc

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

Well, I can see your point. There are needs for more megapixels; however, for general photography fairly low megapixels is good enough. I can't see spending huge amounts of money just to have the latest and highest megapixel camera. I ain't got that kind of money to begin with. (:

dave.m

several writers above have identified the issues, and here is a specific reference to viewing distance

http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dpi.php

There are 2 elements - the physical size vs. distance, and the resolution needed at that distance (the old inverse square law strikes again.) If you've ever been up close and personal with an advertising hoarding which may be 10 x 6 metres and typically viewed from the other side of a road, the pixel size can be the size of a small fingernail. But it looks fine from the expected viewing distance.

Similarly when you stand up close to a painted canvas in a museum not only are there no pixels, it can look like a mass of paint smears - but step back and an amazing image is revealed.

If you view on a screen at normal arm length viewing distance, 300 ppi (pixels per inch) will look good. I have a Eizo 24" monitor (20" wide x 12.5 high) which at maximum res is 1920 x 1200. 1920 / 20 = 96 ppi. So suddenly my 300 ppi image is being condensed 3:1 to fit on the screen! Images that fill the screen look great but if I want to do some fine editing I'll zoom in to 1:1

The largest I can print is A3+ (an EU name for 19x13" 'cos they find inches too difficult :) If I view that (like a painting) from 3 to 5 feet, then 180 dpi (dots per inch) will be good so 19 x 160 = 3450 dots wide.

Perhaps easiest to work backwards:

I have a Canon EOS R with quoted Sensor resolution: 6741 x 4494. At 300 ppi for arm length viewing that gives 22" x 15". If I print and view from 1 to 1.5 m viewing up to 37" wide with no apparent degradation.

As has been eloquently mention several times cropping affects that, potentially dramatically. If I crop my full pixel size image by 1/2 at 300 ppi my maximum potential printed image size becomes 11 x 7.5" with no apparent degradation. Yet it still looks fine on my 24" monitor - because the monitor is at 96 dpi.

Worth also noting that digital sharpening also affects the perceived image quality as it makes the edges look great

So if your still reading, pixel density is directly related to viewing distance and the display resolution of your media (screens are typically lower than printed), and cropping directly affects the number of pixels you have in the image to fill the media.

dave.m

Minor typo correction .... 180 dpi (dots per inch) will be good so 19 x 160 = 3450....
should be 19x180=3420

Rathyatra Loc: Southport, United Kingdom

Found that very helpful - thanks for sharing.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

My first digital camera was a 6MP Nikon D70. As long as I nailed the exposure and didn't need to do much cropping, I had no problems making clean 20x30 prints using Genuine Fractals. Resizing software has greatly improved since then.

Topaz's AI Gigapixel does an impressive job. Back in 2018 I downloaded a trial version and was able to upsize an image to over 7 feet on the long side, and it looked incredible. I posted about it here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-548720-1.html

Using a D800E I don't use the software all that often, but it is a workable alternative to more megapixels.

denwin580 Loc: Kettering, Ohio

How many wonderful were produced by Leica years ago, still preserved in museums, done by Ansel ADAMS and others and those cameras were 5 MP !!!!!!

denwin580 Loc: Kettering, Ohio

How many wonderful were produced by Leica years ago, still preserved in museums, done by Ansel ADAMS and others and those cameras were 5 MP !!!!!!

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

The devil is in the details, and in general, with a high resolution lens, more megapixels and better processors will win out, unfortunately it costs more!!!!!!! If you have say a D850, and a lens that will only resolve to 8mp...what will you end up with?

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

Pretty sure Ansel Adams didn't photograph anything with 5MP.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

What makes you think that (a) the majority of Ansel Adam’s images in museums were taken with Leicas rather than view cameras, and (b) that the Leicas, if used, were 5MP DSLRs?

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

A lot of good info on this thread. I have a camera that has 32.5 megapixels and it gives me good results. However, as has been said, how often do you need that capability? I have printed some great enlargements but that is rare. These days, you can successfully enlarge an image using "blow-up" technology - ON1 has such a thing and so do other companies. I've done this using a film image converted to digital and the results are very sharp.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I'm with you, Mark. I guess that's why insects have compound eyes..more receptors equate to better vision of specific wave lengths and separation of light spectrum.

Personally, our eyes are the limiting factor of what we are able to perceive as quality and human eyes are not all the same as we know. Scientific evaluation goes way beyond us and the measurements are basically quantitative analysis only. Much like comparing stereo systems and our individual ability to interpret the sound wave pressure on our inner ears.

Digital cameras are essentially microprocessor computers. Electronic filters are designed to help improve the the signals they receive. At times this "cleaning" is at the expense of detail. Think of it like the squelch control on a send/receive citizen band radio.

Now add the complexity of what we are storing and what software we are using on our computers, the graphic card capability itself and of course the monitor, it's color calibration and the brightness of the monitor and the ambient lighting used. Oh, let's not forget the "tilt of the screen" with relation to our line of sight also as we view the images.

All in all, I find that the quality of the images that the camera produces is in direct proportion to my ability to see it. By the way...I wear glasses.

Geegee Loc: Peterborough, Ont.

A crop sensor is roughly half the size of a full frame sensor so if my crop frame camera is rated at 20 megapixels and my full frame camera is rated at 40 megapixels are the pixels of both sensors the same size?