Najataagihe

Only one.

dbrugger25 Loc: Raleigh, NC

I think I would like a 100 megapixel sensor if the pixel saturation capacity and color depth were satisfactory. It would mean that I could carry fewer big heavy telephoto lenses and crop to the area I want. Presently I use a Canon 5d Mk IV and an EOS R. Both have 30 mp sensors. There are times I carry both on a Cotton Vest but the weight bothers me. I am 76 with back problems.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You are absolutely right. Gene51 and some of the others on this site earn their living by using the right tool for the job. Gene51 and many of the others are not just shooting for a possible two page spread for a magazine. They could work with, and only spend the money for, a 25mp to 30mp camera if that was all they did. Someone constantly shooting 4' X 6' prints is not going to choose a 1", 4/3rds, or APS-C as their tool for the job. They might not even choose full frame.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Imagine your photography if you only had the best equipment.

Canisdirus

That's actually a true statement.
If one does not use the best equipment...you have to imagine what you could be accomplishing.
Not just photography...just about any endeavor...especially in a field like electronics which moves very quickly tech wise.

User ID

You speak from experience ? I will keep my assumption to myself on that.

I have made plenty of 30”x40” display prints from 3 or 4MP. Don’t think they were hung where folks don’t have the time to look at them. Many were hung where folks wait around for elevators.

Canisdirus

Well, you somehow convinced someone to put up lousy resolution images then.
The math simply doesn't hold up.

Najataagihe

Photography is not a mathematical pursuit.

Canisdirus

Math is involved in everything engineered...

You can't make a 30" by 40" inch print from a 4 MP image and have it look anywhere near decent.
And yes...that's a mathematical issue.

Najataagihe

Right.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The math of a beautiful image is easy: it has twice the megapixels of your current sensor.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

Question for you - right hand? Or left hand?

If your optics don't match your sensor, do you really have anything at all??? The obvious answer is NO.

Self gratification only goes so far in the 'real world'. The 'system' is only as weak as the weakest part. So far, I have seen that Nikon only certified an approximate 'handful' of their best lenses as performing up to the level of a 45.6 MP sensor. - Anyone claiming some other camera manufacturer is superior to Nikon, or any other factory, should reference that company claiming their super-HD sensor and which lens/lenses perform at the same MP clarity/definition/acuity/contrast/etc.

Personally, I believe that theoretical statistical capabilities of the bleeding edge HD sensor is and will be limited by the real world of the optics forming the image and the reality of the world of thermal convection currents, etc. to lessen the actual performance of the combined components to create a genuine picture. Proof??? Measure the resolution of the picture, the end result of the combined elements that created it "in the REAL WORLD". They will be less than any other single component and the combined total. (Any mathematical, statistical, probability calculation will be limited by the weakest more than the strongest component.)

Any way out??? Do you really want to imagine it??? How about an Ultra HD camera system that takes dozens or hundreds of images, eliminating the worst parts of any individual image and selecting the best of any/all images to stack and give you the final outstanding image. - Was it you or the technology? Maybe you don't care if you actually contribute something or anything, if you get the credit. Very little of it will be from you and your effort. (Some of us might be egotistically willing to assume the credit for the outcome, even though almost nothing of them is a measurable component in the final result.)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A true masterpiece tells you their camera was better than yours.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

"Pixel pitch", "size", "area", and "pixel density" are always more important than pixel count. All cameras are rated by these numbers, but rarely understood. Camera manufacturers see the power in selling pixels for sure...
Unless you are printing, don't get over sold by megapixel counting... Unless you are printing large, a 12 to 18 megapixel camera will have plenty of resolution for online media.
Actually though... Pixels really do not exist, but instead are a measuring standard per square inch of what can be produced in "pixels". Only a select few lenses will produce that maximum pixel resolution of a sensor's potential. A "sharper" lens will produce more resolution, and it is not uncommon to only get 60 to 90 percent of a cameras maximum potential because of the lens quality.
Sharpness is another thing that doesn't exist. That is a "perception" of "edge contrast".
The 20 megapixel Canon 1DX MK3 for example, will produce a 5472x 3648 image with a 6.55 pitch, 42.9 area, and 2.33 density. These qualities, and especially the "pitch" is why this camera can produce great images, especially in low light.
The amount of light captured in a "pixel", means a high megapixel (smaller pixels) count will bring compromises when it comes to its light gathering ability. Those high megapixels will give you more perceived edge contrast, but at a cost.
If you are serious about choosing a superior camera body/ sensor, you need to consider these four points over megapixel count. If you need more "megapixels" for landscape for example, then use a tilt- shift lens. This will produce an image equal to a medium format camera, and give you the ability to print massively large... plus you still get all of the advantages like speed, superior pitch, large pixel size (light gathering ability) area, and density.
A billboard is printed at 2 megapixels, so that example means "viewing distance" is a further consideration. Unless you have your nose "pixel peeping" inches from a print, you will not need massive resolution. Detail is important, but viewing distance can be a bigger consideration. The same is true with what is displayed on most computer monitors.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Yes, one can produce a 30"X40" from 3mp or 4mp. And it will look good from a great than standard viewing distance (greater than 1.5X the diagonal). Burkphoto pointed out in one response to print an acceptable billboard print one would only need a 3mp or 4mp image. And it will look great from the proper viewing distance of the road.

A good image from a 4/3rds sensor will be hard to distinguish from other formats at 30"X40" at a standard viewing distance. Closer than a standard viewing distance, of course the differences between 4/3rds and other formats, like APS-C and full frame, will start showing up. Since lots of people like looking at prints closer than proper viewing distance, more megapixels will stand up easier to that closer scrutiny.