Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

[quote=robertjerl]

Robert:
I would also like to add to your reasons for "shooting a bit wide".
I too always shoot a little wide to provide a bit of template material for cropping following post-processing (PP). I always shoot full-frame (2:3) and I PP the entire pic and keep the un-post processed file by saving the post-processed file as an XXX.01.jpg, still in the original loosely composed full 2X3 ratio.

Then, from the Post Processed XXX.01.jpg (2X3 file) I can crop to whatever ratio, or create whatever file size is required. And I may do so without "adding to the top or bottom" of a pic. Which can be a royal pain for me. Whenever I have a large post-processed file size pic, I may make several pics from the one scene. I may crop left/right, top, bottom, etc. creating many pics from one.
I also shoot wide like this because I don't know what application may be used or the size (1X1, 2X3, 3X5, 8X10, 11X14, 8.5X11, 8.5X14, ETC.) may be required for print size or other media.

For the purists, I do like to "get it right in the camera" for everything except framing the pic. Some folks "expose to the right", but I just shoot a little "Loose".
Full disclosure: I used to shoot/crop/save entirely for 11.5X14" pics.
Boy, was that a big mistake!
Best Wishes,
JimmyT Sends

Ruthlessrider

Gorrgeous photo!

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I have many 16x20 wall hangers from my Canon rebel 77D printed on metallic paper and they are tack sharp. Not cropped so not stressing them. Not cropped due to my lack of knowledge to use my ps elements and really tweak them. Limited time to learn right now but that's life. Most times I'm able to crop while I take the photo

billt1970 Loc: Gambrills, Maryland

[quote=GeneinChi]How many MP’s are really necessary for the average non-professional person taking pictures?

Great question, Gene, even for professionals like me. I shoot real estate with a DSLR, drone, 360, and video cameras. Like in most professions, you want to have the right tool for your job. In my case for the DSLR (or mirrorless) I have a Nikon D750. Given that 99.99% of those images will never be printed, the 24MP from the D750 are more than enough. If I was shooting with any "more professional" camera I would be wasting pixels and a huge amount of storage space for the images.

For Google 360s I normally shoot with a Nikon D7100 and Sigma 8mm fisheye lens. In the extreme, when I was part of a Google-sponsored team to shoot White House Christmas decorations last year, I rented a Nikon Z7 with the FTZ adapter and used the same 8mm Sigma lens. That was the one and only time when the added capability of the Z7 was needed, and in that case I rented it.

The bottom line, as in most work, select and use the right tool for your job.

Best Regards,

BT

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Most images are viewed on 2k monitors - about 2 MP. Some older monitors show less than 2k and some smartphones a little more. High definition 4k monitors can display about 4x as much - 8MP.

More than 9MP is overkill for an 8x12 print at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) which is all a normal human eye can resolve from about 10 inches away. Since your viewing distance increases in proportion to the print size increase, 9MP is also enough for a poster or billboard. So 12MP is more than enough.

But ppi is an image resolution. A printer's resolution in dpi (dots per inch) can be a whole order of magnitude higher because many dots are used to represent a pixel with from 4 to 9 different inks.

To get all of the newest features you might want a 24MP camera is probably optimal. It will produce excellent images and the available lenses will not break the bank. Anything more than 24MP is likely to take you on a fruitless and expensive quest for very pricy lenses that aren't really going to make your images any better.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Sometimes my hindsight is 20/20 too.
There are many times in life when my "Send" button (AKA - mouth/keyboard) was engaged long before my brain was engaged.
Sometimes what I say/wrote can be heard/read much differently than what was intended, sigh . . .
If I just had it all to "Do-Over" again . . .
Best Wishes to all,
JimmyT Sends

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

While many of the posts on this thread talk about the relative advantages of a higher megapixel sensor, I haven’t seen much, if any, discussion concerning the disadvantages of the 40mp and above sensors. From what I have gleaned from my reading, the smaller size of the high megapixel sensors are more prone to noise and more prone to focus unsharpness, but I would love to hear from the experts. It will also make me feel better about my 16mp m43 bodies.

stevetassi

I have a 24x36 canvas taken with my old d40. It looks great.

srg

That is a stunning picture. Sadly, many here on UHH would prefer to see it in B&W

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I think that this topic has been beaten to death here and most probably somewhere else. I am going to say that "depends" and "intended use" are basic considerations when we ask ourselves how many megapixels are enough.
I bet the majority of the Nikon shooters here remember the D2H. It was a camera with 4.1 megapixels and some of the most beautiful colors I ever had in a camera. Out of curiosity I enlarged to 13x19 inches the image of a snowy egret I captured at our local zoo. Everything was there. When I challenged the camera to a 16x20 inch enlargement once again all the details were there. Looking at both prints from a normal viewing position both prints looked outstanding.

If a person crops often a camera with lots of megapixels is ideal. When I posted an answer to the article that Bob referred to here with a link, the samne article he posted a few days ago, I mentioned that the old Nikon D70 at the time was a very capable camera with 6 megapixels. I owned one and it satisfied my needs. I mentioned also that I was in a photo workshop in West Virginia a few years back using a D300 (I made a mistake, it was a D7000) and the instructor was using a D800. In spite of the difference in megapixels I took some shots with his 24-70 f2.8 Nikon lens and when viewed in the monitor I could not tell the difference between his images and mine and we were looking at the images at a 50% enlargement, a huge enlargement in real life if you ask me.

A person who is not going to be enlarging beyond 8x10 inches or who will actually use the camera mostly to post online does not needs tons of pixels. Professionals in my area who shoot weddings do so with cameras with relatively low megapixels count, if we call low 16 megapixels. I do not mean all of them but a pretty large group of them. Understand that they shoot with professional lenses that have high resolution.

I agree with Ken Rockwell, the resolution of an image depends a lot on us and not necessarily in the camera we are using. If appropriate photo techniques are not used with a Nikon D850 with a 24-70 f2.8 lens do not expect miracles. Use good photo techniques with a D70 and a kit lens and expect excellent results.

I make no claims as been a computer guru or someone who understand technology, I base what I am saying here on my observations of images I have shot over time. No, I have no claims either as been a great photographer but I shoot the subjects that I like and I am very satisfied when I use my 17 megapixels Olympus bodies. I have shot Nikon since 1963 and what I cannot do with my old D7000 I cannot do with a more advanced camera with more megapixels.

Coming to think of it, it is my Nikon D610 with its 24 megapixels the camera I use less often.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Always eye-catching and beautiful 💗🤍💙🤍💗

george19

I started with a 6 Mp D100, coming from the film world where I shot exclusively slides…get exposure and composition right the first time or toss it. In digital I shot only JPG, never cropping and rarely tweaking.

I bought a new laptop loaded with Lightroom when I bought my D810, also started shooting RAW.

Using my 200-500, I still need to crop out most of the picture (80+%) for bird and moon pictures. This still leaves me 5 or 6 Mp to play with.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The first disadvantage is the added cost of the body but that's only the beginning. When you start to look at your images on your computer at 100% you will be tempted to upgrade your lenses and that can be much more expensive.

The second disadvantage is the size of the raw file and the resulting image file. That might lead you to upgrade your computer and storage capacity, another significant expense.

But if you do your comparison using the largest print you can easily produce on your own the advantage of high megapixels goes away.

- One of my printers can produce a 12x18" print which would normally be viewed from no less than 15". That suggests about 200ppi and under 9MP.
- My other printer can produce a 16x24" print to be viewed from no less than 20". That's about 150ppi, still under 9MP.

So what did I get with a 45.7 MP Z7? Aside from the initial cost of the body (about $2300 used) plus an FTZ adapter ($250) and a Leica M adapter ($90) I also spent another $1700 on three Z mount lenses. But it did not make any visible difference in the quality of my large prints.

The only benefit I can report is the ability to test my older lenses at the highest possible resolution to determine which ones are better. I confirmed that a couple are losers but most are perfectly fine. For example, the 2022 Nikon 85mm f/1.8S lens ($800) that is very highly rated by DxOMark is barely sharper at 100% than my 2017 85mm f/1.8D ($480) that they rated as being inferior to the new lens. But when I make one of my larger prints I can't tell them apart.

leftj Loc: Texas

Forming opinions from reading rather than from experience are worth what you pay for them.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

To paraphrase: A picture is worth a thousand words or 30mp.