Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

Huh? What 143 meg? Where did I say 61 meg is "magic"?

Frankly, this 24 meg discussion is not the subject of this thread.

It's baloney ... I have a 24 meg Sony and NEVER use it ... there is nothing special about it, it's adequate and I've used 24meg ff for weddings as a workhorse companion to a MF-Digital camera.

... but because it's 24 meg, resale value is dismal.

Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

I think you are over-stating the effect of larger photo-sites of 24 meg FF cameras. I suspect you are seduced by the Zeiss optics.

User ID

Ive used 100MP just to copy art. 140 is not gonna show any difference. 100 was overkill. 140 would be "just a number".

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

I guess the point I was making was most will never be satisfied just keep reaching for more megs

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Thank you for your honesty! Don’t let anyone on this website know this! There will be a lot of broken hearts

Bill_de Loc: US

Not where intended!

---

User ID

Uh huh. Good point.

User ID

Intended, not. Expected, yup !

Intentions and expectations are 3rd cousins.

Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

Blanket statement that applies to some applications, and not to others.

Interesting comment about copying art since I'm involved with that professionally, as well as doing commercial work requiring a high degree of accuracy for printed automotive color selection materials. Admittedly, these are highly specialized applications.

In past I've used Hasselblad Medium Format Multi-Shot backs because of the increased detail and more importantly the color accuracy. Color has been much researched yielding the notion that the better it is going in, the better the outcome.

I also do commercial retouching, and work on 100meg files all the time ... for example, beauty shots of Pick-Up trucks in a work setting which require trim be altered, new wheels added, grill replaced, or badging changed ... the big files hold up and allow huge enlargements to make such corrections before publication.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

Doesn't break my heart, because it isn't true.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Larger pixels DO gather more light, correct ? As far as 24 MP goes, I was just relaying what consensus seems to say about optimum MP per sensor size, i.e., 24 seems like a good size for FF. Anyhoot ,this little interest of ours is NOT objective based but purely subjective to individual eyes and tastes... I will stand by my statement of large pixels and Zeiss optics being a killer combo...

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

There is a universal misconception about image quality, image size and megapixels.

If you extreme crop, or print very-very large, it is advantageous to have recorded the extra data, and that's the point.

If you downsize 20 to 100 megapixels files to present at screen or social media presentation size, or only mildly crop, there will be no visual difference. Both images will be around 6 megapixels after sizing.

Want to waste time and impress absolutely no one... take a 100 plus megapixel panorama and post the results on instagram of Fb...

On the other hand with 61 megapixels you can print to 56 inch wide or more and see detail at close inspection that's incredible...

The original post has an attached 6 megapixel image of the Golden Gate bridge... Unless I see the large print or original file data, detail is meaningless. The colors are Grand and the composition stellar, nice shot.

asking anyone to "pixel Peep" a 6 megapixel upload derived from a 61 megapixel raw file is silly. It would be far better to add an accompanying crop from the original data file to explain what detail that would be discernible at maximum print size, not this Grandiose idea about how your cameras has a superior megapixels count or "proof on inspection" for a social media post with its maximum resolution and size constraints...

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Amazing how a simple observation ALWAYS turns into some sort of debatable discussion on the hog. I like Zeiss optics and I like what larger pixels impart. It's the KISS principle.... Lets move on !

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Megapixels numbers equate to file size and how large you can print or crop, not the quality of an image at it's standard native jpeg dimensions. A computer monitor, tablet or cell phone come in at a mere 6 megapixels.

When choosing megapixel size for your camera purchase, consider your output size and if you want to crop. There are advantages to optimizing in many ways with under 30 megapixels. Proper framing and distance rather than cropping is a simple solution and a panoramic capture can triple the file size and sensor area over a single sensor image if you utilize a TS lens.

User ID

As of lately I have standardized on working with the ideal quantity of MP.