Do you really need more than 20MP?? Here's an update on Gabby cat, presented in a quick review of details of a 20MP cropped sensor pocket camera. I still think a dedicated camera does...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Here's an update on Gabby cat, presented in a quick review of details of a 20MP cropped sensor pocket camera. I still think a dedicated camera does better than a phone, here captured in RAW and processed in LR6.

Gabby cat by Paul Sager, on Flickr

The Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II is a compact camera with a 1-inch CMOS sensor, roughly a 2.7x crop factor, for this model / lens giving a 28–84mm equivalent focal length. The camera features a pop-up flash with flash exposure compensation and in-body image stabilization (IBIS).

The 1:1 pixel level crop below shows the fine details the camera will capture, if opened to the embedded 1947x1217 crop.

Gabby close-up

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I, myself, think 20MP is just fine.
Considering that my <old> camera is 15MP and my <older> camera is 5MP.
It simply depends on one's expectations (requirements) for cropping ability and how large one may print.
And if one is a pixel peeper......
"More" always comes in handy, but is it necessary?
For some it is.
Some want the gnat's butt at 25 yards to be crisp and clear.

With film, if we wanted more "detail" in a large print, we'd have an inter-negative created and print from the inter-negative.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

20MP is good enough for me.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

[quote=CHG_CANON]Here's an update on Gabby cat, presented in a quick review of details of a 20MP cropped sensor pocket camera. I still think a dedicated camera does better than a phone, here captured in RAW and processed in LR6.

Interesting that you raise this point today. Yesterday I lugged my D850 and a couple of lenses through a short, but difficult hike to get some shots of a waterfall. My purpose is to end up with a larger (for me) print to set into a beautiful 24"x36" frame. This will be my first chance to see if carrying 45mp is worth the weight. If I had thought about it, I could have brought my Df along to compare 16mp to 45mp. Maybe next time.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

DaveyDitzer wrote:

Interesting that you raise this point today. Yesterday I lugged my D850 and a couple of lenses through a short, but difficult hike to get some shots of a waterfall. My purpose is to end up with a larger (for me) print to set into a beautiful 24"x36" frame. This will be my first chance to see if carrying 45mp is worth the weight. If I had thought about it, I could have brought my Df along to compare 16mp to 45mp. Maybe next time.

Obviously there will be a difference.
The point is does it really matter?
(Mostly to the obsessed.)

Given an image, ONE image, people will either like it or not.
Only the obsessed will wonder if it was taken with a 20 or 45MP camera.
And any difference is only noticeable when there is something to compare with.
It really only matters to the photographer, not the observer, and what the photographer wants to do with the image. Does 20MP meet HIS needs or desires.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

(
I wish people would pay attention to what they are deleting when they use Quote Reply....
Chopping off ANY piece of the [/quote] at the end really screws up the post.
)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

DaveyDitzer wrote:

Interesting that you raise this point today. Yesterday I lugged my D850 and a couple of lenses through a short, but difficult hike to get some shots of a waterfall. My purpose is to end up with a larger (for me) print to set into a beautiful 24"x36" frame. This will be my first chance to see if carrying 45mp is worth the weight. If I had thought about it, I could have brought my Df along to compare 16mp to 45mp. Maybe next time.

Personally, I always want more pixels, every last one of them ...

But honestly, I don't print very much and those needed / wanted pixels are most relevant when I'm cropping into distant wildlife. Canon had a white paper a few years ago discussing why pro cameras were then ('then' being DSLRs) in the 16- to 20MP range. At 300 ppi, a 2-page magazine spread only needed that 16- to 20MP range to print to that size. Even now in the MILC era, the 'pro' models for journalists are only 24MP, although there's more 'pro' options at higher resolutions, for niche pros.

The options you have from a frame-filling waterfall at 45MP offers a potential wall-sized print, at insane levels of fine detail, but those 45MP are overkill for even a centerfold fold-out in a magazine. Filling my 20-inch / 1920px wide display monitor with the waterfall needs even less.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I like it just fine!

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Personally, I always want more pixels, every last ... (show quote)

Thank you.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Please explain something to me. Say I take two cameras, my D7200 and a D850, mount them on tripods, add identical zoom lenses to both and adjust them to identical equivalent focal lengths. Then take I shot of a bird against a clear blue sky at 150 feet. I then crop both shots to 2000x2000 pixels. Would I expect to see any difference in the shots if I printed them?

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

CHG_CANON wrote:

Here's an update on Gabby cat, presented in a quic... (show quote)

Need? Maybe not. Want? Yes! I'm shooting full frame with Nikon, a D850 45MP. And I LOVE it! But I lust after a medium format digital system. I used to shoot with medium format film. Someday, maybe.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Curmudgeon wrote:

Please explain something to me. Say I take two cameras, my D7200 and a D850, mount them on tripods, add identical zoom lenses to both and adjust them to identical equivalent focal lengths. Then take I shot of a bird against a clear blue sky at 150 feet. I then crop both shots to 2000x2000 pixels. Would I expect to see any difference in the shots if I printed them?

If the same subject roughly fills the same 3:2 frame size while using a) different sensor sizes, with b) significantly different pixel densities, cropping to the same tiny 2000x2000px resolution would yield significantly different images. If, instead, you resized the two similar images down to the same tiny resolution, the differences in the print would depend on other qualities of the images, and whether they too were captured the same, such as the same ISOs and apertures; the same lens quality. I'm not sure if you're trying to ask a trick question or haven't considered all the details of the question as asked.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Curmudgeon wrote:

Please explain something to me. Say I take two cameras, my D7200 and a D850, mount them on tripods, add identical zoom lenses to both and adjust them to identical equivalent focal lengths. Then take I shot of a bird against a clear blue sky at 150 feet. I then crop both shots to 2000x2000 pixels. Would I expect to see any difference in the shots if I printed them?

I would have to do the test, Jack. But off hand, I would say yes. I know I can crop much deeper from the D850 than from my D500 and still get great image IQ. But a crop to 2000 by 2000 is quite considerable from a typical D850 image so...maybe not!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

[quote=DaveyDitzer]

CHG_CANON wrote:

Here's an update on Gabby cat, presented in a quic... (show quote)

It's worth it, Trust me!