Do You Need A HIGH MEGAPIXEL CAMERA?! You Might Be Surprised!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Do you really need a high megapixel camera? Sony's A7rV, canon R5, Nikon Z6 are all high megapixel cameras and they seem to be getting more common, with camera brands pushing this narrative that you need a high megapixel camera in order to take good photos. But is this actually true? I break down all the reasons you would want a high megapixel camera and how they compare to a low megapixel camera!
My Gear
Sony A7iii - amzn.to/3WpAeaA
Tamron 28-75 - amzn.to/4d0b5KG
Tamron 17-28 - amzn.to/3WEeaKL
Tamron 75-180 - amzn.to/4cZILbh
Sony 35mm - amzn.to/4c4JtTv
Tripod - amzn.to/4dlJcwG
Lighting - amzn.to/3SrtwQa
Subscribe to my channel if you found this useful ! @lachlangarutti / @lockiegee
Agree with your commentary, will add that on high ISO noise I have seen that the noise reduction software still needs improvement. Find that more so with APS-C files.
Yeh it does, but topaz works great.. Lightroom is ok…
On1 also does a pretty good job. They are all amazing compared to a few years ago.
@@alansach8437 Hadn't tried On1, currently using DXO and Lightroom, and with my APS-C files over 6400, I was hoping for better.
Higher MP is definitely useful
Indeed it is!
All depends if you have the skill to use them.
"I don't need 20 million megapixels" - Alex Majoli
Great video. Thanks. Some of my best and most favorited photos were shot with only a 5MP camera. Content, story, composition, feeling, emotion, lighting ... to me, those are way more important than the gear.
100% ! Megapixels won’t create a great composition! Glad to hear others think a-like! Thanks for watching!
High MP doesn''t come in a play with photos that you can capture with 5MP. High MP comes in a play where you would have missed with 5MP such as you have 35mm prime lens only and you spot an interesting object in a distance. I over and over run into a limitation even with my 33MP camera when I go out for a street photography and my 61MP camera just liberates me so much in a same situation. High MP does not enable you to be creative shots but opens up opportunities otherwise could have been missed. Think of high MP as a photography tool like lenses, tripod, flash, etc.
@@TheTensecondz You make some good points. I almost never crop my photos so that probably doesn't apply to me. If I didn't get it right in camera, I consider it a missed shot and try to get it right next time.
@@john-e3v8v There is usually no next time. Once you missed, you most likely missed it forever!
@@TheTensecondz yes, every moment is unique. There can be similar situations though.
Well explained and thank you for the guidance.
High megapixel serves many purposes where detail matters and image quality are more than the benefit of large printing. The ability to crop as a macro and telephoto without swapping lenses and be free of the dependence on postproduction software enhancement is a win for me which sometimes degrades the image. Smartphones with low megapixel counts can't compete with high-megapixel cameras creatively
Great points! Thanks for the input!
But I love my R5, mite! I should get the R6MkII to take better photos?
If you love it then it’s perfect for you! 🙌🏼 it is a great camera!
Do it!!!!
No. But someone with the R6 can also take great pictures.
The difference is easily felt once you take a group photo with more than 50 people in the frame.
If you have just a 24 MP camera, you need to make sure the lens is sharp from corner to corner. It is hard to find a crop sensor lens starting from 18 mm wide that has that level of sharpness.
But nowadays, 30 MP plus cameras have an added advantage in that scenario for extra sharpness. I actually prefer sharp lenses and hope crop sensor camera manufacturers make such sharp optics to compete with mobile phone camera lenses, which offer such sharpness across the frame
Great point! Never shot a group photo of 50 people so it’s great to hear a different point of view
What are you talking about.
The best camera is the one in your hands, not the one your thinking about.
100% one of my favourite sayings is the best camera you have is the one you have on you!
Pointless, ancient and false statement alongside with “Image quality does not matter, the subject does”. I used to have Canon EOS 350D, and it was honestly crappy. I thought about EOS 5D, and after I got it, it was completely different level. I still have a plenty of RAWs from both of them, and I just can repeat my words. In addition, I compare result from current cameras with them, an I should say, the image quality vastly improved since then, but 5D shots still look so good.
We print at dots per inch, not pixels per inch.
@@evertigo with modern software I am amazed at the quality of my old cameras. I recently got my old Fuji xe1 out, put the best lenses Fuji makes on it. The print quality is astonishing.
Over 15MP and up to 50MP is ok for me. 40+MP is convenient for cropping, but not a must.
yeh I got to agree!
I was recently looking to buy a new camera, 40 or 26 megapixels. Went for the 26. I can always upscale in software, stitch multiple images if I need more.
Depends. If you are doing wildlife, more MP never hurts.
More MP is great for wildlife!
A bit of math with modern computers. I have 4K 32-inch Dell U3223QE display connected to the Mac mini M1. My resolution setting is “looks like 3008x1692” because it’s comfortable, and it corresponds to my previous 27-inch Dell U2720Q with “looks like 2560x1440”. In fact, macOS renders the image as 6016x3384 and then fits it into 4K. Pretty large, huh? When I deal with 24 MP shots out of my current Canon EOS R6 Mark II on this setup, I can say, it’s not too much room to zoom. I mean, the image does not reveal many details from magnifying from fit view to 100%. Yes, I like to watch photos on a large display, and yes, I mostly don’t like to magnify more than 100%. Sometimes after cropping the situation becomes even worse. The original EOS had 30 MP, and it was better. R5 would be the optimal solution. Sometimes I stitch multiple R6M2 shot to get more details. Upscale option from 24 MP (in Lightroom currently) does not meet my image quality expectations yet.
UPD: the author really demonstrates upscale quality on that boat painting? Is that a joke? Show us some cityscape with a gazillion of details, and how they survive from 24 MP after that upscale. 50 MP from MF Hassy/Fuji is a good starting point for tearless upscale. 100 MP from latest models with a bit of further downscale is even better.
Thanks for your input! 👍🏼🙌🏼
I just grab the one, that I feel is best for the job.
My Canon M6 mk II has 32.5 megapixels. It takes good printable photos.
Yes. But any 24 MPix will do the same. As for me I am happy with my 47 MPix camera. But needs more often, thinking about Medium Format 100 Mix. I need big and sharp prints.
@@lesnayalesichka Not really, the Canon SL2 is 24 megapixel. It's decent but not as good as the M6 II.
Canon just Can't do good sensors for their cameras as Sony do. Then Canon decide go stupid marketing "the 24 is enough"
@@lesnayalesichka I have the camera I like and lenses that I like. I am not spending money on new stuff that I don't need.
I used the Canon R6 for a while, but I often crop. Sometimes I just want that crisp HD eye.
Aiming to sell a Kidney for the new R5. But then I will probably try find an excuse to get a higher MP camera lol.
yeh I saw the new R5, looks like a beast! I might sell a kidney too haha
Reading the comments is usually more interesting than watching yet another TH-cam video on megapixel counts. It's almost like a rite of passage if you have your one channel to make at least one video about megapixel count and apsc vs full frame. If the channel gets to the point of needing any old content you get to do another video arguing the opposite viewpoint as though that is gospel as well.
There's over 4k views of this video as I type this and I expect at least 3.5k of those viewers have never printed their own photo bigger than the A4 printer they have ready access to, if they've ever printed one but I bet every one of them has uploaded to a social media site of some variety.
Going by some of the comments here there shouldn't have been any gallery exhibits of wildlife photography between the death of film and the first 40 or 50+mp digital camera and any there were must have been of such poor quality you have to feel for those poor souls that took them in.
It's the same with printing. The mid 2000's must have been a time of minuscule prints, really shoddy quality spreads in magazines and advertising hoardings shot solely on medium format. How ever did we cope?
At least we got a mention of the lens quality and the resolving ability of lenses. I'll throw a like in just for not forgetting or ignoring the importance of the lens.
A Nikon D200 was the first dslr I owned which replaced my Nikon F65 so I've shot a few different sensors over the years and even shot slide film. I've had two A3+ printers, a HP B9180 and now I've got a Canon Pro 300 so I have and do print out to 13x19, although usually it's A3 because the paper is somewhat cheaper and there's only so much wall space for 12x18 prints. Biggest ever print? 30x40 on acrylic for a friend taken with a 16mp Fuji XE1. Old camera, an apsc sensor and a kit lens so I have no idea how the print turned out so well (that's irony).
Shoot with what you want. It's your money so buy the camera that makes you happy even if it won't make you a better photographer.
thanks for taking the time to comment! you make a lot of great points, maybe ill have to include them in my next video apsc vs full frame cameras. haha
45mp is the sweet spot. 60mp is way too much for social media.
interesting!
I still never was able to make a night photo with any 40+ megapixel camera the quality i got with 2 mp Olympus years ago. 😊
personal preference! if it works for you then thats all that matters!
Short answer no. Long answer yes. Even long answer , i shoot motogp races, 61mp lets me crop quite alot & i dont need anything more then 400mm lens mostly.
when cropping in its worth the extra money!
Yes, I do need a high MP camera > to some degree. But not to the point that it starts to greatly effect image quality. I'm a bird guy. So often, I need to crop, sometimes a lot. As far as printing large goes, I've done a lot of stitching in the past. It's actually pretty easy to do, and it works in a lot of situations (moving water, or clouds) where one would not expect it to. However, if 1) I still did a lot of landscapes, and 2) money were no object, absolutely I'd be using a 100-150mp medium format camera.
I've try the upscaling programs every year or so, and so far, I still get terrible results.
We all need a high megapixel camera to some degree haha 🙃
The high MP users crop their shots to about 20-30MP anyway. Instead of going for the lens that gives them the right focal length, instead of cropping.
💯 💯
Good point. 100% I would rather spend my money on bigger and better glass than on new, higher megapixel camera, every two or three years. I'll have that glass until I die. That camera is fleeting. In a few years folks will be asking about the camera, no matter what I paid for it, "Are you STILL shooting with THAT?"
Nice content mate, subbed.
Thanks so much! 🙌🏼
As always, great content... thank you!
👌🤝🙏 🇿🇦
Thank you! 🙏🏼
No you don't need a high megapixel mirrorless or DSLR camera. All of those guys poo poo in the R1 because it's only 24 megapixel. If that's the only reason they consider this not a real flagship camera they need to go back and play with their toys at their mama's house.
I mean playing with toys can be fun 😂
very true
99 percent of all photographers don't need high megapixel cameras. 45 or 60 MP are more than enough. If you meed 100 physical MP or more swich to digital medium format.
switching to medium format is a great option! I forgot to include that in the video!
@@lockiegee is must be incredible if a 100MP + picture is printed in 300 DPI. People squeeze their noses, because they can discover more and more detail, that you can't see from the distance you can see the full frame. It must be funny finding ridicules small details in the print.
Yeh I’ve personally never seen someone look at a print super close but it would be amazing to see all the detail! But at the same time I’d probably never remember to look at it super close 😂
This is an on-going argument since Canon released D30 in 2001 with 3MP. It was repeatedly proven that 3MP had comparable resolving resolution to the 35mm film photo; therefore, anything above 3MP was an overkill. Then the sweat spot resolution changed to 4MP to 8MP to 12MP.to16MP...so forth as years went by. Now we call 24MP is a sweat spot. I bet 10 years later with 64K wall-size TVs in every house, there will be a bunch of videos discussing "Do we really need high 300MP when the low 100MP is all wee need. Looking at the tends from 2000, I don't think this "low MP vs. high MP talk" will ever stop.
@mipmipmipmipmipActually, they are two completely different technologies so you are comparing apples to oranges, but I have never heard the 80 megapixel estimate before!
Interesting point! In 2001 I was 9 years old as cool as it would’ve been to be in photography I just liked football 😂 great point though and thanks for sharing
That`s what I always say!
bad take. The point on printing completely ignores that a big print won't just be appreciated as a whole, but standing closer to find details is just as interesting. Upscaling software is horrendous. It cannot provide the detail, since it has no information on what should be there. On the low light point you're correct, but your explanation is lacking. Noise reduction exists, but it reduces the amount of detail in the photo. But the high resolution sensor will still provide more detail, that's why you're correct.
I also find it extremely jarring that you use b-roll from other creators without credit, and without permission I assume. Do better.
Thanks for your input 🙌🏼
You forgot about galleries, especially in small towns. In those, people get right up on your images, within inches. That’s when a high MP cameras will save your butt. Also, i have been asked by print publications for high resolution images and many of them don’t trust upscaling software and don’t want to hear mention of it (it is bad advice to suggest that people upscale images- that is fake detail anyway). Better to get a high MP camera than to mislead people about your product. And while the cropping thing is obvious, it still bears mentioning that many who do wildlife photography, while owning both $13000 lens and 50 MP cameras, and getting close to subjects (which is often not a good thing for several reasons) still must crop. So you please, just move on to another subject because manufacturers aren’t going to listen to you, print publishers aren’t going to listen to you, and people like me, who contribute content in high resolution and uses a high MP camera and has a super pricey lens, aren’t going to listen to you.
Thanks for your input! 🙌🏼
spot on.
There are millions of beautiful photographs in galleries around the world that were taken with 35 mm film, and 8, 10, 12, 16 and 20 megapixel cameras. If someone (who is not another photographer) is pixel peeping your image on a gallery wall, trust me, you don't have a very compelling image! Where a lot of megapixels do "save your butt" is when you do a lot of extensive cropping. Many photographers do, many don't.
People that live in the real world that don't want to spend £5k on a camera will listen though. I have an incredible A1 print in my living room taken on a 16MP Lumix G80 and you can get as close to that thing as you want and it looks incredible.
The gallery argument is so hilarious to me because whenever I'm in a gallery or musuem the last thing I think of when I look at an image is the image being too low resolution. If I see pixels I realize I need to take a step backwards.
I do not. Whether or not you do is up to you.
100% everyone is different
Of cause you don't need high megapixel camera. Same about color (most impressive world known photos are B/W !!!). Use manual focus lenses, don't pay the camera makers for useless auto mode. LOL.
Yes ...and no
I can see the difference between my GFX and my 20mp cameras...
Have you ever used a GFX camera....wheh your jaw hits the floor after looking at the images....and yes I'm a working photographer
That said yes you can get great images from 24 mp camera.
But enlarged prints are softer
100%
I don't need "pexels" at all.
I don’t need cake either but it’s delicious 🤤 not sure how that relates 😂
@@lockiegee But you may want to correct the typo in your video's title. ;-) (MEGAPEXEL)
Bad advise
:(
You do not
Good points but I've l listened to these points millions of times. Yes high megapixel is always better if you can afford it. And yes high megapixel ce eras are for cropping. Because all photographers crop their photos.
Thanks for the input ! I’ll keep note for future content !
Not true at all. High megapixel demands high quality optics and very high demands on the photographer. 99 percent of photographers don't need them, they just get caught up in marketing. Most people don't even print their images.