I recently switched from a Canon 40d, which is my first camera. It was 10MP and I had a lot of fun working with it. Some time ago I bought a Canon 90D which has 32MP and I also bought a Tamron 150-600mm G2, I am very happy with it.
I shoot 24mp Nikon D600 and 24MP Nikon D5300 (astro-modified with L-Enhance filter). Since one is modified and the other one not, I haven't done any comparisons to determine how the higher pixel pitch of my full frame might give me a better image than the lower pixel pitch of my crop body, but I doubt I'll see much practical difference. I'm colorblind, so what my eyes might interpret as a difference in noise, might just be a color shift due to the filter, if I was to even try to compare the two.
To be honest, pixel count was never a parameter I would care about much. I really loved my Canon 7D I've been using for 11 years, back in the time it was a camera with very few compromises (except for the APS-C sensor, of course), just taking it in your hands felt quite different than the entry level 400D and the overall ergonomics was great. Now I upgraded to R6 Mark II, mostly expecting better low light performance and more precise and reliable autofocus (plus features like subject/eye detection and tracking), and it gave me exactly that and few more handy features. But I suspect I could be just as happy with any other today's camera of similar class once I would get familiar with it.
I've been using a Sony a7siii for 2+ years now. I love the small file sizes for photo, and the high-quality video. Don't love the battery life, which is half that of my old a7iii, using the same type of battery.
21mp was considered more than sufficient a decade ago. Nothing has changed. 99% of images are viewed on a monitor so mega megapixels is really overkill. Even cropping down to 4mp will still be more sufficient for online viewing. Very very few people make prints, let alone huge ones.
Yes...hobbyists needn't change cameras because of this video...though this content is quite accurate. If you are a professional and/or live by your prints...ignore at your own peril. Of course the same would go for contests...the photographer with the higher MP modern sensor goes into any contest...with an edge...a real edge.
@@LtDeadeye A une époque, je possédais un boitier Olympus micro quatre tiers de 16 millions de pixels , j'ai fais des agrandissements de 80X60 cm et je peux affirmer qu'on ne voit aucun pixel tout en ayant son nez sur la photo ;) At one time, I owned an Olympus micro four-thirds camera of 16 million pixels, I made enlargements of 80X60 cm and I can say that we do not see any pixel while having his nose on the photo ;)
To be honest, for a hobbyist I struggle to see a *practical* need for a camera over 12MP. I’ve printed canvas prints from a *cropped* image of a 10MP camera, I printed human sized posters from a heavy crop of a 24MP camera (likely 1/5 of an original image remained) - they all turned out great. I have a 36MP camera, a few 24MP, a 16MP, a few 12MP, and a 10MP. Which camera is used the most? A D3 with its 12MP. I guess if your clients or stock agencies demand high MP then fine… But my view that in practical everyday use a good glass is far, far more important that any megapixels. Cheers! As always, great video, Simon!
I think you’re right about a good lens being worth more than a high pixel count. I have an old 6.1 MP Pentax. I have 6 lenses but only really use the 3 primes I have - all Pentax M series. They render much nicer images than the zooms I have.
I have two Nikon D700s 12mp is just fine. It is more dependent on the glass quality. The only caviar is the cropping but with the right framing it is not a deal breaker.
Big smile on my face. I shoot with a 20mp camera and I have never had an issue with noise in my “printed” photos. Even my wall mounted 24x36 photo came out great. And biggest benefit my gear cost 50% less and is probably 50% lighter than full frame. Again another great video.
I got a 30,3mp camera and i never had any problems either. It's all about the editing and especially looking (zooming) into the details to see the pixels, instead of looking at a 6000x4000 picture on your 1080/1440p screen xd.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Yes, it is really all about the glass, as far as noise, DOF, and diffraction are concerned. You do not get the vaunted "FF low light sensitivity" with a small-pupil lens. You simply have the option to have lenses with larger pupils when you have larger sensors, and want to shoot at wide angles, because they don't exist for smaller sensors. The lowest theoretical f-number for glass and air is f/0.5. The lowest we actually see is f/0.7, and if such a lens is reasonable sharp wide open, it probably costs as much as a Porsche. f/0.9 is where we start to see somewhat affordable lenses, and it gets much easier by f/1.2 or f/1.4. For narrower angles of view, there are no disadvantages to smaller sensors, per se. The Nikon P1000, for example, with its 5.57x crop sensor has a lens that is 539/8 at max zoom, which has a bigger pupil than than some popular zooms used on FF cameras, like the Canon RF600/11, or the Canon RF00-400/5.6-8. The P1000 has a 67mm pupil, the 600/11 has a 55mm pupil, and the 100-400, a 50mm pupil. Of course, if one person with a Canon R6 and the RF100-400 was shooting the same small, distant subject as someone right next to them with a P1000, with the same shutter speed, and both shoot wide open, the P1000 will have less noise, and more background blur. It might not seem that way, if the results are viewed at 100%, but that is not how you should compare the same subject with two different pixel counts. If you normalize them to be presented at the same subject size, then the P1000 should be better in every way, assuming focus and stability. The P1000 will likely have no visible trace of aliasing at all, while the R6 will have clear color aliasing in the raw data, even if converters mute it. Zoom the P1000 out to the wide end, though, and now it can't compete with any FF, unless the FF was stopping a lens way down for increased DOF at the same angle of view, because it is equivalent to 24/16. It's really about subject size, distance to subject vs distance to background, and pupil size (during exposure), that determines the foundational visible imaging parameters of a normalized subject. ISOs, sensor sizes, and f-numbers have no direct, absolute meaning without a well-defined context.
Here you are conflating pixel count and sensor size. Once you go from full frame to a cropped sense the image quality changes in favor in the full frame camera, even if the pixel count is the same or higher. And I say this as a micro four thirds user. The Canon R5 and the R6 are both full frame cameras.
I do find from 20 to 40 megapixels a big difference. The detail and ability to crop my images has doubled. Although I'm not making prints or cropping that much.
@@TechnoBabble Yes I understood that from the video but my mind is backwards lol. It was the increase in resolution that makes the biggest difference most likely. I went from micro 4/3 6K sensor to full frame 8K sensor.
That makes no sense at all! If you double the number of pixels and it increases your ability to crop without a reduction in resolution it means the overall resoultion of the sensor has increased.
Since watching Simon's programmes on ISO I have now put ISO in the hands of my camera. I'm not so afraid of ensuring my ISO isnas lownas possible anymore as I have become way more aware of how to create the correct exposure for whatever scene I'm shooting. These 2 programmes were one of the biggest eye-openers yet and I have vwatched a hell of a lot of different photographers on YT and nonone has ever explained ISO like Simon. 👏👏🙏
Man you explain things so clearly and simply. Honestly I would never show you my photo is they horrific but I think my understanding is higher thanks to your posts
Brilliant, Simon! I have been watching your videos over the past year and I believe they are great in terms of simplicity, flow of information, language, and above all, your approach respects its audience. I started doing photography in 1985/86 using Nikon F301. I find your way of delivering the information is very viewer-friendly. By the way, I'm a neurologist! Wish you all the very best from Iraq!
Having experience in semiconductor technology , you are spot on in your explanation especially when you make the very important point of the comparing sensors of the same generation. Most of the explanations I have heard on TH-cam are absolutely wrong in this regard as they disregard the simple fact that older generations of semiconductors were produced using older techniques which produced less sensitive devices with higher noise thresholds. Keep up the good work!
Great description as always, Simon. You hit the nail on the head. I’ve always viewed these sensor types this way: - lower megapixel for higher readout speeds for video, sports, and wildlife - higher megapixel for higher resolution for cropping, landscape, and portraiture Every camera/sensor combo was engineered for a range of end-uses in mind. Doesn’t mean they can’t be used interchangeably, it just means their design will deliver the peak performance when used to their relative strengths. There’s not one that is superior to another. I try to keep using them with these use cases in mind and I’ve never been happier.
Totally agreed. I use my Fuji x-h2s with 24MPix if it comes to speed for ballet dancer shots. And the x-t5 with 40MPix for day by day shots. Know the strength of your tools.
I have known many people who say 'higher resolution for portraits'; I disagree because a head & shoulder portrait shot on a higher resolution camera would result in skin blemishes becoming very visible, thus necessitating the need for lots of post shoot editing. Whereas a portrait shot on a lower resolution camera won't have the above problem. Landscape and Macro Photography are where high resolution is required.
Hi Simon as with any video, I can only congratulate you for all the explanations. Sometimes I find myself explaining the same things to those who compare the smartphone to the real camera, actually demonstrating that they don't know anything about it! Difference in sensor size and megapixel size make the difference! 50'000 mpx smartphone will never be comparable to an 18 mpx of a real camera
Your last comment about just going out and getting some photos is probably the best bit of advice one could give. A few years ago I sold all my large full-frame gear and went with an APSC setup. They all said I was mad! I had been a working photographer but the pandemic killed that off. So I took it as the chance to focus on personal projects, which demanded lighter gear and more flexibility. I knew there would be quality compromises, and... there were, a little. But what I gained was a lighter backpack and a lot more money in my pocket to get out there. The net gain was more photos, more practice, more ways to create. Ultimately, I found new genres and interests, for which the smaller camera is far superior. So glad I didn't follow all the "bigger is better" voices!
Simon, I appreciate your thoughtful approach in addressing comments to no end and I'm thoroughly enjoying this video format. Your channel consistently has new and useful information you can't find elsewhere and your videos have been instrumental to my journey in photography. Thank you for another great entry.
Once again, this channel has some of the most direct and useful knowledge towards improving work with cameras. Every time I stop by to watch another video I’m amazed at how clear, accurate, and informative you are with this stuff in a world that is bloated with a lot of useless or misguided information.
A miracle! Truth! I use small sensor cameras since 2001, as I began in Digital. I made 20x30cm prints from my Pentax Optio 3,5 mp.. I could go slightly bigger. As my small cameras improved, so did the look! With new technology we don't need those crazy high numbers. I don't know anyone making large prints except in galleries! Big is not better! Big is boring! Your images are so beautiful. Stunning! I love small cameras, my age79, my health, heart but I try a walk every day and snap! I was atop pro, but now I am a kid again, but slow! Merci Bien! Bravo.
As an Nikon/Canon shooter this video brings back so many memories. I had the D800 and the 5dmk3. The debates on social media was out of hand. The canon shooters yelling about how bad the iso performance will be. And the nikon shooters said basically what you're saying. Back then Canon had problems with DR making them fall behind Sony sensors. Today is different, the Canon sensors has caught up and some more. Great video! I know a great deal about photography. And I'm very impressed by the way you explain. It's very pedagogical
Well done, Simon. I bought my Sony A7III instead of the A7IIIR for several of the reasons you cover, but the 2 primary drivers were 1) I rarely print larger than 8X10 for viewing at about 18" and 20 megapixels is more than enough resolution for that, and 2) I crop minimally. I don't do landscapes frequently, but when I do my preference is certainly glass over cropping. I have the perception (perhaps content for a future video -- you're welcome!) that image quality is better using the appropriate telephoto lens on a smaller sensor than it is for a lower focal length lens on a larger sensor that's then cropped to the same image to match the first.
I love photographers who stir the pot. It gets you to think about a subject creatively. Im really only starting the journey and when I did finally took the "big plunge " I got a 12 mp Canon. By today's standards it's not a 45 mp monster. What I discovered after getting a Nikon D7100 is my favorite camera is the one in my hand. I dispensed with all the mp iso shutter speed dynamic range blah blah blah and started focusing on learning from each trip into the woods and work on just composition. Being an old film guy I understood the arguments for each but it occurred to me the wisdom of a fellow photographer was true. It doesn't really matter what camera I use as long as I learn from every frame I shoot. In the end I learned to work on my weakest point. I'm still learning and I'm not sure my shots are National Geographic quality but I am improving. It's just a very slow process and some days painful. Great videos here!!! Thank you.
I use an OM-5 with 20m and i love it. To me stabilisation is very important and Olympus/OM System stabilisation is very good. The OM-5 is lightweight and it has enough features for my use. The range of lenses is more than enough for me. When people look at your photos in a photobook, they may ask about what camera you use, not not about megapixels.
And those who understand, would rarely ask about what camera you use. If the photos are good, the camera doesn't matter. Would you ask a chef in a restaurant what knife or frying pan does he use?
Really good video! I've recently started using a Canon 5D (mk1) I'm amazed at the pictures it can produce. Yes, it doesn't have the conveniences of modern cameras and for many people 12mp won't be enough, but when you boil it all down the 5D is simply an excellent camera; even after 18 years.
Interesting video, Simon! Though I would agree with you...IF the typical photographer is not making large prints and only posting to social media, a "low" megapixel camera is all one needs. However, if the user is more advanced, does frequent cropping, makes high image detail a priority, and prints very large, then the advantages of a higher megapixel are clear. Since I print 30" x 40" regularly, I went from a 16MP APS-C system to a 45 MP FF system, and haven't looked back. Image sharpness and resolution vastly improved (and the lower megapixel images were still good...they just couldn't quite compete with the combination of a larger sensor and more megapixels...especially in very large prints. Thanks again!
Hi Simon... another great video thank you ... I am shooting my 24mega pixel Canon R3 .... loving the colour ... the file sizes and the sheer speed ! If your subject is to far away no amount of cropping or mega pixel will get you a fabulous image ... but field craft, a camouflage suit and knowing your target species will get you closer and great results . Look forward to more great videos 👍
I bought my first camera yesterday and your videos really helped me a lot to decide what i want, what to look for and how to actually utilize what i got. Thanks for always creating helpful content.
Thank you Sir. Have been watching your channel for a lil less then a year and you have been a huge positive impact to my photography as a whole. I love how you break down more complex stuff into understandable bite size pieces of valuable info.
Simon, this year I sold my Nikon D780 and I bought two cameras. A Nikon Z8, an absolutely fantastic camera for almost any purpose. The other was a 15 year-old Nikon D700 full frame 12 megapixel beauty with a relatively low shutter count for $364. I got the latter to test whether a 12 megapixel camera is capable of fantastic images. I find that for pretty much anything but wildlife it is marvelous, as long as your aren't cropping too much.
Ok... can I say I just love your intro. The music and pictures, I find myself singing "... you'll be just fine."😊 Love the videos. Also, I've learned a lot as a newbie.
I'm so glad that your videos are past the very beginners knowledge and this video isn't about "Why higher megapixels aren't really better" which as of now, everybody should know already. True content for ppl with higher knowledge in photography.
Absolutely one of the best, if not best youtube channel about photography and in general. Very pleasant to watch and very useful. I could watch your videos for whole day, very professional. Well done, you're doing great job here, keep doing it. I'm new to photography and I learn a lot from you. THANKS! You have best regards and very good wishes from an aircraft mechanic based across Europe coming from Belgrade, Serbia!
I like the ability to crop with a high pixel count camera. Most bird photographers crop their images, sometimes extensively. Not unusual for 30 meg photo to end up being under 1 or 2 megs before sharing on a birding Facebook forum. Birds of prey often like privacy and won't allow a photographer to get in close. Stopped using a Canon 5D Mk2 and use a Sony A7R3 for this reason. Saving for a Sony A7R5.
For a beginner or ambitious hobby photographer, this is more of an academic challenge, even if your explanations are correct! The subject of the lens (glass) is more important than the question of sensor size or megapixels in current cameras. Many base their budget on megapixels or sensor size and then buy a cheap lens. Mistake! That has to fit. And if it fits, 20~24 megapixels are enough for everything. Unless you want to count blood cells. Greetings from Bavaria
Since I own two old Canon cameras (7D, 7D II) i have to shoot the same subject with the same lighting under exposed to over exposed to see just how well my camera will give me a real time working range. Knowing both cameras limitations, to me, is more important than buying up to more modern cameras. Knowing the power of each of these cameras lets me know how to take advantage of them. Great video and clear explanations! Thank you!
Another great thing to consider is pixel shift. This keeps the size low and fast, and then you can use pixel shift for stationary objects you want big prints of.
I just bought a T7 last month with 24.1 MP, but prior i still liked using my mom's 20 year old Rebel XT with 10MP, and you're uploading at 5am, perfect for my work day lol
One of jobs where I work is to photograph tiny images from our old black and white publications like yearbooks from the early 1900’s. I restore them as best I can, then enlarge them for printing. For that I use a 50mp 5dsr. It really works well for enlarging. For everything else I use my 23mp R3. 23 mp is more than enough for almost anything else.
Exceptionally timely video for me, since I'm wanting to upgrade my equipment. Currently have a 7D, and GoPro 11. I need something in between that does both jobs, and has much better battery life than the latter!
I haven't quite figured it out yet, some photographers on TH-cam I just can't watch, they are fine but they just don't grab my attention... But you are very watchable! Appreciate your videos
I've known about and understood the advantage of higher pixel pitch with lower megapixel cameras, for low light, or specifically, astrophotography (I mention the distinction because Tony Northrup makes a compelling case that lower megapixel doesn't affect low light images, but his premise lacks certain specifics that you delineate, chiefly low light vs astro - single vs multiple). What I've never heard, though, even from someone like Nico Carver, is how lower megapixel also helps with less overheating of the sensor. That helps to complete the equation for me, since astrophotography often involves multiple long exposures shot in succession. Perhaps Nico Carver or Alyn Wallace have talked about that part of the equation, but not in the videos I've seen. But what you said about advantages gained with newer technology is also correct. Whereas I love the images I get from my 11-year-old, 24MP Nikon D600, I wouldn't hesitate to switch to one of the 45MP Nikon Z series cameras, if the price was right. The newer sensor technology alone balances the scales quite a bit. Great video. Thank you.
This is the same reason smartphones were stuck on 12 mp for quite some time but now we're seeing upto 108 mp sensors cause processing power has improved significantly to read and stack multiple exposures...
Another excellent video! Marketing people have been very successful in creating a 'more is better' culture. Clearly a certain resolution is necessary but even my 17MP XE2 is perfectly adequate and allows for some cropping. My XT5 is 40MP, it is an excellent sensor and does allow much more aggressive cropping but I really don't need 40MP and it's not why I bought it. That said, high MP sensors often come with bodies built to higher build quality, more esoteric feature sets etc.
Great summary! I don't think what you're saying is controversial at all, it's just facts. :) The main problem with high megapixel sensors (with regards to image quality) is when people don't have the proper post-processing skills so they crop too much and are ignorant when it comes to noise reduction.
Thanks again Simon. I always enjoy your explanations as they are clear and concise. I would like to learn more about the pros and cons of the various camera sensors like back illuminated, stacked, etc
Hey Simon, just starting with photography. (Recently Retired) Been watching your videos and found them very instructive and you put it across in a way that a novice can understand. Thank you for posting them. I look forward to experimenting with my camera and hope that I can get some good pictures. Kind regards. David. UK 😎
Thank you again for providing valuable "Facts & Truths" and not the "Religions & Believes" on the photography equipment. These information really reeducates me and helps me to make more correct choices when purchasing photography equipment even though I used to sell photography equipment and singing the same faults religious songs to customers learned form faults information provided by many manufactures, photographers and reviewers. Great work!
This quote from a camera reviewer pretty well sums up some of the keywords: sometimes you have to cut through the hype... "The crucial caveat here is that although the optical variations between our test cameras were very easy to spot in the critical environment (with fixed shooting parameters) of our studio, they are all but unnoticeable in 'real-world' images shot at a range of focal lengths and subject distances" In the end, expensive cameras have something in common with cheaper cameras: they are both capable of making mediocre compositions.
I have various cameras made by Fuji, but I do so often reach for the 16MP XPro-1. It produces sharp and clear images and lovely colors, but most of all, a character that the newer cameras seem to lack. :)
I used a Canon 3Ti (18 mp) with a Sigma 18 to 250 lens for several years after 2011. This combination served me well all that time. The Sigma lens is sharp and reliable. In 2014 I took the best airshow pictures with it I’ve ever taken at the Waterloo Airshow. I upgraded to Canon 80D in 2020 not so much for improved picture quality, but for better features for wildlife photography. I still have and use the my 3Ti and Sigma lens now from time to time.
I rented a Canon R, most people are still saying that it's too old and outdated technology. The pictures I got from it were much better than I had hoped for. With the price drop on it I'll probably be buying one soon.
It's certainly a good option for someone who has to care about the price. The availability can be a problem, though, the shops around here do not seem to offer Canon R any more. But you can still get a (new) RP for half the price of R8 which is really interesting. Or look for a used one which may be even cheaper.
This was a wonderful explainer. If all other factors are truly equal, a sensor with larger photosites will generally have better SNR, DNR, etc. because of their increased well depth. But those "other factors" involve things like signal processing, sensor architecture and readout type, etc. And a large part of why higher megapixel cameras are so much more expensive is because camera designers pour lots of effort into making the "other factors" *not* equal. So, in practice, cameras from the same designer and the same generation will usually have pretty similar photographic performance regardless of resolution, with certain exceptions like you mentioned. The bottom line: a camera is so much more than just its sensor.
Simon, thank you for all your hardwork that you are putting into these informative, technical, yet so straightforward videos! I have seen many photography tutorials, but very few youtubers are willing to share this kind of knowledge. Also, congratulations on a VERY fast subscribers rise! I knew it would be the case for you since i stumbled acroos your channel almost a year ago. Your videos should make a excellent case study for people who would like to grow their channel fast. Consistency and superior quality! Also, i would like to give you an interesting idea for a video. I am a waildlife photographer with less than 2 years of an experience. I am shooting 24MP A7III with S200-600. I recently met this guy who who was shooting Canon 400mm with some 40mp Canon body. I kid you not, never ever in my entire photography research (nearly 15+ years of books and youtube) have i heard or read a single word about how much can you actually CROP an image with this level of quality equipment. Of course i knew the photos would be sharper, more detailed, the AF would be faster and all that basic stuff, but oh boy! You should see my face when i sat down on a lakeside with this guy, we pointed our lenses at some far away birds, and i ended up with 100% documentary quality, useless mess of a bird silhouette, while he could crop his image so much in! That his photos were perfectly viable for a portfolio! He literally croped like 1000% and still had a perfect sharpness. This is insane! It makes wildlife photography SO much easier, since you dont have to be THAT close to an animal! The difference is literally COLOSAL! How come noone is mentioning this phenomenon, and noone is comparing the lenses in the field like that? There is not a single youtube video showing the difference between the distance to an animal one should keep, when photographing with mid lvl gear vs professional lvl gear. What i saw that day was a gamechanger for me. I have struggled those two years mainly because i couldnt get as close as i would hoped for. The only way i could get a whole frame filled was to get at the spot at night and wait there for few hours. With the pro gear, you could just stand in place, and the birds would still aproach you because you are out of their usual escape distance! Like, i am stunned how big of an difference this kind of gear makes. I do not consider myself a beginner, so my jaw dropping feels pretty accurate at this point. Well, cutting to the chase, i would be very obliged if you could say a few words about that kind of things ;p
I was surprised how far in-depth you went. Which is good. High end professional cinema cameras use lower megapixels mostly for the readout speed and pixel well performance. They are essentially taking “pictures” at 24, 30, 60 FPS. Many have two sets of gain circuits for each pixel in an attempt to increase dynamic range and lower noise.
Very good video, I really enjoy your explanations which are both highly informative and technical yet simple. Being more of a landscape hobbyist, a full-frame 24MP camera with pixel-shift is far more suitable to me than a high-resolution camera, as it gives me the option of getting a high-resolution landscape image while giving me decent resolution for other uses.
Hi Simon. Really love your videos and appreciate the time you put into making your explanations so clear and complete. I just saw another video of yours from 9 months ago in which you talk about use of aperture, and while it was perfect from a technical point of view, I'd really love it if you could get into the artistic side of choosing aperture. For instance, how to choose when you have several people in the frame, but still want to separate them from the background, or perhaps talk about situations in which choosing your aperture might not be immediately obvious, or where several options might be interesting for different reasons. That would be an amazing video!!
oi i love your videos and youve helped my photography journey im from ontario aswell but just moved to whistler for the beauty. thank you for the insperation you provide in every video. im shooting on a d 7200 and have gotten some very sharp photos of some marmots and mountain. newer older mp less mp a camera is a camera
As always, simple explanations are straight to the point. Thanks. As a followup to all this pixels size, IQ, resolution, etc... could you do a video about printing your images i.e. ppi for specific various photo sizes? What is used in commercial photo albums?
This is a great topic, and I appreciate how you broke down the debate around megapixels (MP). I mostly agree with your points, but I’d like to add some nuance to the discussion based on my own experience. The Role of Megapixels Megapixels do matter in certain situations, but they are far from the end-all-be-all in photography. For instance, I’ve been using my Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED lens for 12 years. It worked great with my older Nikon D5100, but when I upgraded to the D7500, the limitations of the lens became glaringly obvious. The higher MP sensor on the D7500 highlights the lens's weaknesses, such as slow autofocus, poor focus accuracy, and subpar glass quality compared to modern lenses. Meanwhile, the D5100’s lower MP density helped mask these issues. This proves that megapixels are only as good as the lens they work with. However, in scenarios like cropping or large-scale printing, megapixels absolutely make a difference. I recall shooting a buzzard in flight and cropping down to the bird itself-on a 24MP sensor, the result was a blurry, pixelated mess. If I had a 100MP sensor, even after significant cropping, I could have retained much more sharpness and detail. So, while MP isn’t everything, it can be crucial for maximizing the potential of your gear in the right context. High MP Cameras and Their Limitations I agree with your assessment that high-MP cameras can close the gap with lower-MP models in terms of noise by applying noise reduction, while still preserving more detail. But that also depends on the quality of the lens and sensor. Your comparison of the Canon R5 and R6 is a perfect example: the R5's higher MP gives it flexibility for cropping and detail, but with careful processing, you can still match or exceed the R6’s noise performance. Where I think people misunderstand MP is in casual photography. For someone sharing their shots on social media or viewing them on small screens, the difference between 20MP and 100MP is negligible because platforms like Facebook heavily compress images anyway. But if you’re serious about producing prints, creating albums, or analyzing details on a large monitor, megapixels give you more options. Skills and Experience Trump Specs I love that you emphasize skill over specs because that’s what photography is really about. I've taken some great photos with my old Galaxy S2 smartphone that still stand out even by today’s standards. The fundamentals-composition, lighting, timing-are far more important than whether you shoot with 12MP or 100MP. High-MP cameras, better lenses, and advanced features are just tools to help refine or enhance your craft, but they won’t make up for a lack of experience or poor technique. Megapixels are a double-edged sword. They’re fantastic for specific scenarios like cropping, printing, or detail-heavy shots but can also expose the limitations of your gear if your lenses or technique aren’t up to par. Like you said, a newer generation or larger sensor will give you better image quality overall than simply chasing megapixel counts. Ultimately, the best camera is the one you know how to use effectively. Thanks for addressing such a hot topic with facts and examples. It’s refreshing to see a balanced perspective instead of the usual “MP doesn’t matter” or “higher MP is always better” extremes. Great video!
Great video Simon, I have always thought thermally the better. I had the original canon rebel it was only 6 MP. Yet I got some pretty outstanding Raw files with that camera. I really think the more pixels the better was nothing more than sales hype. Thanks again Simon great video.
I like to present my photos through slideshows, where I zoom in and out on the images. High-resolution sensors offer a significant advantage in this aspect. The small benefit of low-resolution sensors on image quality doesn't worth the loss in resolution. Noise reduction algorithms work fantastic nowadays. Considering that a high-resolution sensor allows for greater zooming capabilities with the same lens due to the better cropping abilities, the cost difference between low-resolution and high-resolution sensors isn't even that big. I'm new to photography and currently using a 24MP full-frame camera. Somehow I believe that a 45MP camera would have been a better choice, and I'm planning to upgrade soon.
As an event photographer, file size matters a lot as it determines storage space and workflow speed. Ultimately, clients will receive 4MB jpgs, not 40MB TIFF files, and often you shoot in dim light, meaning zooming in much or printing large isn't a good idea anyway. Also think about it this way: probably 50-70% of your shots are garbage. Some you will delete right away, but some you keep just in case the client want more pictures of that particular moment or person. Often, they'll just stay there and eat up space.
I shoot concert photography. I recently upgraded from 18 to 26 MP... I was shooting RAW+JPEG, the very first time I used my new camera and I ran out of storage!!! Luckily, I had an empty micro SD card in my audio recorder.
Would you say that a 20-ish MP Full Frame camera is ideal for events? I just had my very first event shooting experience with two Sony bodies (apsc) and in a cloudy evening and with variable lighting I kinda pushed the cameras. They are old cameras (a6000 amd a5000) but I am wondering if for events is better a FF when night comes or stick to a modern apsc.
@@lionheart4424 full frame will always have better low light performance, bigger sensor = more light. i rock a sony a7r3, but i would recommend the regular a7 or even the a7s. 80mb files are massive and become even bigger png's. also if youre the type of person whos considering an a7r youre not the type of person whos willing to sacrifice quality so you can crop an image, so dont delude yourself into thinking that a 43mp sensor allows you to do 2x optical zoom and make it the equivalent to a 20mp sensor. so go with the regular a7, which model you can afford but id recommend at least getting the a7III because it has better battery life than the first two
@@lionheart4424I use the R5 for events and get the most out of every image!! Concerts and Weddings constantly. Low light is nothing anymore. Also when you're done if you convert your raw into jpeg. It gets colorized and the noise goes away immediately and then you have the raw files to put on your computer and to make beautiful edits for the client later on
Simon, subscribed when you first started, you've already got 240k! Clearly you're doing something very well, congrats! On this topic: I have an A7RV (61mp) and an A7 (which it replaced) with 24mp. I love the A7RV, it is a brilliant camera and much more capable than the grandaddy A7, but!!! If you don't have the right thing in front of you, it makes no difference whatsoever. People are way too fixated on the technical variables.
I remember a discussion on dpReview many years ago when I got my Canon 350D in which people argued that 8 megapixels was about as high a megapixel count as we'd ever get because after that the pixels got too small to perform reliably. :) Love my 45 mpx R5!
Dear Simon. Thank you very much for your useful technical explanations about the cameras and so on. I'd like to ask you to walk us through the artistic aspect of photography.
Hey Simon, I'm a nerd on camera models and at 4:58 you posted a photo of a Sony A7s ii not a Sony A7s iii. No hate or anything just wanted to point that out, I love your work and have a great day!
Great discussion Simon, an interesting example are the sensors like S23 Ultra that makes pixel binning. It can shoot on 200MP or 12MP. The same sensor, but I found that at 200MP the images gives less Dynamic range blowing out the highlights much faster than using 12MP. In my opinion, for difficult light situations the 12MP is much better than the full 200MP resolution.
Yes, while in most cameras having high megapixel counts like 40 or 60 MP doesn’t have a disadvantage, there ‘s evidence that mega-megapixel cameras like 200 MP phones are a step backwards.
I think to some degree the noise benefit of low megapixel cameras is not a "compare side by side" at a certain ISO value better. I think it behaves more like there is a certain signal to noise ratio we deem acceptable on the pixel level, but when that gets under a certain threshold, the image falls appart for us visibly. And by physics alone that threshold should be about a stop later if the pixel area is twice as big, so e.g. 24MP vs 48MP, given that all the other technologies like BSI and what not are all equal. I have not tested that myself yet tho... Great Video, they are always very informative and straight to the point
I think your videos on iso were correct; I’ve recently stumbled onto your conclusions in my hobby shooting, no need to be afraid of higher iso to get a shot.
The fact that most people compare at 100% instead of the same magnification has been bothering me for years. Try downresing the higher to the lower's resolution. It will be cleaner. Great video!
Beyond what Simon points out; the only time find megapixel specifications critical is if I want to make large prints. A higher megapixel sensor will facilitate making larger prints at full resolution (300DPI). The higher the sensor resolution, the bigger the print you can make at full resolution. That said you have to take viewing distance into consideration. A small print a viewer may nose up too you’ll want a full print resolution. A billboard sized image printed at 72DPI isn’t going to present pixelation when you are looking at it from 100s of feet away. They are there but you won’t be able to perceive them so you can make do with a lower resolution sensor. If you are just exhibiting your images online, 150dpi is fine and you can even go 72DPI for thumbnails. No real need for high MP sensors in these cases; at least in terms of resolution.
Wow thank you for saying more megapixels is better! I get so tired of everyone saying lower is better. In the future when everyone has 8k or 12k monitors even video will be better with higher megapixels.
I fully agree on the sensor technology. If one has a specific application in mind (like low-light or astrophotography) it makes sense to study the noise behavior and then one could be surprised about the pixel size (the smaller but "newer" pixels might perform better than the larger ones). Maybe an addition: if one has got a high MP camera, one can still down sample (especially binning, but there are also other methods) the image if one doesn't need the resolution but wants to reduce noise as a first step before using de-noising tools.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
What’s your favorite low MP/big pixel camera? I have a friend with the 21 MP Nikon D5 and the files are gorgeous.
I First Used a 12.1 MP Camera (Nikon d5000) Now it's with a Family Member. Currently I'm Using a 24.1 MP Camera (Canon Eos 1500d).
I recently switched from a Canon 40d, which is my first camera. It was 10MP and I had a lot of fun working with it. Some time ago I bought a Canon 90D which has 32MP and I also bought a Tamron 150-600mm G2, I am very happy with it.
I shoot 24mp Nikon D600 and 24MP Nikon D5300 (astro-modified with L-Enhance filter). Since one is modified and the other one not, I haven't done any comparisons to determine how the higher pixel pitch of my full frame might give me a better image than the lower pixel pitch of my crop body, but I doubt I'll see much practical difference. I'm colorblind, so what my eyes might interpret as a difference in noise, might just be a color shift due to the filter, if I was to even try to compare the two.
To be honest, pixel count was never a parameter I would care about much. I really loved my Canon 7D I've been using for 11 years, back in the time it was a camera with very few compromises (except for the APS-C sensor, of course), just taking it in your hands felt quite different than the entry level 400D and the overall ergonomics was great. Now I upgraded to R6 Mark II, mostly expecting better low light performance and more precise and reliable autofocus (plus features like subject/eye detection and tracking), and it gave me exactly that and few more handy features. But I suspect I could be just as happy with any other today's camera of similar class once I would get familiar with it.
I've been using a Sony a7siii for 2+ years now. I love the small file sizes for photo, and the high-quality video. Don't love the battery life, which is half that of my old a7iii, using the same type of battery.
I want you to be my dad. I lost mine 5 years ago, but you remind me of him so much. I miss him. Thank you for being you and warming my heart.
Too kind
21mp was considered more than sufficient a decade ago. Nothing has changed. 99% of images are viewed on a monitor so mega megapixels is really overkill. Even cropping down to 4mp will still be more sufficient for online viewing. Very very few people make prints, let alone huge ones.
I basically say same here. th-cam.com/video/ThpQWhOfKO4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BK9OUksUdnfWYop9
This is true but I’d sure hate to take that once in a lifetime photo that I can’t print giant due to lack of resolution.
Not even a monitor - most takes place on smartphone screens nowadays
Yes...hobbyists needn't change cameras because of this video...though this content is quite accurate.
If you are a professional and/or live by your prints...ignore at your own peril.
Of course the same would go for contests...the photographer with the higher MP modern sensor goes into any contest...with an edge...a real edge.
@@LtDeadeye A une époque, je possédais un boitier Olympus micro quatre tiers de 16 millions de pixels , j'ai fais des agrandissements de 80X60 cm et je peux affirmer qu'on ne voit aucun pixel tout en ayant son nez sur la photo ;)
At one time, I owned an Olympus micro four-thirds camera of 16 million pixels, I made enlargements of 80X60 cm and I can say that we do not see any pixel while having his nose on the photo ;)
To be honest, for a hobbyist I struggle to see a *practical* need for a camera over 12MP. I’ve printed canvas prints from a *cropped* image of a 10MP camera, I printed human sized posters from a heavy crop of a 24MP camera (likely 1/5 of an original image remained) - they all turned out great.
I have a 36MP camera, a few 24MP, a 16MP, a few 12MP, and a 10MP. Which camera is used the most? A D3 with its 12MP.
I guess if your clients or stock agencies demand high MP then fine… But my view that in practical everyday use a good glass is far, far more important that any megapixels.
Cheers!
As always, great video, Simon!
I think you’re right about a good lens being worth more than a high pixel count. I have an old 6.1 MP Pentax. I have 6 lenses but only really use the 3 primes I have - all Pentax M series. They render much nicer images than the zooms I have.
I have two Nikon D700s 12mp is just fine. It is more dependent on the glass quality. The only caviar is the cropping but with the right framing it is not a deal breaker.
Recently you are really putting the cat among the pigeons. I like it, keep doing it!
Thanks, will do!
Big smile on my face. I shoot with a 20mp camera and I have never had an issue with noise in my “printed” photos. Even my wall mounted 24x36 photo came out great. And biggest benefit my gear cost 50% less and is probably 50% lighter than full frame. Again another great video.
There's no free lunch. There are small, light, cheap FF lenses, and they perform the same as small, light, cheap Olympus and Fujinon lenses.
I got a 30,3mp camera and i never had any problems either.
It's all about the editing and especially looking (zooming) into the details to see the pixels, instead of looking at a 6000x4000 picture on your 1080/1440p screen xd.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Yes, it is really all about the glass, as far as noise, DOF, and diffraction are concerned.
You do not get the vaunted "FF low light sensitivity" with a small-pupil lens. You simply have the option to have lenses with larger pupils when you have larger sensors, and want to shoot at wide angles, because they don't exist for smaller sensors. The lowest theoretical f-number for glass and air is f/0.5. The lowest we actually see is f/0.7, and if such a lens is reasonable sharp wide open, it probably costs as much as a Porsche. f/0.9 is where we start to see somewhat affordable lenses, and it gets much easier by f/1.2 or f/1.4.
For narrower angles of view, there are no disadvantages to smaller sensors, per se. The Nikon P1000, for example, with its 5.57x crop sensor has a lens that is 539/8 at max zoom, which has a bigger pupil than than some popular zooms used on FF cameras, like the Canon RF600/11, or the Canon RF00-400/5.6-8. The P1000 has a 67mm pupil, the 600/11 has a 55mm pupil, and the 100-400, a 50mm pupil. Of course, if one person with a Canon R6 and the RF100-400 was shooting the same small, distant subject as someone right next to them with a P1000, with the same shutter speed, and both shoot wide open, the P1000 will have less noise, and more background blur. It might not seem that way, if the results are viewed at 100%, but that is not how you should compare the same subject with two different pixel counts. If you normalize them to be presented at the same subject size, then the P1000 should be better in every way, assuming focus and stability. The P1000 will likely have no visible trace of aliasing at all, while the R6 will have clear color aliasing in the raw data, even if converters mute it.
Zoom the P1000 out to the wide end, though, and now it can't compete with any FF, unless the FF was stopping a lens way down for increased DOF at the same angle of view, because it is equivalent to 24/16.
It's really about subject size, distance to subject vs distance to background, and pupil size (during exposure), that determines the foundational visible imaging parameters of a normalized subject. ISOs, sensor sizes, and f-numbers have no direct, absolute meaning without a well-defined context.
Here you are conflating pixel count and sensor size. Once you go from full frame to a cropped sense the image quality changes in favor in the full frame camera, even if the pixel count is the same or higher. And I say this as a micro four thirds user. The Canon R5 and the R6 are both full frame cameras.
sensor size ≠ megapixel count.
Saw your honorable mention for the 2023 Canadian Wildlife photography of the Year, congratulations!
Thanks!
I do find from 20 to 40 megapixels a big difference. The detail and ability to crop my images has doubled. Although I'm not making prints or cropping that much.
Technically doubling your pixel count only increases your ability to crop, and keep the same resolution as the lower pixel count camera, by ~40%
@@TechnoBabble Yes I understood that from the video but my mind is backwards lol. It was the increase in resolution that makes the biggest difference most likely. I went from micro 4/3 6K sensor to full frame 8K sensor.
That makes no sense at all! If you double the number of pixels and it increases your ability to crop without a reduction in resolution it means the overall resoultion of the sensor has increased.
@@chrisantoniou4366 I commented this at the beginning of the video before learning lol. Simon liked my comment so I leave it
in a video, Simon explains and proves that the difference between MP rates is not an issue.
Found you by accident, but I watch every episode now, just to hear you say "My name is Simon d'Entremont"
This is the best channel on photography. The explanations are clear and the presentation is pleasant and entertaining !
Since watching Simon's programmes on ISO I have now put ISO in the hands of my camera. I'm not so afraid of ensuring my ISO isnas lownas possible anymore as I have become way more aware of how to create the correct exposure for whatever scene I'm shooting.
These 2 programmes were one of the biggest eye-openers yet and I have vwatched a hell of a lot of different photographers on YT and nonone has ever explained ISO like Simon. 👏👏🙏
Man you explain things so clearly and simply. Honestly I would never show you my photo is they horrific but I think my understanding is higher thanks to your posts
Brilliant, Simon! I have been watching your videos over the past year and I believe they are great in terms of simplicity, flow of information, language, and above all, your approach respects its audience. I started doing photography in 1985/86 using Nikon F301. I find your way of delivering the information is very viewer-friendly. By the way, I'm a neurologist! Wish you all the very best from Iraq!
Having experience in semiconductor technology , you are spot on in your explanation especially when you make the very important point of the comparing sensors of the same generation. Most of the explanations I have heard on TH-cam are absolutely wrong in this regard as they disregard the simple fact that older generations of semiconductors were produced using older techniques which produced less sensitive devices with higher noise thresholds. Keep up the good work!
Love getting feedback from people in the industry!
Great description as always, Simon.
You hit the nail on the head. I’ve always viewed these sensor types this way:
- lower megapixel for higher readout speeds for video, sports, and wildlife
- higher megapixel for higher resolution for cropping, landscape, and portraiture
Every camera/sensor combo was engineered for a range of end-uses in mind. Doesn’t mean they can’t be used interchangeably, it just means their design will deliver the peak performance when used to their relative strengths. There’s not one that is superior to another. I try to keep using them with these use cases in mind and I’ve never been happier.
Totally agreed. I use my Fuji x-h2s with 24MPix if it comes to speed for ballet dancer shots. And the x-t5 with 40MPix for day by day shots. Know the strength of your tools.
I have known many people who say 'higher resolution for portraits'; I disagree because a head & shoulder portrait shot on a higher resolution camera would result in skin blemishes becoming very visible, thus necessitating the need for lots of post shoot editing. Whereas a portrait shot on a lower resolution camera won't have the above problem. Landscape and Macro Photography are where high resolution is required.
Hi Simon as with any video, I can only congratulate you for all the explanations. Sometimes I find myself explaining the same things to those who compare the smartphone to the real camera, actually demonstrating that they don't know anything about it! Difference in sensor size and megapixel size make the difference! 50'000 mpx smartphone will never be comparable to an 18 mpx of a real camera
Thanks very kindly!
Thanks, Simon. Learning more with every video !
Great to hear!
The Knowledge of what all the settings and how to use it perfectly is always helpful, especially for someone new to photography like me
Your last comment about just going out and getting some photos is probably the best bit of advice one could give. A few years ago I sold all my large full-frame gear and went with an APSC setup. They all said I was mad! I had been a working photographer but the pandemic killed that off. So I took it as the chance to focus on personal projects, which demanded lighter gear and more flexibility. I knew there would be quality compromises, and... there were, a little. But what I gained was a lighter backpack and a lot more money in my pocket to get out there. The net gain was more photos, more practice, more ways to create. Ultimately, I found new genres and interests, for which the smaller camera is far superior. So glad I didn't follow all the "bigger is better" voices!
In my short experience as an amateur photographer, it seems to me that so many FF gear users (of any brand) tend to get lazy 🤷♀️
Simon, I appreciate your thoughtful approach in addressing comments to no end and I'm thoroughly enjoying this video format. Your channel consistently has new and useful information you can't find elsewhere and your videos have been instrumental to my journey in photography. Thank you for another great entry.
Great to hear!
Once again, this channel has some of the most direct and useful knowledge towards improving work with cameras. Every time I stop by to watch another video I’m amazed at how clear, accurate, and informative you are with this stuff in a world that is bloated with a lot of useless or misguided information.
Glad to help!
Clear and straightforward as well as topical. Thanks!
A miracle! Truth! I use small sensor cameras since 2001, as I began in Digital. I made 20x30cm prints from my Pentax Optio 3,5 mp..
I could go slightly bigger. As my small cameras improved, so did the look! With new technology we don't need those crazy high numbers. I don't know anyone making large prints except in galleries! Big is not better! Big is boring! Your images are so beautiful. Stunning! I love small cameras, my age79, my health, heart but I try a walk every day and snap! I was atop pro, but now I am a kid again, but slow! Merci Bien! Bravo.
As an Nikon/Canon shooter this video brings back so many memories. I had the D800 and the 5dmk3. The debates on social media was out of hand. The canon shooters yelling about how bad the iso performance will be. And the nikon shooters said basically what you're saying. Back then Canon had problems with DR making them fall behind Sony sensors. Today is different, the Canon sensors has caught up and some more. Great video! I know a great deal about photography. And I'm very impressed by the way you explain. It's very pedagogical
Yes, I will be looking forward to that video; thank you.
Well done, Simon. I bought my Sony A7III instead of the A7IIIR for several of the reasons you cover, but the 2 primary drivers were 1) I rarely print larger than 8X10 for viewing at about 18" and 20 megapixels is more than enough resolution for that, and 2) I crop minimally. I don't do landscapes frequently, but when I do my preference is certainly glass over cropping. I have the perception (perhaps content for a future video -- you're welcome!) that image quality is better using the appropriate telephoto lens on a smaller sensor than it is for a lower focal length lens on a larger sensor that's then cropped to the same image to match the first.
I'm sure the cost difference was a big driver also 😄
I love photographers who stir the pot. It gets you to think about a subject creatively. Im really only starting the journey and when I did finally took the "big plunge " I got a 12 mp Canon. By today's standards it's not a 45 mp monster. What I discovered after getting a Nikon D7100 is my favorite camera is the one in my hand. I dispensed with all the mp iso shutter speed dynamic range blah blah blah and started focusing on learning from each trip into the woods and work on just composition. Being an old film guy I understood the arguments for each but it occurred to me the wisdom of a fellow photographer was true. It doesn't really matter what camera I use as long as I learn from every frame I shoot. In the end I learned to work on my weakest point. I'm still learning and I'm not sure my shots are National Geographic quality but I am improving. It's just a very slow process and some days painful. Great videos here!!! Thank you.
I use an OM-5 with 20m and i love it. To me stabilisation is very important and Olympus/OM System stabilisation is very good. The OM-5 is lightweight and it has enough features for my use. The range of lenses is more than enough for me. When people look at your photos in a photobook, they may ask about what camera you use, not not about megapixels.
And those who understand, would rarely ask about what camera you use. If the photos are good, the camera doesn't matter. Would you ask a chef in a restaurant what knife or frying pan does he use?
You arted those jawdropping photos! They gave me goosebumps! Truly wonderful works!
This video was amazing. So much knowledge dropped in a single video
Really good video! I've recently started using a Canon 5D (mk1) I'm amazed at the pictures it can produce. Yes, it doesn't have the conveniences of modern cameras and for many people 12mp won't be enough, but when you boil it all down the 5D is simply an excellent camera; even after 18 years.
Interesting video, Simon! Though I would agree with you...IF the typical photographer is not making large prints and only posting to social media, a "low" megapixel camera is all one needs. However, if the user is more advanced, does frequent cropping, makes high image detail a priority, and prints very large, then the advantages of a higher megapixel are clear. Since I print 30" x 40" regularly, I went from a 16MP APS-C system to a 45 MP FF system, and haven't looked back. Image sharpness and resolution vastly improved (and the lower megapixel images were still good...they just couldn't quite compete with the combination of a larger sensor and more megapixels...especially in very large prints. Thanks again!
Hi Simon... another great video thank you ... I am shooting my 24mega pixel Canon R3 .... loving the colour ... the file sizes and the sheer speed !
If your subject is to far away no amount of cropping or mega pixel will get you a fabulous image ... but field craft, a camouflage suit and knowing your target species will get you closer and great results .
Look forward to more great videos 👍
I bought my first camera yesterday and your videos really helped me a lot to decide what i want, what to look for and how to actually utilize what i got.
Thanks for always creating helpful content.
Glad I could help!
Thank you Sir. Have been watching your channel for a lil less then a year and you have been a huge positive impact to my photography as a whole. I love how you break down more complex stuff into understandable bite size pieces of valuable info.
Great to hear!
Simon, this year I sold my Nikon D780 and I bought two cameras. A Nikon Z8, an absolutely fantastic camera for almost any purpose. The other was a 15 year-old Nikon D700 full frame 12 megapixel beauty with a relatively low shutter count for $364. I got the latter to test whether a 12 megapixel camera is capable of fantastic images. I find that for pretty much anything but wildlife it is marvelous, as long as your aren't cropping too much.
Another great video. Your style of delivery is clear and concise. Keep up the great work!
Thanks, will do!
Thanks for such clear information
Ok... can I say I just love your intro. The music and pictures, I find myself singing "... you'll be just fine."😊 Love the videos. Also, I've learned a lot as a newbie.
Thank you so much!!
I'm so glad that your videos are past the very beginners knowledge and this video isn't about "Why higher megapixels aren't really better" which as of now, everybody should know already.
True content for ppl with higher knowledge in photography.
Absolutely one of the best, if not best youtube channel about photography and in general. Very pleasant to watch and very useful. I could watch your videos for whole day, very professional. Well done, you're doing great job here, keep doing it. I'm new to photography and I learn a lot from you. THANKS! You have best regards and very good wishes from an aircraft mechanic based across Europe coming from Belgrade, Serbia!
I like the ability to crop with a high pixel count camera. Most bird photographers crop their images, sometimes extensively. Not unusual for 30 meg photo to end up being under 1 or 2 megs before sharing on a birding Facebook forum. Birds of prey often like privacy and won't allow a photographer to get in close. Stopped using a Canon 5D Mk2 and use a Sony A7R3 for this reason. Saving for a Sony A7R5.
You videos are amazing. Taking lots of notes. Thank you
For a beginner or ambitious hobby photographer, this is more of an academic challenge, even if your explanations are correct! The subject of the lens (glass) is more important than the question of sensor size or megapixels in current cameras. Many base their budget on megapixels or sensor size and then buy a cheap lens. Mistake! That has to fit. And if it fits, 20~24 megapixels are enough for everything. Unless you want to count blood cells. Greetings from Bavaria
Agree! Good glass is a better investment
Great detailed breakdown of the information, with strong cause/effect demonstrations
Glad it was helpful!
Since I own two old Canon cameras (7D, 7D II) i have to shoot the same subject with the same lighting under exposed to over exposed to see just how well my camera will give me a real time working range. Knowing both cameras limitations, to me, is more important than buying up to more modern cameras. Knowing the power of each of these cameras lets me know how to take advantage of them. Great video and clear explanations! Thank you!
Great points and very useful comparisons made! You have been posting some great stuff! Thanks much!
Glad you like them!
Another great thing to consider is pixel shift. This keeps the size low and fast, and then you can use pixel shift for stationary objects you want big prints of.
Thank you for this video. I needed this fine reminder of why I often leave my K-1 at home and shoot with my 17-year-old 10MP K-10D. Gotta love Pentax!
Very well explained! Thanks Simon.
I just bought a T7 last month with 24.1 MP, but prior i still liked using my mom's 20 year old Rebel XT with 10MP, and you're uploading at 5am, perfect for my work day lol
One of jobs where I work is to photograph tiny images from our old black and white publications like yearbooks from the early 1900’s. I restore them as best I can, then enlarge them for printing. For that I use a 50mp 5dsr. It really works well for enlarging. For everything else I use my 23mp R3. 23 mp is more than enough for almost anything else.
Exceptionally timely video for me, since I'm wanting to upgrade my equipment. Currently have a 7D, and GoPro 11. I need something in between that does both jobs, and has much better battery life than the latter!
I haven't quite figured it out yet, some photographers on TH-cam I just can't watch, they are fine but they just don't grab my attention... But you are very watchable! Appreciate your videos
Thanks for sharing
I've known about and understood the advantage of higher pixel pitch with lower megapixel cameras, for low light, or specifically, astrophotography (I mention the distinction because Tony Northrup makes a compelling case that lower megapixel doesn't affect low light images, but his premise lacks certain specifics that you delineate, chiefly low light vs astro - single vs multiple). What I've never heard, though, even from someone like Nico Carver, is how lower megapixel also helps with less overheating of the sensor. That helps to complete the equation for me, since astrophotography often involves multiple long exposures shot in succession. Perhaps Nico Carver or Alyn Wallace have talked about that part of the equation, but not in the videos I've seen.
But what you said about advantages gained with newer technology is also correct. Whereas I love the images I get from my 11-year-old, 24MP Nikon D600, I wouldn't hesitate to switch to one of the 45MP Nikon Z series cameras, if the price was right. The newer sensor technology alone balances the scales quite a bit.
Great video. Thank you.
What a wealth of information. Thank you. ❤️
Found this video really interesting and engaging, look forward to watching more of your videos
Awesome, thank you!
This is the same reason smartphones were stuck on 12 mp for quite some time but now we're seeing upto 108 mp sensors cause processing power has improved significantly to read and stack multiple exposures...
108 mp on a sensor 1cm across is just a marketing gimmick, phone images are completely computational.
It's not a true 108 megapixels. That's impossible for the size of a Smart phone sensor. Like others have said, it's a big marketing ploy.
Another excellent video! Marketing people have been very successful in creating a 'more is better' culture. Clearly a certain resolution is necessary but even my 17MP XE2 is perfectly adequate and allows for some cropping. My XT5 is 40MP, it is an excellent sensor and does allow much more aggressive cropping but I really don't need 40MP and it's not why I bought it. That said, high MP sensors often come with bodies built to higher build quality, more esoteric feature sets etc.
Great tip, this one. Thanks!
No problem!
Great summary! I don't think what you're saying is controversial at all, it's just facts. :) The main problem with high megapixel sensors (with regards to image quality) is when people don't have the proper post-processing skills so they crop too much and are ignorant when it comes to noise reduction.
thank you very much , i am waiting for christmas sales to buy my camera , all your videos were really helpful to me
Best of luck!
Thanks again Simon. I always enjoy your explanations as they are clear and concise. I would like to learn more about the pros and cons of the various camera sensors like back illuminated, stacked, etc
Noted!
Another great video based in science and shared in a way so everyone can understand. Thank you again for the GREAT work!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hey Simon, just starting with photography. (Recently Retired) Been watching your videos and found them very instructive and you put it across in a way that a novice can understand. Thank you for posting them. I look forward to experimenting with my camera and hope that I can get some good pictures. Kind regards. David. UK 😎
Welcome aboard!
Thank you again for providing valuable "Facts & Truths" and not the "Religions & Believes" on the photography equipment. These information really reeducates me and helps me to make more correct choices when purchasing photography equipment even though I used to sell photography equipment and singing the same faults religious songs to customers learned form faults information provided by many manufactures, photographers and reviewers. Great work!
This quote from a camera reviewer pretty well sums up some of the keywords: sometimes you have to cut through the hype...
"The crucial caveat here is that although the optical variations between our test cameras were very easy to spot in the critical environment (with fixed shooting parameters) of our studio, they are all but unnoticeable in 'real-world' images shot at a range of focal lengths and subject distances"
In the end, expensive cameras have something in common with cheaper cameras: they are both capable of making mediocre compositions.
I have various cameras made by Fuji, but I do so often reach for the 16MP XPro-1. It produces sharp and clear images and lovely colors, but most of all, a character that the newer cameras seem to lack. :)
I used a Canon 3Ti (18 mp) with a Sigma 18 to 250 lens for several years after 2011. This combination served me well all that time. The Sigma lens is sharp and reliable. In 2014 I took the best airshow pictures with it I’ve ever taken at the Waterloo Airshow. I upgraded to Canon 80D in 2020 not so much for improved picture quality, but for better features for wildlife photography. I still have and use the my 3Ti and Sigma lens now from time to time.
I rented a Canon R, most people are still saying that it's too old and outdated technology. The pictures I got from it were much better than I had hoped for. With the price drop on it I'll probably be buying one soon.
It's certainly a good option for someone who has to care about the price. The availability can be a problem, though, the shops around here do not seem to offer Canon R any more. But you can still get a (new) RP for half the price of R8 which is really interesting. Or look for a used one which may be even cheaper.
This was a wonderful explainer.
If all other factors are truly equal, a sensor with larger photosites will generally have better SNR, DNR, etc. because of their increased well depth. But those "other factors" involve things like signal processing, sensor architecture and readout type, etc. And a large part of why higher megapixel cameras are so much more expensive is because camera designers pour lots of effort into making the "other factors" *not* equal.
So, in practice, cameras from the same designer and the same generation will usually have pretty similar photographic performance regardless of resolution, with certain exceptions like you mentioned.
The bottom line: a camera is so much more than just its sensor.
Simon, thank you for all your hardwork that you are putting into these informative, technical, yet so straightforward videos! I have seen many photography tutorials, but very few youtubers are willing to share this kind of knowledge. Also, congratulations on a VERY fast subscribers rise! I knew it would be the case for you since i stumbled acroos your channel almost a year ago. Your videos should make a excellent case study for people who would like to grow their channel fast. Consistency and superior quality! Also, i would like to give you an interesting idea for a video. I am a waildlife photographer with less than 2 years of an experience. I am shooting 24MP A7III with S200-600. I recently met this guy who who was shooting Canon 400mm with some 40mp Canon body. I kid you not, never ever in my entire photography research (nearly 15+ years of books and youtube) have i heard or read a single word about how much can you actually CROP an image with this level of quality equipment. Of course i knew the photos would be sharper, more detailed, the AF would be faster and all that basic stuff, but oh boy! You should see my face when i sat down on a lakeside with this guy, we pointed our lenses at some far away birds, and i ended up with 100% documentary quality, useless mess of a bird silhouette, while he could crop his image so much in! That his photos were perfectly viable for a portfolio! He literally croped like 1000% and still had a perfect sharpness. This is insane! It makes wildlife photography SO much easier, since you dont have to be THAT close to an animal! The difference is literally COLOSAL! How come noone is mentioning this phenomenon, and noone is comparing the lenses in the field like that? There is not a single youtube video showing the difference between the distance to an animal one should keep, when photographing with mid lvl gear vs professional lvl gear. What i saw that day was a gamechanger for me. I have struggled those two years mainly because i couldnt get as close as i would hoped for. The only way i could get a whole frame filled was to get at the spot at night and wait there for few hours. With the pro gear, you could just stand in place, and the birds would still aproach you because you are out of their usual escape distance! Like, i am stunned how big of an difference this kind of gear makes. I do not consider myself a beginner, so my jaw dropping feels pretty accurate at this point. Well, cutting to the chase, i would be very obliged if you could say a few words about that kind of things ;p
Noted! Those big primes are in a whole other league.
Great video as always Simon, keep it up.
Thanks, will do!
I was surprised how far in-depth you went. Which is good. High end professional cinema cameras use lower megapixels mostly for the readout speed and pixel well performance. They are essentially taking “pictures” at 24, 30, 60 FPS. Many have two sets of gain circuits for each pixel in an attempt to increase dynamic range and lower noise.
Very good video, I really enjoy your explanations which are both highly informative and technical yet simple. Being more of a landscape hobbyist, a full-frame 24MP camera with pixel-shift is far more suitable to me than a high-resolution camera, as it gives me the option of getting a high-resolution landscape image while giving me decent resolution for other uses.
Hi Simon. Really love your videos and appreciate the time you put into making your explanations so clear and complete. I just saw another video of yours from 9 months ago in which you talk about use of aperture, and while it was perfect from a technical point of view, I'd really love it if you could get into the artistic side of choosing aperture. For instance, how to choose when you have several people in the frame, but still want to separate them from the background, or perhaps talk about situations in which choosing your aperture might not be immediately obvious, or where several options might be interesting for different reasons. That would be an amazing video!!
Noted!
oi i love your videos and youve helped my photography journey im from ontario aswell but just moved to whistler for the beauty. thank you for the insperation you provide in every video. im shooting on a d 7200 and have gotten some very sharp photos of some marmots and mountain. newer older mp less mp a camera is a camera
As always, simple explanations are straight to the point. Thanks. As a followup to all this pixels size, IQ, resolution, etc... could you do a video about printing your images i.e. ppi for specific various photo sizes? What is used in commercial photo albums?
On my list!
This is a great topic, and I appreciate how you broke down the debate around megapixels (MP). I mostly agree with your points, but I’d like to add some nuance to the discussion based on my own experience.
The Role of Megapixels
Megapixels do matter in certain situations, but they are far from the end-all-be-all in photography. For instance, I’ve been using my Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED lens for 12 years. It worked great with my older Nikon D5100, but when I upgraded to the D7500, the limitations of the lens became glaringly obvious. The higher MP sensor on the D7500 highlights the lens's weaknesses, such as slow autofocus, poor focus accuracy, and subpar glass quality compared to modern lenses. Meanwhile, the D5100’s lower MP density helped mask these issues. This proves that megapixels are only as good as the lens they work with.
However, in scenarios like cropping or large-scale printing, megapixels absolutely make a difference. I recall shooting a buzzard in flight and cropping down to the bird itself-on a 24MP sensor, the result was a blurry, pixelated mess. If I had a 100MP sensor, even after significant cropping, I could have retained much more sharpness and detail. So, while MP isn’t everything, it can be crucial for maximizing the potential of your gear in the right context.
High MP Cameras and Their Limitations
I agree with your assessment that high-MP cameras can close the gap with lower-MP models in terms of noise by applying noise reduction, while still preserving more detail. But that also depends on the quality of the lens and sensor. Your comparison of the Canon R5 and R6 is a perfect example: the R5's higher MP gives it flexibility for cropping and detail, but with careful processing, you can still match or exceed the R6’s noise performance.
Where I think people misunderstand MP is in casual photography. For someone sharing their shots on social media or viewing them on small screens, the difference between 20MP and 100MP is negligible because platforms like Facebook heavily compress images anyway. But if you’re serious about producing prints, creating albums, or analyzing details on a large monitor, megapixels give you more options.
Skills and Experience Trump Specs
I love that you emphasize skill over specs because that’s what photography is really about. I've taken some great photos with my old Galaxy S2 smartphone that still stand out even by today’s standards. The fundamentals-composition, lighting, timing-are far more important than whether you shoot with 12MP or 100MP. High-MP cameras, better lenses, and advanced features are just tools to help refine or enhance your craft, but they won’t make up for a lack of experience or poor technique.
Megapixels are a double-edged sword. They’re fantastic for specific scenarios like cropping, printing, or detail-heavy shots but can also expose the limitations of your gear if your lenses or technique aren’t up to par. Like you said, a newer generation or larger sensor will give you better image quality overall than simply chasing megapixel counts. Ultimately, the best camera is the one you know how to use effectively.
Thanks for addressing such a hot topic with facts and examples. It’s refreshing to see a balanced perspective instead of the usual “MP doesn’t matter” or “higher MP is always better” extremes. Great video!
Great video Simon, I have always thought thermally the better. I had the original canon rebel it was only 6 MP. Yet I got some pretty outstanding Raw files with that camera. I really think the more pixels the better was nothing more than sales hype. Thanks again Simon great video.
I like to present my photos through slideshows, where I zoom in and out on the images. High-resolution sensors offer a significant advantage in this aspect. The small benefit of low-resolution sensors on image quality doesn't worth the loss in resolution. Noise reduction algorithms work fantastic nowadays. Considering that a high-resolution sensor allows for greater zooming capabilities with the same lens due to the better cropping abilities, the cost difference between low-resolution and high-resolution sensors isn't even that big.
I'm new to photography and currently using a 24MP full-frame camera. Somehow I believe that a 45MP camera would have been a better choice, and I'm planning to upgrade soon.
Thank you for another great video. I had a Nikon D 700 with 12 mp and gave me great pics. I agree with you. Ben
Well said. I love your instructional sessions. Would love to do one of your Africa trips one day.
As an event photographer, file size matters a lot as it determines storage space and workflow speed. Ultimately, clients will receive 4MB jpgs, not 40MB TIFF files, and often you shoot in dim light, meaning zooming in much or printing large isn't a good idea anyway.
Also think about it this way: probably 50-70% of your shots are garbage. Some you will delete right away, but some you keep just in case the client want more pictures of that particular moment or person. Often, they'll just stay there and eat up space.
I shoot concert photography. I recently upgraded from 18 to 26 MP... I was shooting RAW+JPEG, the very first time I used my new camera and I ran out of storage!!! Luckily, I had an empty micro SD card in my audio recorder.
Would you say that a 20-ish MP Full Frame camera is ideal for events? I just had my very first event shooting experience with two Sony bodies (apsc) and in a cloudy evening and with variable lighting I kinda pushed the cameras.
They are old cameras (a6000 amd a5000) but I am wondering if for events is better a FF when night comes or stick to a modern apsc.
@@lionheart4424 full frame will always have better low light performance, bigger sensor = more light. i rock a sony a7r3, but i would recommend the regular a7 or even the a7s. 80mb files are massive and become even bigger png's.
also if youre the type of person whos considering an a7r youre not the type of person whos willing to sacrifice quality so you can crop an image, so dont delude yourself into thinking that a 43mp sensor allows you to do 2x optical zoom and make it the equivalent to a 20mp sensor.
so go with the regular a7, which model you can afford but id recommend at least getting the a7III because it has better battery life than the first two
@@realyopikechannel thanks a lot for the recommendations! I am moving away from Sony APS-C bodies but might consider the a7 line.
@@lionheart4424I use the R5 for events and get the most out of every image!! Concerts and Weddings constantly. Low light is nothing anymore. Also when you're done if you convert your raw into jpeg. It gets colorized and the noise goes away immediately and then you have the raw files to put on your computer and to make beautiful edits for the client later on
Another excellent video on my recommended list.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great one again👌Recently bought a 15-30mm F2.8 lense and will soon try some landscape with my Canon R8.
This gives me the confidence to try a print😄
Have fun!
Thanks for the video great topic this week.
Glad you enjoyed it!
one of the best photography channels on YT... tanks
Appreciate that
Simon, subscribed when you first started, you've already got 240k! Clearly you're doing something very well, congrats! On this topic:
I have an A7RV (61mp) and an A7 (which it replaced) with 24mp. I love the A7RV, it is a brilliant camera and much more capable than the grandaddy A7, but!!! If you don't have the right thing in front of you, it makes no difference whatsoever. People are way too fixated on the technical variables.
Thanks for being an early supporter!
I remember a discussion on dpReview many years ago when I got my Canon 350D in which people argued that 8 megapixels was about as high a megapixel count as we'd ever get because after that the pixels got too small to perform reliably. :) Love my 45 mpx R5!
Well explained, my images improve with the light.
Dear Simon. Thank you very much for your useful technical explanations about the cameras and so on. I'd like to ask you to walk us through the artistic aspect of photography.
Noted
Hey Simon, I'm a nerd on camera models and at 4:58 you posted a photo of a Sony A7s ii not a Sony A7s iii. No hate or anything just wanted to point that out, I love your work and have a great day!
Right!
Great discussion Simon, an interesting example are the sensors like S23 Ultra that makes pixel binning. It can shoot on 200MP or 12MP. The same sensor, but I found that at 200MP the images gives less Dynamic range blowing out the highlights much faster than using 12MP. In my opinion, for difficult light situations the 12MP is much better than the full 200MP resolution.
Yes, while in most cameras having high megapixel counts like 40 or 60 MP doesn’t have a disadvantage, there ‘s evidence that mega-megapixel cameras like 200 MP phones are a step backwards.
I think to some degree the noise benefit of low megapixel cameras is not a "compare side by side" at a certain ISO value better.
I think it behaves more like there is a certain signal to noise ratio we deem acceptable on the pixel level, but when that gets under a certain threshold, the image falls appart for us visibly.
And by physics alone that threshold should be about a stop later if the pixel area is twice as big, so e.g. 24MP vs 48MP, given that all the other technologies like BSI and what not are all equal.
I have not tested that myself yet tho...
Great Video, they are always very informative and straight to the point
I think your videos on iso were correct; I’ve recently stumbled onto your conclusions in my hobby shooting, no need to be afraid of higher iso to get a shot.
The fact that most people compare at 100% instead of the same magnification has been bothering me for years. Try downresing the higher to the lower's resolution. It will be cleaner. Great video!
Great point!
Beyond what Simon points out; the only time find megapixel specifications critical is if I want to make large prints.
A higher megapixel sensor will facilitate making larger prints at full resolution (300DPI). The higher the sensor resolution, the bigger the print you can make at full resolution.
That said you have to take viewing distance into consideration. A small print a viewer may nose up too you’ll want a full print resolution. A billboard sized image printed at 72DPI isn’t going to present pixelation when you are looking at it from 100s of feet away. They are there but you won’t be able to perceive them so you can make do with a lower resolution sensor.
If you are just exhibiting your images online, 150dpi is fine and you can even go 72DPI for thumbnails. No real need for high MP sensors in these cases; at least in terms of resolution.
Wow thank you for saying more megapixels is better! I get so tired of everyone saying lower is better. In the future when everyone has 8k or 12k monitors even video will be better with higher megapixels.
I fully agree on the sensor technology. If one has a specific application in mind (like low-light or astrophotography) it makes sense to study the noise behavior and then one could be surprised about the pixel size (the smaller but "newer" pixels might perform better than the larger ones).
Maybe an addition: if one has got a high MP camera, one can still down sample (especially binning, but there are also other methods) the image if one doesn't need the resolution but wants to reduce noise as a first step before using de-noising tools.