Well said Craig. I'd also realised this and for the past two years started shooting with my Nikon D200 (10MP) again and really loving it. It produces highly saturated colours and has a much more organic/natural look which I much prefer to the megapixel cameras of today. The issue for camera manufacturers is that they are pressurised to give us improvements, otherwise we will stop buying and trading up.To this end, we are simply being sold features we don't really need and just chasing the hype, and hence why I've stopped watching YT videos of new camera releases and simply enjoy taking photos with what I have today.
Actually the Panasonic GH5s is only 10 megapixels, my biggest gripe though is not the excessive megapixel count these days as high as 60MP on a full frame camera, the problem is the colours are ill defined, modern cameras cannot see lime green, or well defined yellows, the reds are muddied and blues are muted, older cameras had vastly superior colour, what we really need, is that good colour filter array from yesteryear to return and maximum of 20 megapixels, it be perfect.
I like how you point to that smallish print behind you. I worked for 20 years in the photo labs, when the earth had photolabs. We in the industry knew that 99% of all photos printed would fit on 10" paper. Kodak knew that and set the whole industry to 10" or smaller. Almost none of the old time famous photographers ever made a print larger than 11x14. (you can check this out by looking at the sizes of original fine art prints for sale today.) I knew that making a 16x20 in my old darkroom was close to impossible, I'd need larger trays and a different enlarger and enlarger lens. Also a bigger darkroom itself. Not practical and unaffordable. Good presentation. Good photos can be enjoyed relatively small.
The A7S is a phenomenal stills camera. Pair it with older vintage lenses like Olympus OM 50mm f1.4 and it’s a superb gig camera. Just get your framing right in camera and you’ll be reet. What made a camera great 5,6,7,8 years ago, still makes in great today. I’m now shooting the original Canon 5D Classic, it’s 12mp and holds up very well today. That Canon 5D sensor and the Sony A7 sensor are the best I’ve used.
I moved across to Fuji mirrorless to reduce size of kit but kept hold of my Nikon D700 which is 12mp. I still use it for weddings and it produces fantastic results and you’re so right, even if I do prints or a photo book of the shoot, 12mp has never left me short. Great topic, thanks Craig. Baz
You're 100% correct, BUT: We always WANT more! More megapixels is a bigger flex! After getting that 40 megapixel camera, I like my 10, 12, and 16 megapixel cameras more; Megapixel sheep (sadly, myself included) drive technological innovation; Some applications, such as astronomy/cosmology, require more resolution; The remaining 99.9% of us only NEED fewer megapixels than available. Thanks for an excellent presentation!
Same for me. Even with my newer cameras, I still shoot most of the time with my D200, D300, and D700. The batteries are interchangeable, and I like "the look".
I just bought a Fuji S5 Pro as my first camera (same body as your D200). Considering where most of us post their photos (Instagram or maybe in a TH-cam video), the effective 8mp are enough imho
I regularly use my 6 megapixel Pentax CCD senor cameras ( istDL & K100D) With modern photo editing software i get good pictures out of these cameras as i have owned both cameras since they were new
J'utilise toujours mon D700 et il fait des merveilles avec ses 12 Mpix, J'ai aussi le GR3 et le Fuji X100T qui sont très suffisants. Mon D850 reste souvent à la maison en raison de ses gros fichiers, malgré le fait que l'on puisse réduire leur taille à la prise de vue. Conclusion, j'aurais tendance à aller dans votre sens. Merci pour vos vidéos très intéressantes !
This is spot on! I often use my XPro1, and my X70 (truly pocketable and brilliant), both 16 mpx. They make great pictures. Sure, the XT2, and XT5, come out too and are well used. But there's something about the images from the sensors with fewer pixels that is special.
Megapixels aside, I have to comment on your stills and video. Beautiful stuff, both. Loved the mirror shot at 2:34 and the brown-red brick building with the white gate at 1:52. Also the red mail truck and box being so nicely composed. The chains going into the water, framed so well. I relate to this topic as I only shoot for myself. I do like the flexibility of being able to get shallow with my Sigma 50 f1.4 from time to time. Gee whiz optics can be fun, but massive megapixels tend to be overkill.
I've gone through years of costly "upgrades" and I'm back to using my Fuji S5 Pro.. Why? Because it's beautiful. It's the best sensor I've ever used. The photos are simply beautiful. I think we forget that photography is an art form and beauty and pleasure through beauty matters.
Hi Craig, thanks for mentioning the ADOBE SUPER RESOLUTION FEATURE, as one of my cameras is 14mp which is more than enough. If you didn't mention that you were shooting this video at 1080p I would have thought it was in 4K. Maybe Pentax can save the day by making a 12mp Mirrorless camera 👏😂. Nice photos in the beginning especially the Street Art. Thanks for sharing this video, Oh one more thing nice Album. 😊
If you like the “film look” higher megapixels works against that. I currently have a 24mp full frame and a 13mp Leica D-Lux. I am currently using the small camera much more than the large one. To me the more mp the more digital an mage looks. 13mp is about perfect for my taste.
I always get great joy in shooting my Canon 30D with its 8mp sensor. The only downside of the old school cameras is that the files break down much faster under editing. So, when I shoot with it I am more conscious to get it right in camera. I always chuckle when someone sais, thats a lovely image. What camera do you have. ? 😂 I would most certainly have interest in a 12mp modern Fuji. Yes... very interested.
It is why I switched from Pentax 6mp to Olympus 16mp as it was lighter and perfect for enhanced image quality . I know that 24 mp is the baseline these days , but it doesn’t and shouldn’t be. 12mp is ample as you explained and which most of us knew . I can remember old cameras that were so well built they would last a lifetime if cared for . How many digital models could do that I wonder . What I require with technology is that it lasts a lifetime and I want that for household goods, cars and photography too. I want the tech to be updatable and the product to be refreshed as required as part of an update and which I would be happy to pay for . We need to reappraise what we need from business and address the core purpose of what we need over what we want . This would be more sustainable and provide longer lasting employment and consumer satisfaction . Politically , we are not even close to achieving this , but if people were more prepared to standup and insist on change , that change would occur . You made a very good case to desire less and want more . I hope somebody out there can take our aspirations and deliver on them before I get my own wings ha ha
Finally. Someone has said it. Let's hope someone in the camera manufacturers is listening. I don't want these crazy MP. I look back at my the images my Canon 1ds mkii they were stunning and I never wished for more. I was a working pro and like many other pros we were happy. Modern features like ibis and better af are great. Stop with the MP craziness please
Love Sony A7s camera. With pixel shift it's possible to boost resolution. I need higher megapixels only for documentation work but anything over 24Mp is just waste of valuable sensor real estate
Quite right. I am happy with my Fuji XPro 1 and I watch my pics on a 55 inch TV. I must admit I have been toing with the idea of getting an X pro 2 because the focusing might be better.
Have a quick word with Leica Uk about a loan of the recently released LEICA DLUX 8! Admittedly, it’s a fixed zoom and the camera isn’t weather sealed, but it’s a fast lens in a quality body with a simplified operating system which provides external access to control to change crop etc and it will fit in your pocket? 🤔 Who knows we might even see that PenF Pro by the end of the year and an alternative to the usual offering from Fuji and Ricoh? Take care.
Love my Pentax Q7 with 12 megapixel for the organic, ironically truer to life rendering than cameras with higer resolution. The shot at 1:02 , the lady with the cigarette, is compositional perfection!
At my early freelancing days, I had a 6.3MP camera. Ad agencies refused to work with me, due to the resolution of the camera. So, I printed one of the images on A0 size paper, and took it with me on my rounds to ad agencies, they were surprised of the result... At large sizes, the eyes need to be further away from the print. 6.3MP was good enough for billboards.
This was excellent. Ironically, I just bought 100 megapixels! All I need now is for the 17 megapixel camera I’ve ordered to come into stock. After your video, I’m a lot more excited about it!
Hmm... not sure I agree as a lot of the same can be achieved in most photo image programs, whether Affinity or Adobe or any of the others. But the quality of the older sensors was something interesting to deal with. I used to have a Nikon DSLR with a 5 MP sensor, and it was lovely. Even the reviewers said that, with this sensor, Nikon had got it right. But, it was noticeably soft when printed at A4. A4 mounted on the wall was fine, though, as you never look that close as you do with a print straight out the printer. And for normal 6x4, it was wonderful. The colours and saturation were great. But then, I get a wider colour gamut and less noise from my Sony APSC camera. Don't need full frame - much heavier as well as more expensive both the camera and the lenses. I do find, though, for landscape I usually have to up the saturation a little in post. But then, back in the days of film, I used to use Velvia, CT18, and Kodachrome 25 ...
I have to agree. My holiday carry is a fujifilm S6500fd bridge camera. This has 6.3MP in a 4:3 aspect on a tiny CCD sensor. The lens is 28-300 (35 mm equivalent). OK low light shooting is a challenge, noise-wise, but otherwise it's great. I can produce 8x8 inch prints from it and, as you said, AI image upscaling is always an option for larger prints.
Many thanks for this. Last December I recharged my old nikon D70 of only 6MP after nearly 20 years. Some of the photographs that I took with it were really good, both in composition and colour. It does not allow for pixel peeping which in my book is a very very good thing. Less of all this pointless and futile high MP indulgence and more quality photography please. May I remind people, that in mid 2000s when Phase One introduced their ' revolutionary ' ( their word not mine ) P series of medium format digital backs that cost the price of a small flat in the NW of England and every fashion, product or commercial photographer was after one, started @ at 16 MP. If 16 MP was enough to satisfy the picture editors of the likes of Vouge, or the marketing of companies like the Mercedes Benz or BMW, then it is good enough today. If 16 MP did the job, and it did then what do we think 120 MP back will do? Have models developed more fine body hair or the detail in the paint of a £100000 car has increased? None of that, they just want us to believe that buying one of these cameras or backs will make us ' better ' photographers, which is just a mind game. What I was very surprised with, was that one of the most respected landscape photographers in the UK proudly declared in one his videos that the new 100MP back allows him to crop in. If so, one had to ask him why he had half a dozen superexpensive Phase One/Schneider lenses of all focal lengths in his bag? I guess he had to repay Phase One for the money they had paid him. PS: Do I see a Leica in the background?
When was the last time someone walked out of a sports bar because they were using HD TVs (720p)...Anyone scratching their head needs to listen to this video...
people don't go to the restaurants to watch TV, I prefer when there is none, but nobody would want that low resolution at their desks or on their walls, especially when 4k is readily available
My most used cameras are recently 40-years old film SLR and 20-years old DSLR (6MPix), mostly shot in Av or M mode. And my most wanted is now Pentax 17 (film half-frame compact). Fun and inspiration sometimes have very little to do with camera parameters.
The last time I checked the megapixel count while buying a camera was probably twenty years ago lol. A 75" 4K tv is roughy 8 megapixels, and I wouldn't call it blurry.
Interesting! I hear the new Sony A9iii is already being discounted to sell as it ONLY has 24mp, and most sports and wildlife photographers at which it is aimed BELIEVE they need 50mp of the Sony A1. I bought the A9iii back in March and am personally finding 24mp fine, I can still crop when required and still have enough image to use for most purposes. And if I really need higher resolution to say print large then I can always upside using Lightroom Enhance or Topaz Photo AI. My experience is having high quality glass on front of camera is more important than megapixel.
This is really interesting. I saw this in mountain bikes when manufactures need to bring out a new design in order to sell bikes when the existing ones were still great fun and as capable. I'm learning photography as a hobby and shoot with Sony RX10iii and 100iv and somehow feel almost pressured into buying an A7 derivative or older Canon 5D. Best regards
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I totally agree with the "no-need" to go into high MPx numbers for many use cases, although I am not quite sure about bringing new 12 MPx cameras to the market successfully. M43 has covered that range at 20 Mpx quite successfully, albeit smaller body/lens combinations would be welcome - see Leica's new D-Lux 8, which is already sold out before official release (?). Well, I still have my admittedly old Olympus m43 (e.g. Pen E-P5) in use, and they are fine.
I use an old Sony A7RII with 50yr old vintage manual lenses, I crop quite often which is where the 42mp comes in handy. What I don't get is why landscape photographers use the latest all singing dancing auto focus lenses when an old manual lens would do the job easier and cheaper too?
12mp is not the future but i do agree with what you say 😁 I have 16mp XE1 and it has way more detail than my X100 original. I also think the lens has alot to do with the resolution. I also just bought the new 23 1.4 and on my XE1 the sharpness & detail is really noticeable to me
Those phone & action cameras with very high pixel counts are using "Pixel Binning" where they group pixels together so it works more like a larger sensor for light gathering. You end up with something like a 12mp image in the end that is sharper and less noisy. The system works pretty good, and I would like to see it as a selectable function on professional cameras.
Well timed Craig. Untill recently have been shooting with my Eos 1100d that has now developed a card reader failure so I am looking for a replacement. Not heavly invested in Canon so a brand change is on the table. Thanks for your thoughts.
I can advise cheap Lumix mirrorless. I have a G2 that costed 70,-€ with lens, a gifted GF3 that needed a battery and a G6 body for 100,-€. You can buy adapters and put most lenses on them. I do with Nikkor and Canon lenses. I put the Nikkors sometimes on Canon analogue cameras too.
I like to be on the safe side. Keep the low Mpix cameras in good running order, alongside their high Mpix counterparts. Mix and match, and the right tool for the right job yadda yadda. And same for the format wars. Full frame, APS-c or MFT? How about all three, and when you get really bored you switch and compare? Not even being ironic...
I had wanted a a bigger sensor with more pixels than my current Canon R7. But I have found that the R7's 32mp is plenty, and I can overcome the low light issues by using a SpeedBooster and de-noising software. Plus I can upscale images if I really need to.
I was recently asked to photograph a theatrical school event for free, with my 16 mp camera and my lack of experience they printed some photos in 8x11 format with excellent results and to my surprise two posters were printed in 24x36 format obviously up close the definition is lacking but at a distance of two meters the photos are decently excellent, and the character is good despite the 16mp definition not to win a photography competition but....
My first DSLR was 6mp which was a definite step up from film in everyday shooting. 12mp was definitely superior as it provided all the required resolution and even when cropped. More is better but I seem to have hit the buffers at 24mp and bounced. My best low light camera is a 24. However for most outings my preference is less, perhaps my favourite is “only” a 16mp but my suspicion, it’s the processor I really like.
Good reminder on this evergreen topic 🙂 What you reason about cameras actually translates 1:1 to lenses as well. Unfortunately, nowadays, lenses have become so expensive that it stinks, to serve pixel peepers, even with sensor resolutions of up to 60 MP (still growing). The main reason I would gravitate to Sony full frame nowadays is NOT because I would need full frame any desperately (I probably won't), but it is all about the lens ecosystem. With all the 3rd party offerings, but also even with Sony themselves, there is plenty of choice for also lenses which are simply "more than good enough", affordable, and small. Unfortunately, the other brands (which have a monopoly or almost-monopoly on their lens choice) had invested manly into the development of their unnecessarily expensive or downright overpriced lenses, because for them, it is all about your money, once they have locked you into their system.
No way I would buy anything below 24MP even for 4k monitor, camera deficiencies becomes clearly visible already at that resolution. And that doesn't give any room for cropping beyond 16:9, which is my common aspect ratio. But when you need to crop, which is often very handy, then 42-45MP is the sweat point -- the best sensors having that resolution. Shooting with A7Riii or Z7ii is like having a good quality teleconverter with each lens.
I always set my digicams to less megapixels, you don't need so much. My KD420Z I set to 2, my D200 and D3300 to 6 basic, my smartphone won't go below 8. Advantage with the Nikon basic JPEG is that you get very small files, below or about 1 MB. I only shoot RAW in necessary cases.
@@athmaid No idea what the camera does, in any case I'm not binning them myself. I don't blow up my pictures that big, so I don't need that many MP (6 even suffices for a billboard, someone in advertising wrote here) and first and foremost I didn't have much disk space to put them on. I rather see I get along with the equipment I have instead of buying external disk drives etc. But in fact I now have one I got cheaply.
@@arneheeringa96 I'm pretty sure the camera does bin down to reduce noise instead of throwing that precious information away. Which is great considering how noisy these older sensors are
Great discussion , Craig. I stopped wasting money on gear, at 12mp. My 4/3 and m4/3 cameras serve me well. If I can print A3+ 13x19, I'm happy. And my editing software , now has upsizing, using AI. But, I'm old school , get it right in the camera . Ok only print for my home and friend, no social media. Thanks. KB
Yes, agreed, though 20 MP is the sweet spot for me. So why did you sell your Pen-Fs? Wasn't the reason that if the sensor had more MP, you could crop in? Have you changed your mind on that?
I sold all my Sony cameras and lenses last year and moved over to a Leica Q3 and Ricoh GRiii as my only cameras. Do I need the Leica, of course not, but the cropping on 60mp sensor I am finding nice to have with 28mm being my only focal length.
Remember that : when the fist 12 méga pixels arrived, 15 years ago everyone says DLSR are now betters than analogic reflex, we can do everythings we can imagine
My iPhone has 12 MP - and I'm not satisfied. Yes, fine for many applications, and with proper telephoto lenses it would be even good for more applications. But since I've used anything from sub-1-MP (back in the 90s), 2 MP, 6 MP, 10 MP (Leica M8), 12 MP (Olympus E-PM1), 16 MP (Olympus E-PM2, E-M10II), 18 MP (Leica M9), 20 MP (Olympus Pen F) up to 24 MP (Sony A7) - my "threshold resolution" from experience is 18 MP. The M9 was the first digital camera where I was satisfied, and its files are still holding up today (the M8 files don't, not for me, same with the E-PM1). If I could, I would always opt for 24 MP, but having found m43 and Olympus being my go-to system (for many reasons), I'm content with 20 MP (and have 80 MP for special applications, which is a nice bonus). The iPhone is good for its convenience, and for its many apps that help with photography. And if need be, 16 MP will do, too, but only reluctantly.
Well said. The race to ever greater megapixels is ridiculously pointless. We are being sold something we do not need. Technology for technology's sake. I will stick to my D7200. 24mp more than enough for me.
i disagree completely - processing and cropping result in fewer pixels anyhow. Therefore we have to start and work with more than needed. And the ability to blow up a small section in perfect quality, the perspective of showing what was previously hidden until new printing and display technologies become available ... and even keeping content ready for unpredictable future options, all of this should make us yearn for 100mpx and more. We should also not forget that the Bayer sensor inflates the data fourfold, 100mpx are just interpolated from 25mega RGBG-subpixel data. That's why photos taken with monochrome cameras are so impressive... and to prove myself wrong 😉 some of my best snapshots I took with the E100rs (1.3mpx).
I sell my images as fine art wildlife framed prints. I have printed A2 print from a 3.5 MP image. I shoot with Sony A6600 24mp with 4kvideo, and also use canon R7 32.5mp with 4k 60fps, and 1080 to 120fps. IMO both cameras have enough MP for me, and what is more important is good AF, and best quality lens you can afford. For me detail is important as I do print A4, A3, and A2. Though I do not like small prints in large inner mount frame as my style is about subject visual impact. What camera manufacturers do not develop is operating system that works, and should adopt android. There is no anti theft, lock out or GPS tracking if it is stolen. Smartphones are more capable in low light, transfer your images, cloud back up, down load applicable apps for your type of photography interest. Camera manufacturers seem to be in a mega pixels arms race !
Higher resolution and sharper lenses are needed for adequately capturing details. There are many subjects where it is nearly impossible to have enough resolution and detail. For example, to truly show just how cute a foxes, river otters, tigers, lynxes, mountain lions, and cheetahs are, even 500 petapixels would only be able to represent the tiniest fraction of just how overwhelmingly cute they are. Beyond that, a higher resolution image allows users to explore an image when shared on the web without unnecessary downscaling. For example, suppose you upload a landscape image and there in a rabbit near one of the trees, wouldn't you want to be able to zoom into the image and get a better look at the rabbit's cuteness?
Also there is something to the old digicam aesthetic.. ok, nostalgia if you will. I still have a couple of old Nikon D100- yes, that old, from way back in 1999 . I bought them recently by..mistake- one was gifted to me by my wife who found it in a thrift store and thought I would like it.. and I did! and the other... I just wanted to buy an old Nikon lens, a particular 24-120 mm zoom that was famous for its poor image quality and internal flare (that somehow managed to look good though?) so...I found it cheaply but the guy selling it was like- dude look, I can't find the rear cap for the life of me. I have a really old D 100- can you just accept that (for free) as a lens cap? I was like- yeah sure, does it work? Well it did 10 years ago when I last used it.. tried it- worked perfectly (even had the old battery!) was happy... so today I shoot those regularly to great results. The key is understanding their limitations and using them accordingly. They are crazy good for portrait works !
Sony A7III = 12MP! Just saying. I think they still be purchased new. Also depends on the image & fine detail in it. Take your two 23mm lenses shown. A large print for a in store product sales poster. Could be done with your crop camera or FF & done everyday if you are a pro at post processing. But really, the quality of the detail & color would be much nicer if taken with a true MF size sensor & even better with a large format like a 150 mp Phase One. I truly believe this.
According to the background. Welcome! 😀 I too do not need more Megapixel. Meanwile there are pictures shot with my EM-5 MIII, that I shrink to 500px small side, and then enlarge them to not larger than around 2000px large side. I want to show only as much as I want to show, similar to a painter. Their resolution was their brush stroke.😉
Each to there own. You may not need more than 12mp but that doesn’t mean others only need 12. When I print my files at A3 or A2 can I see a huge difference between 12 to 100mp? Of course I can, the difference is huge. Can software increase a 12mp image to 100mp without greebles and interpolation errors? No. If you only share on social you can shoot with a potato but if you are aiming for shows and books it’s a different matter. This is coming from somebody who tries to never crop in software. So it’s not that I need cropping capability. I just see the difference, and so do people who study the prints.
Having said all that, my favourite images come from my Canon 5D Mk.1. 12mp. But you can see those 12mp in print. If I could get those colours from my Fuji - dreams. Maybe I should move to Hasselblad.
First of all, digital camera sensor pixels are not real. They are covered with color filters, typically: RGRGRGRG GBGBGBGB RGRGRGRG GBGBGBGB RGRGRGRG (more greens, fewer reds, 1px gap around each red and blue pixel, that's why some very distant red traffic lights could look like red crosses). You need to mix that info somehow, and there's no perfect method for doing that: strange patterns and noise are inevitable, and real details and colors get obscured by debayering artifacts. The nastiest one is when there are fine parallel lines (often occurs when photographing people (fabric) or city) that turn into larger blue-yellow stripes inclined differently. You can't hide it by simply downscaling. That's why you want to be as far from the Bayer matrix as possible (up to the diffraction limit). 48MP iPhones still produce 12MP images by default; at least my 14 Pro does that. In a 48MP sensor, behind each R, G, or B, there are 4 sensors covered with a single color, either R, G, or B, so color resolution stays the same - 12MP. But that additional lightness information under each filter cell is still helpful. To see if 48MP mode is worth it, google "tomsguide proraw"; it demonstrates the difference clearly. You can downscale 48MP to 12MP manually in your editor. That would be much better image quality than a 12MP-mode shot because 12MP iPhone shots are not "demosaiced 48MP pixels downscaled to 12MP", it's more like four sensors acting as one (averaged value), so the resulting image still suffers from many previous problems. It is true that a 6MP file is enough to print anything up to A4 or even larger (because viewing distance grows with the print size anyway). But how good are these 6MP, how REAL they are, how fine the noise depends on the initial MP count. It's popular to blame marketing and say "we don't need megapixels," etc. If only they were real, then of course, we wouldn't need too much. So I would buy a 12MP camera if it's good, but if a 24MP camera with otherwise identical features is available at the same price, I'd go for 24MP. And I won't be using it to "crop more", instead I'll be able to downscale more to minimize the problems.
It’s very simple… if cameras didn’t have more pixels, more gizmos bells and whistles camera manufacturers would go bust, photographers don’t have to behave like sheep and follow the trends and everyone else, we can think as individuals.
Phone camera no matter how many megapixel they are they only produce 4000x3000 picture by default and there seems to be no easy way to unlock full resolution they're capable either.
Probably because most phones with high megapixel count have a quad Bayer filter in front of the sensor. 4 pixels red, 2x4 pixels green, and 4 pixels blue per "cell". Usually these are averaged out in some way to produce an image with lower resolution but less noise. Or if you want HDR they are split into pixels for long exposure and short exposure
Sadly lower MP count would make uninformed people complain. Just like how Olympus Tough reduced MP to 12, people complained, Olympus had reason to increase low light capability of their tiny sensor. Maybe companies should learn to do marketing like Apple, Apple doesn't show numbers, just show features and how it helps people to use their device
Well said Craig. I'd also realised this and for the past two years started shooting with my Nikon D200 (10MP) again and really loving it. It produces highly saturated colours and has a much more organic/natural look which I much prefer to the megapixel cameras of today. The issue for camera manufacturers is that they are pressurised to give us improvements, otherwise we will stop buying and trading up.To this end, we are simply being sold features we don't really need and just chasing the hype, and hence why I've stopped watching YT videos of new camera releases and simply enjoy taking photos with what I have today.
Actually the Panasonic GH5s is only 10 megapixels, my biggest gripe though is not the excessive megapixel count these days as high as 60MP on a full frame camera, the problem is the colours are ill defined, modern cameras cannot see lime green, or well defined yellows, the reds are muddied and blues are muted, older cameras had vastly superior colour, what we really need, is that good colour filter array from yesteryear to return and maximum of 20 megapixels, it be perfect.
I like how you point to that smallish print behind you. I worked for 20 years in the photo labs, when the earth had photolabs. We in the industry knew that 99% of all photos printed would fit on 10" paper. Kodak knew that and set the whole industry to 10" or smaller. Almost none of the old time famous photographers ever made a print larger than 11x14. (you can check this out by looking at the sizes of original fine art prints for sale today.) I knew that making a 16x20 in my old darkroom was close to impossible, I'd need larger trays and a different enlarger and enlarger lens. Also a bigger darkroom itself. Not practical and unaffordable. Good presentation. Good photos can be enjoyed relatively small.
The A7S is a phenomenal stills camera. Pair it with older vintage lenses like Olympus OM 50mm f1.4 and it’s a superb gig camera. Just get your framing right in camera and you’ll be reet. What made a camera great 5,6,7,8 years ago, still makes in great today. I’m now shooting the original Canon 5D Classic, it’s 12mp and holds up very well today. That Canon 5D sensor and the Sony A7 sensor are the best I’ve used.
I moved across to Fuji mirrorless to reduce size of kit but kept hold of my Nikon D700 which is 12mp. I still use it for weddings and it produces fantastic results and you’re so right, even if I do prints or a photo book of the shoot, 12mp has never left me short. Great topic, thanks Craig. Baz
You're 100% correct, BUT:
We always WANT more!
More megapixels is a bigger flex!
After getting that 40 megapixel camera, I like my 10, 12, and 16 megapixel cameras more;
Megapixel sheep (sadly, myself included) drive technological innovation;
Some applications, such as astronomy/cosmology, require more resolution;
The remaining 99.9% of us only NEED fewer megapixels than available.
Thanks for an excellent presentation!
I’ve never wanted or needed more pixels.
I bought an old 12mp Pentax DSLR recenly. Love it. Such great ergonomics and colours. Cost me AUD $80 with lens. And now the Sony a6400 sits at home
I use my Nikon D700 frequently. I just bought a 10mp D200 with CCD sensor. Loving it.
Same for me. Even with my newer cameras, I still shoot most of the time with my D200, D300, and D700. The batteries are interchangeable, and I like "the look".
I just bought a Fuji S5 Pro as my first camera (same body as your D200). Considering where most of us post their photos (Instagram or maybe in a TH-cam video), the effective 8mp are enough imho
@@athmaid I agree. I have made large prints with the D700 and I imagine you can with the D200. Viewing distance is key.
Was out this morning shooting with my 10 megapixel D200,all the shots are fine for Flickr and social media where they end up
For birding I am happy with my 26 MP camera and a 70-300 lens sufficient enough for cropping and carrying around.
I need fewer megapixels too!
I agree.
Yes, fewer megapixels not less!
I require fewer as well.
@@williamevans9426 Certainly not more!
I need less comments like this.
Last year I "upgraded" from a 30mp camera to a 24mp one.
I regularly use my 6 megapixel Pentax CCD senor cameras ( istDL & K100D) With modern photo editing software i get good pictures out of these cameras as i have owned both cameras since they were new
CCD sensors are fantastic
J'utilise toujours mon D700 et il fait des merveilles avec ses 12 Mpix, J'ai aussi le GR3 et le Fuji X100T qui sont très suffisants. Mon D850 reste souvent à la maison en raison de ses gros fichiers, malgré le fait que l'on puisse réduire leur taille à la prise de vue. Conclusion, j'aurais tendance à aller dans votre sens. Merci pour vos vidéos très intéressantes !
Vous pouvez utiliser le M size feature. 🎉🎉🎉
This is spot on! I often use my XPro1, and my X70 (truly pocketable and brilliant), both 16 mpx. They make great pictures.
Sure, the XT2, and XT5, come out too and are well used.
But there's something about the images from the sensors with fewer pixels that is special.
I love the 23mm f2, great street photography lens on Xt5. Love your images
Megapixels aside, I have to comment on your stills and video. Beautiful stuff, both. Loved the mirror shot at 2:34 and the brown-red brick building with the white gate at 1:52. Also the red mail truck and box being so nicely composed. The chains going into the water, framed so well.
I relate to this topic as I only shoot for myself. I do like the flexibility of being able to get shallow with my Sigma 50 f1.4 from time to time. Gee whiz optics can be fun, but massive megapixels tend to be overkill.
I've gone through years of costly "upgrades" and I'm back to using my Fuji S5 Pro.. Why? Because it's beautiful. It's the best sensor I've ever used. The photos are simply beautiful. I think we forget that photography is an art form and beauty and pleasure through beauty matters.
I totally agree storing larger pictures on older computers just fills memory space , well said 👍🏻
I have two 12MP cameras: the Canon 5D and the Olympus TG7. I love them both!
I have 50 yo 4x6 camera and I love it. What were we talking about I forgot?
Hi Craig, thanks for mentioning the ADOBE SUPER RESOLUTION FEATURE, as one of my cameras is 14mp which is more than enough. If you didn't mention that you were shooting this video at 1080p I would have thought it was in 4K. Maybe Pentax can save the day by making a 12mp Mirrorless camera 👏😂. Nice photos in the beginning especially the Street Art. Thanks for sharing this video, Oh one more thing nice Album. 😊
If you like the “film look” higher megapixels works against that. I currently have a 24mp full frame and a 13mp Leica D-Lux. I am currently using the small camera much more than the large one. To me the more mp the more digital an mage looks. 13mp is about perfect for my taste.
I always get great joy in shooting my Canon 30D with its 8mp sensor. The only downside of the old school cameras is that the files break down much faster under editing. So, when I shoot with it I am more conscious to get it right in camera. I always chuckle when someone sais, thats a lovely image. What camera do you have. ?
😂
I would most certainly have interest in a 12mp modern Fuji. Yes... very interested.
It is why I switched from Pentax 6mp to Olympus 16mp as it was lighter and perfect for enhanced image quality . I know that 24 mp is the baseline these days , but it doesn’t and shouldn’t be. 12mp is ample as you explained and which most of us knew .
I can remember old cameras that were so well built they would last a lifetime if cared for . How many digital models could do that I wonder .
What I require with technology is that it lasts a lifetime and I want that for household goods, cars and photography too.
I want the tech to be updatable and the product to be refreshed as required as part of an update and which I would be happy to pay for .
We need to reappraise what we need from business and address the core purpose of what we need over what we want . This would be more sustainable and provide longer lasting employment and consumer satisfaction .
Politically , we are not even close to achieving this , but if people were more prepared to standup and insist on change , that change would occur .
You made a very good case to desire less and want more . I hope somebody out there can take our aspirations and deliver on them before I get my own wings ha ha
Finally. Someone has said it. Let's hope someone in the camera manufacturers is listening. I don't want these crazy MP. I look back at my the images my Canon 1ds mkii they were stunning and I never wished for more. I was a working pro and like many other pros we were happy.
Modern features like ibis and better af are great.
Stop with the MP craziness please
Love Sony A7s camera. With pixel shift it's possible to boost resolution. I need higher megapixels only for documentation work but anything over 24Mp is just waste of valuable sensor real estate
Sounds good, my 'new' camera has ~1/3 the pixels of my 'old' camera.
Quite right. I am happy with my Fuji XPro 1 and I watch my pics on a 55 inch TV. I must admit I have been toing with the idea of getting an X pro 2 because the focusing might be better.
Have a quick word with Leica Uk about a loan of the recently released LEICA DLUX 8! Admittedly, it’s a fixed zoom and the camera isn’t weather sealed, but it’s a fast lens in a quality body with a simplified operating system which provides external access to control to change crop etc and it will fit in your pocket? 🤔 Who knows we might even see that PenF Pro by the end of the year and an alternative to the usual offering from Fuji and Ricoh?
Take care.
Great content as always... thank you!
Love my Pentax Q7 with 12 megapixel for the organic, ironically truer to life rendering than cameras with higer resolution. The shot at 1:02 , the lady with the cigarette, is compositional perfection!
You don't need less megapixels, you need fewer megapixels. ; )
You’re blocked!
@@e6Vlogs 😊
He's just having a bit of fun. @@e6Vlogs
Many of my best images came from 6 and 12 megapixel cameras. I now shoot mainly on 16mp m4/3 gear with a Sony a6000 as a novelty.
At my early freelancing days, I had a 6.3MP camera. Ad agencies refused to work with me, due to the resolution of the camera. So, I printed one of the images on A0 size paper, and took it with me on my rounds to ad agencies, they were surprised of the result... At large sizes, the eyes need to be further away from the print. 6.3MP was good enough for billboards.
Excellent point.
This was excellent. Ironically, I just bought 100 megapixels! All I need now is for the 17 megapixel camera I’ve ordered to come into stock. After your video, I’m a lot more excited about it!
Spot on! At the beginning of May I walked the East Highland Way in Scotland. I took my old Nikon D40 (6mp) and got some really good images.
Great images - as always on this channel! And again good thoughts. So happy with my 20MP of a brand not to be discussed here (again)
Hmm... not sure I agree as a lot of the same can be achieved in most photo image programs, whether Affinity or Adobe or any of the others. But the quality of the older sensors was something interesting to deal with. I used to have a Nikon DSLR with a 5 MP sensor, and it was lovely. Even the reviewers said that, with this sensor, Nikon had got it right. But, it was noticeably soft when printed at A4. A4 mounted on the wall was fine, though, as you never look that close as you do with a print straight out the printer. And for normal 6x4, it was wonderful. The colours and saturation were great.
But then, I get a wider colour gamut and less noise from my Sony APSC camera. Don't need full frame - much heavier as well as more expensive both the camera and the lenses. I do find, though, for landscape I usually have to up the saturation a little in post. But then, back in the days of film, I used to use Velvia, CT18, and Kodachrome 25 ...
I have to agree. My holiday carry is a fujifilm S6500fd bridge camera. This has 6.3MP in a 4:3 aspect on a tiny CCD sensor. The lens is 28-300 (35 mm equivalent). OK low light shooting is a challenge, noise-wise, but otherwise it's great. I can produce 8x8 inch prints from it and, as you said, AI image upscaling is always an option for larger prints.
Many thanks for this. Last December I recharged my old nikon D70 of only 6MP after nearly 20 years. Some of the photographs that I took with it were really good, both in composition and colour. It does not allow for pixel peeping which in my book is a very very good thing. Less of all this pointless and futile high MP indulgence and more quality photography please. May I remind people, that in mid 2000s when Phase One introduced their ' revolutionary ' ( their word not mine ) P series of medium format digital backs that cost the price of a small flat in the NW of England and every fashion, product or commercial photographer was after one, started @ at 16 MP. If 16 MP was enough to satisfy the picture editors of the likes of Vouge, or the marketing of companies like the Mercedes Benz or BMW, then it is good enough today. If 16 MP did the job, and it did then what do we think 120 MP back will do? Have models developed more fine body hair or the detail in the paint of a £100000 car has increased? None of that, they just want us to believe that buying one of these cameras or backs will make us ' better ' photographers, which is just a mind game. What I was very surprised with, was that one of the most respected landscape photographers in the UK proudly declared in one his videos that the new 100MP back allows him to crop in. If so, one had to ask him why he had half a dozen superexpensive Phase One/Schneider lenses of all focal lengths in his bag? I guess he had to repay Phase One for the money they had paid him. PS: Do I see a Leica in the background?
When was the last time someone walked out of a sports bar because they were using HD TVs (720p)...Anyone scratching their head needs to listen to this video...
people don't go to the restaurants to watch TV, I prefer when there is none, but nobody would want that low resolution at their desks or on their walls, especially when 4k is readily available
My most used cameras are recently 40-years old film SLR and 20-years old DSLR (6MPix), mostly shot in Av or M mode. And my most wanted is now Pentax 17 (film half-frame compact). Fun and inspiration sometimes have very little to do with camera parameters.
The last time I checked the megapixel count while buying a camera was probably twenty years ago lol.
A 75" 4K tv is roughy 8 megapixels, and I wouldn't call it blurry.
Well said and explained. As always an interesting video.
Interesting! I hear the new Sony A9iii is already being discounted to sell as it ONLY has 24mp, and most sports and wildlife photographers at which it is aimed BELIEVE they need 50mp of the Sony A1. I bought the A9iii back in March and am personally finding 24mp fine, I can still crop when required and still have enough image to use for most purposes. And if I really need higher resolution to say print large then I can always upside using Lightroom Enhance or Topaz Photo AI. My experience is having high quality glass on front of camera is more important than megapixel.
This is really interesting. I saw this in mountain bikes when manufactures need to bring out a new design in order to sell bikes when the existing ones were still great fun and as capable. I'm learning photography as a hobby and shoot with Sony RX10iii and 100iv and somehow feel almost pressured into buying an A7 derivative or older Canon 5D. Best regards
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I totally agree with the "no-need" to go into high MPx numbers for many use cases, although I am not quite sure about bringing new 12 MPx cameras to the market successfully. M43 has covered that range at 20 Mpx quite successfully, albeit smaller body/lens combinations would be welcome - see Leica's new D-Lux 8, which is already sold out before official release (?). Well, I still have my admittedly old Olympus m43 (e.g. Pen E-P5) in use, and they are fine.
I still use my Nikon d70s 6MP and D2H 4MP from time to time....they have awesome print files up to 20x30inches
I use an old Sony A7RII with 50yr old vintage manual lenses, I crop quite often which is where the 42mp comes in handy.
What I don't get is why landscape photographers use the latest all singing dancing auto focus lenses when an old manual lens would do the job easier and cheaper too?
150fps and superfast autofocus are really handy for landscape photography. 😂
12mp is not the future but i do agree with what you say 😁 I have 16mp XE1 and it has way more detail than my X100 original. I also think the lens has alot to do with the resolution. I also just bought the new 23 1.4 and on my XE1 the sharpness & detail is really noticeable to me
Those phone & action cameras with very high pixel counts are using "Pixel Binning" where they group pixels together so it works more like a larger sensor for light gathering. You end up with something like a 12mp image in the end that is sharper and less noisy. The system works pretty good, and I would like to see it as a selectable function on professional cameras.
Yes, I think this will be the future. Sensors will have enough pixels to record 8K video and binning as a feature for low light stills
I find the 16mp files on the Fuji X-E1 and X-T1 to be just right for most daily snaps
Well timed Craig.
Untill recently have been shooting with my Eos 1100d that has now developed a card reader failure so I am looking for a replacement. Not heavly invested in Canon so a brand change is on the table.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I can advise cheap Lumix mirrorless. I have a G2 that costed 70,-€ with lens, a gifted GF3 that needed a battery and a G6 body for 100,-€. You can buy adapters and put most lenses on them. I do with Nikkor and Canon lenses. I put the Nikkors sometimes on Canon analogue cameras too.
I like to be on the safe side. Keep the low Mpix cameras in good running order, alongside their high Mpix counterparts. Mix and match, and the right tool for the right job yadda yadda. And same for the format wars. Full frame, APS-c or MFT? How about all three, and when you get really bored you switch and compare? Not even being ironic...
I had wanted a a bigger sensor with more pixels than my current Canon R7. But I have found that the R7's 32mp is plenty, and I can overcome the low light issues by using a SpeedBooster and de-noising software. Plus I can upscale images if I really need to.
I was recently asked to photograph a theatrical school event for free, with my 16 mp camera and my lack of experience they printed some photos in 8x11 format with excellent results and to my surprise two posters were printed in 24x36 format obviously up close the definition is lacking but at a distance of two meters the photos are decently excellent, and the character is good despite the 16mp definition not to win a photography competition but....
My first DSLR was 6mp which was a definite step up from film in everyday shooting. 12mp was definitely superior as it provided all the required resolution and even when cropped. More is better but I seem to have hit the buffers at 24mp and bounced. My best low light camera is a 24. However for most outings my preference is less, perhaps my favourite is “only” a 16mp but my suspicion, it’s the processor I really like.
Good reminder on this evergreen topic 🙂
What you reason about cameras actually translates 1:1 to lenses as well.
Unfortunately, nowadays, lenses have become so expensive that it stinks, to serve pixel peepers, even with sensor resolutions of up to 60 MP (still growing).
The main reason I would gravitate to Sony full frame nowadays is NOT because I would need full frame any desperately (I probably won't), but it is all about the lens ecosystem. With all the 3rd party offerings, but also even with Sony themselves, there is plenty of choice for also lenses which are simply "more than good enough", affordable, and small.
Unfortunately, the other brands (which have a monopoly or almost-monopoly on their lens choice) had invested manly into the development of their unnecessarily expensive or downright overpriced lenses, because for them, it is all about your money, once they have locked you into their system.
Less is more as they say. :-)
Hear, hear!
I feel sorry for those poor megapixel’s.. one day we want them the next day we don’t, so confusing for them ☹️😐
No way I would buy anything below 24MP even for 4k monitor, camera deficiencies becomes clearly visible already at that resolution. And that doesn't give any room for cropping beyond 16:9, which is my common aspect ratio. But when you need to crop, which is often very handy, then 42-45MP is the sweat point -- the best sensors having that resolution. Shooting with A7Riii or Z7ii is like having a good quality teleconverter with each lens.
I always set my digicams to less megapixels, you don't need so much. My KD420Z I set to 2, my D200 and D3300 to 6 basic, my smartphone won't go below 8. Advantage with the Nikon basic JPEG is that you get very small files, below or about 1 MB. I only shoot RAW in necessary cases.
So you're basically pixel binning?
@@athmaid No idea what the camera does, in any case I'm not binning them myself. I don't blow up my pictures that big, so I don't need that many MP (6 even suffices for a billboard, someone in advertising wrote here) and first and foremost I didn't have much disk space to put them on. I rather see I get along with the equipment I have instead of buying external disk drives etc. But in fact I now have one I got cheaply.
@@arneheeringa96 I'm pretty sure the camera does bin down to reduce noise instead of throwing that precious information away. Which is great considering how noisy these older sensors are
Great discussion , Craig. I stopped wasting money on gear, at 12mp. My 4/3 and m4/3 cameras serve me well. If I can print A3+ 13x19, I'm happy. And my editing software , now has upsizing, using AI. But, I'm old school , get it right in the camera . Ok only print for my home and friend, no social media. Thanks. KB
Yes, agreed, though 20 MP is the sweet spot for me. So why did you sell your Pen-Fs? Wasn't the reason that if the sensor had more MP, you could crop in? Have you changed your mind on that?
@@jodeverill No, I sold my penf’s because I wanted a flip-up lcd screen. The Fuji Xt5 has too many MP’s really.
Its the"New and Improved" syndrome! Companies need more sales so they make us think we need more to keep up with others.
I sold all my Sony cameras and lenses last year and moved over to a Leica Q3 and Ricoh GRiii as my only cameras. Do I need the Leica, of course not, but the cropping on 60mp sensor I am finding nice to have with 28mm being my only focal length.
I think the iPhone 48 megapixel is actually 12 megapixel stacked.
Remember that : when the fist 12 méga pixels arrived, 15 years ago everyone says DLSR are now betters than analogic reflex, we can do everythings we can imagine
I wish they had made E-M10 mk 1 with a 10MP sensor, it’s more than enough for digital even with massive cropping…
Guess quite a few need more megapixels for those large and wonderful future prints that never materialize... 😊
My iPhone 2022 SE is 12mp. So is my D2X. And my GF1. And the Powershot G9. And I think I”m missing one…!
My iPhone has 12 MP - and I'm not satisfied. Yes, fine for many applications, and with proper telephoto lenses it would be even good for more applications. But since I've used anything from sub-1-MP (back in the 90s), 2 MP, 6 MP, 10 MP (Leica M8), 12 MP (Olympus E-PM1), 16 MP (Olympus E-PM2, E-M10II), 18 MP (Leica M9), 20 MP (Olympus Pen F) up to 24 MP (Sony A7) - my "threshold resolution" from experience is 18 MP. The M9 was the first digital camera where I was satisfied, and its files are still holding up today (the M8 files don't, not for me, same with the E-PM1). If I could, I would always opt for 24 MP, but having found m43 and Olympus being my go-to system (for many reasons), I'm content with 20 MP (and have 80 MP for special applications, which is a nice bonus). The iPhone is good for its convenience, and for its many apps that help with photography. And if need be, 16 MP will do, too, but only reluctantly.
It's annoying how they keep increasing MP but it's probably the least important thing in a camera.
Selecting file size in camera prior to shooting would to an extent solve this problem?
Well said. The race to ever greater megapixels is ridiculously pointless. We are being sold something we do not need. Technology for technology's sake. I will stick to my D7200. 24mp more than enough for me.
i disagree completely - processing and cropping result in fewer pixels anyhow. Therefore we have to start and work with more than needed. And the ability to blow up a small section in perfect quality, the perspective of showing what was previously hidden until new printing and display technologies become available ... and even keeping content ready for unpredictable future options, all of this should make us yearn for 100mpx and more.
We should also not forget that the Bayer sensor inflates the data fourfold, 100mpx are just interpolated from 25mega RGBG-subpixel data. That's why photos taken with monochrome cameras are so impressive... and to prove myself wrong 😉 some of my best snapshots I took with the E100rs (1.3mpx).
I sell my images as fine art wildlife framed prints. I have printed A2 print from a 3.5 MP image. I shoot with Sony A6600 24mp with 4kvideo, and also use canon R7 32.5mp with 4k 60fps, and 1080 to 120fps.
IMO both cameras have enough MP for me, and what is more important is good AF, and best quality lens you can afford. For me detail is important as I do print A4, A3, and A2. Though I do not like small prints in large inner mount frame as my style is about subject visual impact.
What camera manufacturers do not develop is operating system that works, and should adopt android. There is no anti theft, lock out or GPS tracking if it is stolen. Smartphones are more capable in low light, transfer your images, cloud back up, down load applicable apps for your type of photography interest.
Camera manufacturers seem to be in a mega pixels arms race !
Android was originally developed to be a camera operating system, funny how that worked out
Higher resolution and sharper lenses are needed for adequately capturing details. There are many subjects where it is nearly impossible to have enough resolution and detail. For example, to truly show just how cute a foxes, river otters, tigers, lynxes, mountain lions, and cheetahs are, even 500 petapixels would only be able to represent the tiniest fraction of just how overwhelmingly cute they are. Beyond that, a higher resolution image allows users to explore an image when shared on the web without unnecessary downscaling. For example, suppose you upload a landscape image and there in a rabbit near one of the trees, wouldn't you want to be able to zoom into the image and get a better look at the rabbit's cuteness?
I don’t like rabbits!
Also there is something to the old digicam aesthetic.. ok, nostalgia if you will. I still have a couple of old Nikon D100- yes, that old, from way back in 1999 . I bought them recently by..mistake- one was gifted to me by my wife who found it in a thrift store and thought I would like it.. and I did! and the other... I just wanted to buy an old Nikon lens, a particular 24-120 mm zoom that was famous for its poor image quality and internal flare (that somehow managed to look good though?) so...I found it cheaply but the guy selling it was like- dude look, I can't find the rear cap for the life of me. I have a really old D 100- can you just accept that (for free) as a lens cap? I was like- yeah sure, does it work? Well it did 10 years ago when I last used it.. tried it- worked perfectly (even had the old battery!) was happy... so today I shoot those regularly to great results. The key is understanding their limitations and using them accordingly. They are crazy good for portrait works !
I use the Sigma FP in cropped mode is APSC is around ~12 megapixels and I use the sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Foveon sensors have way higher perceived resolution due to the stacked nature afaik
@@athmaid it’s not a Foveon sensors it’s sensor is from Sony my friend
@@benhall8069 oh ok my bad
Yep. I use the Sony A7 mark 1. Most of the time 12mp is enough.
Sony A7III = 12MP! Just saying. I think they still be purchased new. Also depends on the image & fine detail in it. Take your two 23mm lenses shown. A large print for a in store product sales poster. Could be done with your crop camera or FF & done everyday if you are a pro at post processing. But really, the quality of the detail & color would be much nicer if taken with a true MF size sensor & even better with a large format like a 150 mp Phase One. I truly believe this.
According to the background. Welcome! 😀
I too do not need more Megapixel. Meanwile there are pictures shot with my EM-5 MIII, that I shrink to 500px small side, and then enlarge them to not larger than around 2000px large side. I want to show only as much as I want to show, similar to a painter. Their resolution was their brush stroke.😉
Birders need more MP. Even with 600 or 800 mm lenses, you simply must crop sometimes- especially with small birds.
Newer Nikon cameras allow you to choose different picture formats for raw, but also smaller raw file sizes. Z6II for you?
Apparently Leica have brought out a 17mp made in china camera photo centric priced at £1600
Great video as always Craig
It’s a re-working of the 6 year old LUMIX LX100 mk2 camera.
And I have a Gx80/85 with same sensor. Fantastic detail is there. That lens also works in the range that has worked well for 100 years now.
Each to there own. You may not need more than 12mp but that doesn’t mean others only need 12. When I print my files at A3 or A2 can I see a huge difference between 12 to 100mp? Of course I can, the difference is huge. Can software increase a 12mp image to 100mp without greebles and interpolation errors? No.
If you only share on social you can shoot with a potato but if you are aiming for shows and books it’s a different matter.
This is coming from somebody who tries to never crop in software. So it’s not that I need cropping capability. I just see the difference, and so do people who study the prints.
Having said all that, my favourite images come from my Canon 5D Mk.1. 12mp. But you can see those 12mp in print. If I could get those colours from my Fuji - dreams.
Maybe I should move to Hasselblad.
First of all, digital camera sensor pixels are not real. They are covered with color filters, typically:
RGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRG
(more greens, fewer reds, 1px gap around each red and blue pixel, that's why some very distant red traffic lights could look like red crosses). You need to mix that info somehow, and there's no perfect method for doing that: strange patterns and noise are inevitable, and real details and colors get obscured by debayering artifacts. The nastiest one is when there are fine parallel lines (often occurs when photographing people (fabric) or city) that turn into larger blue-yellow stripes inclined differently. You can't hide it by simply downscaling. That's why you want to be as far from the Bayer matrix as possible (up to the diffraction limit).
48MP iPhones still produce 12MP images by default; at least my 14 Pro does that. In a 48MP sensor, behind each R, G, or B, there are 4 sensors covered with a single color, either R, G, or B, so color resolution stays the same - 12MP. But that additional lightness information under each filter cell is still helpful. To see if 48MP mode is worth it, google "tomsguide proraw"; it demonstrates the difference clearly.
You can downscale 48MP to 12MP manually in your editor. That would be much better image quality than a 12MP-mode shot because 12MP iPhone shots are not "demosaiced 48MP pixels downscaled to 12MP", it's more like four sensors acting as one (averaged value), so the resulting image still suffers from many previous problems.
It is true that a 6MP file is enough to print anything up to A4 or even larger (because viewing distance grows with the print size anyway). But how good are these 6MP, how REAL they are, how fine the noise depends on the initial MP count. It's popular to blame marketing and say "we don't need megapixels," etc. If only they were real, then of course, we wouldn't need too much. So I would buy a 12MP camera if it's good, but if a 24MP camera with otherwise identical features is available at the same price, I'd go for 24MP. And I won't be using it to "crop more", instead I'll be able to downscale more to minimize the problems.
My classic Nikon D700 (12 MP) + 50 mm (IS) does the job.
You said a 12 megapixel Fuji X-Pan and now I can't think of anything else. .
Apples 48MP is kinda fake
Fewer megapixels, less resolution might be a better way to say it. Best wishes!
I never heard about emotions being in the need of megapixels to be transported .....
It’s very simple… if cameras didn’t have more pixels, more gizmos bells and whistles camera manufacturers would go bust, photographers don’t have to behave like sheep and follow the trends and everyone else, we can think as individuals.
Forget megapixels, I came here to solve the album cover mystery....
Phone camera no matter how many megapixel they are they only produce 4000x3000 picture by default and there seems to be no easy way to unlock full resolution they're capable either.
Probably because most phones with high megapixel count have a quad Bayer filter in front of the sensor. 4 pixels red, 2x4 pixels green, and 4 pixels blue per "cell". Usually these are averaged out in some way to produce an image with lower resolution but less noise. Or if you want HDR they are split into pixels for long exposure and short exposure
Sadly lower MP count would make uninformed people complain. Just like how Olympus Tough reduced MP to 12, people complained, Olympus had reason to increase low light capability of their tiny sensor.
Maybe companies should learn to do marketing like Apple, Apple doesn't show numbers, just show features and how it helps people to use their device
Rumours of a Fujifilm TX-3 Digital X Pan camera are flowing around.
As are rumours that you can actually buy some of the cameras they already released.
Wow, you were a Panoramic Images contributor? I know those guys.