Just a few hours left on the poll.
Overall, 40-60 MP looks like it will receive the most votes. But 40-60 MPs receiving 5 votes and then the two categories from 25-40 MPs also receiving 5 votes. No one (thus far) has picked >60 MPs (although there is one mention in the comments) and no one is <20 MPs.
As I mentioned before, in my opinion, there is not an overall "right" answer to this. It really gets down to your intended use and output. One fashion photographer I follow shoots for Wrangler jeans and has defended the "high MPs" of the R5 that he uses mentioning that he has walked up in stores to see larger than life versions of his images. He's downplayed the need for Fuji and 100 MPs for this purpose and he and Wrangler seem content with the 45 MP from the R5. I also think back to when sharper lenses were coming around and several people in the fashion industry were labeling these lenses as "too sharp" as they showed every blemish.....output matters.
For me, I picked 30-40 MPs as I have settled in as 35 MP as my optimum. Why? My largest prints are 24 x 16 inches, which x 300 ppi = 7200 x 4800 = 34.6 MPs. That said, all of my 24x16 prints I have up around my house were actually shot with my old 7D Mk 1 at 216 ppi, 5DIII at 240 ppi or 5DIV at 280 ppi at a 24x16 output size. I have yet to print an image from my R5, which would be 341 ppi in a 24x16 inch output. I do consider the R5 to be overkill in terms of resolution, but I would rather be over the standard I selected than under. Granted, under that 35 MP threshold is already on my walls and looks great.
Still, thinking about this has made me wonder, would I go for the highest resolution possible if it was penalty free? While I quickly think excess pixels are unnecessary and see no reason to drive a F1 car to the grocery store, what if there were no trade offs?
I suspect Canon is doing their best to minimize the primary tradeoff of higher MPs by introducing CRAW. As much as Canon takes heat for not being innovative, when I consider my issues, I usually find Canon has considered those issues and has a potential solution. In this instance, shooting RAW, higher resolution images follows a standard formula where resolution increases linearly, and area/file size increases exponentially. So, you start to get larger and larger file sizes with diminishing returns in true resolution. That is a problem....to which, Canon gives us CRAW which seems to be about as good as RAW at ~50-60% the file size.
The primary benefit most people talk about for when a camera's resolution exceeds their desired output resolution is the ability to crop. As for cropping, that is how I use my extra resolution and it is a great feature.
However, this gets complicated as there are two primary ways to get more pixels on target: higher pixel density/excess pixel and then crop or additional focal length/larger lens. There are pros/cons to each. If you use the cropping option to get more pixels on target, you have the option of a smaller lens and there is more space in your frame for the subject to move, both of which are great for BIF, etc. However, when you crop, you also are enlarging noise and its negative effects on detail and IQ. Also, for the same aperture, a longer lens gives you a higher degree of bokeh than the cropping option, so solving your pixels on target issue with a lens can give you better bokeh.
Most of the time, I prefer to have a lens with the focal length that fits my composition. But, when this doesn't work or if I need more space in my frame for bird movement, I do lean on cropping.
Just updating this table I created for the "Megapixel Wars" thread (R "HP" are hypothetical high MP cameras):
One of the things I really take away when I do the math and look at this table is cropping any of the cameras to 1/9th the frame gives you very similar resolving power except for the hypothetical R "HP" (here it is the 82 MP), which still could do a 24x16 print at >150 ppi. But really, as soon as we start significantly cropping, we are affecting our final output size unless we have massive MPs...currently not available MPs.
Reply With Quote