Printable View
As this came up, I thought I'd make a poll of it.
How many megapixels do you desire in your next camera?
No wrong answer, IMO.
We did this back in 2013, and the winning number was 25-30 MPs. But, new technologies, new cameras, memory is less expensive, and maybe needs have changed, so this is an update for 2022.
I'll leave the poll open for a week.
One noteworthy confound is the strength and design of the OLPF / AA filter. Canon has stated that the 24 MP sensor in the R3 delivers greater spatial resolution than the 30 MP sensor in the 5DIV. In other words, not all megapixels are created equal.
I remember EOSHD website person took the aa filter off the 5dIII and it seemed substantively sharper. Now that I have an R5, toying w/ turning the 5d3 to full spectrum, though the more I research it the less likely I am going to do it... now that we are talking about the sensor stack.
I notice the difference in resolution between the R5 and the 5Ds R.
There are applications that the extra resolution is helpful. There are applications when it is not.
One thing I noticed with the 5Ds R is how well the resolution improved my weak lenses. With a great lens like the 500mm it didn't help nearly as much.
What would be "ideal" IMO is to have both a high mp body and low. The tradeoff of lower fps and noise for the higher mp body is more important.
What I wanted was the 1Ds IV but Canon had other ideas.
So I choose nothing in the survey, if you add a line for both high and lower mp bodies, or even better a line "Ideal MP for what I am shooting" I could choose one of those.
True. As we are trying to make this a 2022 update, let's assume with the current, better enhanced AA filters.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
So, I can add an option, but am trying to see what people actually want in terms of sensors. So, by "high" is that 45 MP or 80 MP? By "Low" is it 20 MP or 35 MP?Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
How about the R5 the R3. I say it would be nice to have both.
I wouldn't know if there is a benefit to 80mp, is there one on the market for FF?
You'd have to go to digital medium format with Fuji or Hasselblad, who both have cameras with 100 MP sensors on the market. Hasselblad talks about 400 MPs, but that is based on multiple 100 MP shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Canon's M6 II/90D's 32.5 MP APS-C sensors when scaled up to FF is ~82 MPs. Canon has also displayed prototypes >100 MPs. I have the M6 II, I haven't done controlled tests but when comparing images, I would call the benefit minor. Of course, AA filters/etc come into play.
And, actually, if we want a few comparisons, here are four images. One each for the 20 MP 1DX III, 45 MP R5, 30 MP 5DIV, and 82 MP FF equivalent M6 II. Each taken of birds, at my bird feeder from the same spot with the same lens (my 500 f/4 II). Double click on the image in flickr to zoom to 100%. After viewing the image, you can scroll down to see which camera took which image. Each of these was among my sharpest taken with that camera that I posted on Flickr.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ea1d83d9_h.jpg6S0A6902 by kayaker72, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...70933830_h.jpgIMG_3834-SAI by kayaker72, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3a9da640_h.jpg537A4407 by kayaker72, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...70937e73_h.jpgAC8I4633 by kayaker72, on Flickr
And, sure, I can see a difference....but is that difference worth the tradeoffs?
Interesting exercise. I clicked them in my personal order of preference. That order turned out to be 1D X III > R5 > 5DIV > M6 II.
Interesting....and that is with the 1DX III image being at ISO 8000. The 5DIV image is ISO 2000, R5 image is ISO 1600, and M6 II image is ISO 640.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Not a controlled test, for sure.
I will take one of each please!
One "lower" res, very speedy, high ISO camera .... around 30 mp or so
One ultra high res, in the range of 60-80 mp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I thought the top three were adequate and fairly equal. I faulted the bottom and it turned out to be the 1Dx III. It may have been the high ISO, but the eye wasn't as crisp as the other three.
Love the reflection in the eye of the sparrow. LOL LOL LOL
I wish I had a better comparison to remove ISO as a factor. This is an ISO 5000 image, so a bit better.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e885ebe4_h.jpgAC8I5506 by kayaker72, on Flickr
Scrolling through the images I kept, It looks like I mostly used the 1DX III with the 1.4x TC and when using w/o the TC, I was at higher ISOs.
As I mentioned, I can see a difference in detail that is resolved. If just thinking about it in terms of MP, I think it isn't much of a difference and attribute much of the issues with the 1DX III image to ISO 8000. But, when looking at it in terms of pixels on target, my bird feeder is ~30 ft from my window. Using the 500 mm lens, that would mean the 1DX III is resolving the birds at my feeder at 211 pixels per inch, 5DIV at 259 ppi, R5 at 316 ppi, and the M6II at 429 ppi. Use a 600 mm lens, and the 1DX III is putting almost the same pixels on target at the 5DIV. Use a 500 + 1.4x TC and you are right at 300 ppi.
At least in my opinion, all of this matters. Resolution is part of the equation, but only part of the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Very true.
For birds like this, properly framed, decent lighting at the minimum distance you would be hard pressed to notice any difference in the end result usable picture.
Resolution only gives you a little bit more to crop and still have a decent picture.
A decent pixel density for me would be around 350 DPI (Or higher if I can help it) for the maximum print size I would typically print. I currently have a 24" printer and so that boils down to roughly 45/50mp. Just taking the pixel width of the image and then the width of the print.
But as we go up the resolution scale, it takes more and more resolution to get a significant change in DPI. The awesome GFX 102 MP sensor will give about 483 DPI on a 24" print, this is definitely a substantial difference but not as extreme as the 102mp seems. At least when others look at it the typical reaction is "Who in the world needs that!" But even at a 24" print, it's not nearly so extreme.
But we can't talk about resolution without talking about all the other factors like ISO performance, what aperture you used, how sharp is the lens, any motion blur ect. It can negate the full potential of a given resolution. Or to put it another way, you'd be surprised what you can muster out of a lower resolution sensor under perfect conditions and settings. Like studio setup or an ideal landscape situation.
This of course doesn't take into account what someone is happy with.
But I'll take 483dpi if I have the opportunity. Heck, I'll take a 400mp image if/when technology makes it practical.
Now granted many many MANY people don't even print at that size. So it has more to do with how high is the resolution of your display device at that point. But I can think of situations where it is great, like in S21 ultra. It has a crazy high resolution which gives it more digital zoom ability. So there can be advantages in certain applications beyond just the end result in a print.
But this is just me. I like resolution.
If we gonna dream big, really around 1400dpi, about the limit or near the limit which the human eye can see the tiny droplets of ink in a print, at any given size is ideal. Because you eliminate interpolation. The argument then becomes how substantial is that difference. Probably not big. But this is theoretically where any more is a waste of resolution.
While we are on the subject, I think it is worth mentioning the best enlargement software to make the most of the available resolution at hand. I got a lot of very sharp 20/21mp files. I'm now curious as to how much better it can make a print.....
Really good question. I have seen some amazing results from others (i typically don't too far in post procesing...) other than say the 200 frame pano stitch from a 5dr using ptgui)
I think it was topaz was the resolution enhancer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
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):
Attachment 2935
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.
I downgraded from 22 to 20, never been happier.
I didn't vote, as I'm hardly shooting these days, but slclick's comment inspired me to write my own journey.
I went from 15.1 MP (T1i), to 18 MP (7D), to 16.6 MP (1Ds mk II), to 20.2 MP (7D mk II).
T1i MPs weren't the issue, it just couldn't AIServo fast enough to track a running dog. After getting the 7D I noticed images were now sharper, but I hadn't really noticed while using the T1i. More MP wouldn't help when it's already not using the existing pixels well.
7D was fine. I occasionally felt I could use more MP for cropping. Biggest problem was the burst rate exactly matched my dogs stride time, so I'd get a series of nearly identical dog pose with changing backgrounds.
1Ds mk II was great. Pixels were sharper than 7D, pictures had a great feel to them. Had great highlight handling the 7Ds couldn't touch. Controls and menus are a mess though. You couldn't exceed ISO 1600 though... that sensor really didn't like low light.
7D mk II felt like a mistake. Visible noise in well lit ISO 100 images, but only minor high-ISO improvements (in camera JPGs looked much improved, giving an early impression of much better high-ISO handling until ACR added 7D mk II support). Auto-ISO M mode finally getting exposure compensation was great though.
Judging by my feelings towards the 7D, 7D II, and 1DS mk II, I don't primarily want more MP. I want cleaner images with nicer tone and excellent highlight handling above megapixels... but I also want up to date controls, and decent AI Servo performance. Unfortunately, that's a combo that means investing more money than I'm willing to at this point.
Note, that while I did feel I could use more MP on the 7D for cropping, the increased noise on the 7D mk II to get just a fraction of the MP needed to be useful meant I no longer craved extra MP on a crop-body. If any FF high-MP body experienced the same gains in noise as the 7D2 did, I'd also consider it a mistake... for me. I'm sure someone would find it useful, but high MP is not the only goal, and likely not the goal of most.
I find it interesting the statement about higher MP with very little to no penalty.
I think we can see that now since technology has improved the average MP from these polls has increased. And let's say we ignore for a moment the 40-60mp chart. The other charts are still seeing a trend for higher MP than from handful of years ago.
Like has been said, if there is virtually no trade off. And today there is very little to complain about with say the 5D IV overall balance of speed, AF, cost, noise levels, resolution ect. It's a very good blend.
I guess you could say 5D IV's 30mp has very little tradeoffs compared to say a 20mp body from years ago. And by trade off's I don't just mean IQ but the whole package which is important.
Especially if you compared it to the 1Ds III from way back when. Really only down side is the extra file sizes, but having processed both back to back. I don't notice a difference between the two. Maybe if I timed the processing time. But I am not concerned with that and more so just the responsiveness while doing adjustments.
Really with my modest $750 PC it handles the R5 files just fine. It is taking a little bit of a hit, but even just getting the next model up in processor would eliminate that difference.
Well once you go and export 1500 raw images to full size jpg, then it is no longer fun with my quite dated machine. Other stuff can handle nice but that is something i hate and would hate even more with bigger files =)
Speaking of megapixels .... Leica's new M11 boasts 60 mp and 2 lower res options that retain the full frame sensor. Only $9000 .... what a great deal:rolleyes:
Fast Glass, re my noise comments. You'll noticed I didn't say the FF high MP cameras had a noise issue. I haven't got images (or the inclination) to check. But Canon definitely created a noise issue in the 7D2. I said "If any FF high-MP body experienced the same gains in noise as the 7D2 did", then I'd consider it a mistake. ie: An ISO 100 image viewed on a 1440p screen should not have visible noise patterns. The original 7D didn't. If you get to that point, you've screwed something up. The 7D2 certainly feels like a mixed bag to me. Maybe I just got a lemon. I'm one data point.
If the high-MP FF cameras don't exhibit that sort of image quality fault, then great. They certainly had more room to maneuver than crop bodies did, where even a slight bump to resolution produced an unacceptable increase to noise (again, with my one data point).
I was referencing Kayaker. I should have mentioned him in my post.
I do notice noise at low ISO's with my 1Ds III in certain landscape situations. It's super minor and I don't really now what it is viewing it at full screen as I usually add a touch of NR even at ISO 100. Pretty much with any camera, there is usually barely touch of noise.
Also I just use a HD monitor, so it doesn't have the finest pixel pitch ever. So it's hiding the really fine stuff better when viewing an image at full screen.
Obviously I cannot comment on your experiences, but I wouldn't doubt it.
I didn't realize the M11 had such a high resolution!
I really don't know a lot about Leica, except they are expensive and supposed to be really nice.
I guess for a Leica shooter the M11 would be a dream camera. Now I need to do a little research on it.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
I think it is important to make clear that what you are referencing was a hypothetical, a thought exercise, not a statement. An important distinction as my underlying assumption is that there are penalties. Even in the CRAW example I talk about, you get a linear increase in resolution, but an exponential gain in file size * ~0.55 rather than 1. Still a compromise/penalty of increased resolution. Just as an example, but a landscape photographer that takes 4 images of a subject might scoff at this entire topic, file size is no penalty. However, go to Laguna Seca Ranch for 3 days and take 16,000+ images, and all of a sudden that ~750 GB of memory card space you brought doesn't seem like enough (750GB/16,000 = 47 MB per image and the R5 RAW files are more like 50-60 MB), you might find file size is critically important and find yourself shooting CRAW in crop mode on the R5 and still deleting files in between the action. Not like that would ever happen. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
The point is, whether those "penalties" mean anything to you is really up to you. Just like whether they mean anything to me, is up to me. Often it depends on the situation. I do not see a universal answer here.
I understood your post. Hypothetical is still a statement.
The comparison was about how today's 30mp bodies are at least as easy on computers if not easier than a 20mp bodies even 5 or especially 10 years ago.
And I was careful to limit my post to the lower MP bodies. Not bodies like the R5 or similar. But with the right computer it can handle them with ease. But this is an extra cost to consider.
I was saying with increased tech, higher MP bodies are becoming easier to deal with than say 5 years ago and especially 10 or 12 years ago. It reminded me of your statement, hypothetical as it may be, that higher resolution is being more feasible to deal with compared to years ago and in a way a lack of compromises. Which is just so happened to be supported by this poll. Not that this small sample is incredibly indicitive but it is an interesting thought exercise as you have said.
File size numbers are increasing, but computing power has increased as well.
But again I am not talking about super high resolution bodies. While the 40-60mp won. It's still only 5 people and still roughly only half of phototographers. There were still a lot of people that were good with 35mp or less. And this was my focus, and how it still is a bit higher than the last time this poll was take. Which also makes a neat connection of minimal compromises to higher resolution.
And of course everyone has to make their own choices.
I can remember in the early days when 11mp was considered high resolution.
We have really expanded beyond that with 45/50mp bodies and even higher than that for MF.
And even for more average cameras over 20mp is very common. Back then under 10 was very common.
It's just an interesting think back how far we have come along in digital photography.