How many MPs?

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Karsaa]

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 =)

[Joel Eade]

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

[DavidEccleston]

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).

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Kayaker72]

I was referencing Kayaker. I should have mentioned him in my post.

I find it interesting the statement about higher MP with very little to no penalty.

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.

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.

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Fast Glass]

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.