Ok guys I would like your views on mega pixels how many is enough-how many is too many general chat

[spudhead]

Ok so most of the images I post are 24 megapixels in the case of the a9 and a7iii and some are from the a9ii 42 meg, so the newer cameras have more pixels as a matter of fact. Given file sizes being large on cards and laptops as I shoot uncompressed raw only at the moment because that's what I have. So, I guess I would be happy with at maximum the 50 megapixels of the a1, what are your views on how many megapixels is enough?

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I've read that megapixels are not the same across sensor sizes, so I don't know how that factors into the conversation since my experience is only with the APSC Sony sensor. I know that I should be happy with my 24mp, but the potential for higher MP count in a new sensor still excites me.
At the end of the day, I'm just starting to get some stuff printed and the biggest print I've ordered so far is 16x20 inches. The megapixels haven't been a limitation yet, only my skills and my camera settings at the time the photo was taken.

I think more megapixels at this point in my journey would frustrate me due to bigger file sizes, system resources to process, and my own pixel peeping to see if I took a sharp photo in the first place

 

[AlphaWorld]

I just realised that I own or have owned two different models of camera at each of 36, 42, 50, and 60 megapixels.

I'll be glad to get lossless compressed RAW support in ACR for the A7RV, because I'll get more images per card from my existing cards, but apart from that, I think the whole "takes up too much storage" argument is weak - storage has never been cheaper, and I buy 5TB external hard drives for backup every so often - even uncompressed 60 megapixels don't take up that much room. Besides, do you really need to keep every frame you shoot?

Even less convincing is the argument about the computer not being powerful enough to process the images - the machine I used for photo processing ten years ago could handle my current images (36 -> 60 isn't even doubling the pixel count, after all), which means I didn't really need to upgrade to my current monster (although it is really nice... ).

It might be easier to make an argument that pixel peeping on high res sensors leads to spending a lot on lenses - maybe sticking to a lower pixel count might help you resist the siren song of Sony's GM range? However, even a mid-range lens looks better on a higher res sensor, as long as you look at the image as a whole.

So I will be in line to buy a 96 Mpixel sensor (how could I resist a 12000 x 8000 image - look at all those zeroes!).

 

[luismanibarro]

Back in 2014 I switched from a Nikon D800 to a Fujifilm X-T1.
From 42 mpx on some of the best sensors ever at that time, to a new camera with a 16 mpx sensor.
Just cause I wanted to handle a camera with a good manual focusing. And its IQ was fair enough for what I need. Never regretted.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Back in 2014 I switched from a Nikon D800 to a Fujifilm X-T1.
From 42 mpx on some of the best sensors ever at that time, to a new camera with a 16 mpx sensor.
Just cause I wanted to handle a camera with a good manual focusing. And its IQ was fair enough for what I need. Never regretted.

The D800 was 36 megapixels, not 42. But still a big drop down to 16.