This Post is about Race

[Jeff A]

Well, I mean the MegaPixel Race. So I am the happy owner of a Sony A7III, a 24 MP camera. As we all know, there are options within the Sony brand up to 61 MP. So, I have a very nice 4K Monitor Dell w/3840 x 2160 native resolution. I love seeing my photos on this monitor. I post my photos to Flickr and as a Policy, Flickr does not change the resolution on any of my photos. I love how I can "Pixel Peep" on Flickr and zoom in and see fine detail.

So let's assume I do a mixture of heavy drugs and alcohol (Not even remotely possible) and stagger into my local camera store and buy an Sony a1. I head out and start shooting this 50 MegaPixel wonder. I come home and go to work evaluating my photos. What difference am I going to see, regarding resolution? When I upload to Flickr, what difference will i notice compared to that old, obsolete A7III? Will I be "Blown away?" Will this be a game changer for me? Actually, it may be a game changer if my Wife discovered I paid $6500 for a camera. I assure you, that would be a game changer.

So help me out Friends. I might want a few more MegaPixels to protect my resolution from cropping, but other than that, I don't think I would notice. I don't print photos, so no factor there. I have been having discussions on this subject with a Pal and wanted input from all of you with more experience than me.

 

[J.Duffy]

Interesting question....I'm definitely interested in the responses you get. I have a Sony a7riii and I've wonder if more megapixels as in the a7riv or the a1 would be noticeable, or if going the other way, say the a7iv with less would be noticeable? I'm pretty sure megapixels aren't everything and are greatly over marketed in the camera would

 

[Boojum]

One rule I have seen bandied about for a long time is to just get closer. Yeah, those honking great telephoto lenses and those super mega-pixel sensors are electro-mechnical marvels but getting closer does the same thing with the option of way greater depth of field. It's not as sexy but it is more challenging. And closer means you see more. FWIW

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Nice clickbait title @Jeff A
I think more megapixels can be a double-edged sword. On one hand with more megapixels, you can reframe your shot in post and still have a great amount of detail. On the other hand, the more you pixel peep, the sharper your pictures need to be to stay satisfied, ie: you may need to invest in better/pricier lenses... an escalation in expense!

An argument has even been made that you don't actually need all those megapixels though. Consider the A7SIII/FX3 with its conservative 12 megapixels. It still produces some of the best 4k video in the Sony lineup! Now look at this video comparing prints from the A7SIII versus the A7RIV:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Interesting. Having come from a 21mp camera to a 61mp, I can say that, yes, the extra resolution is great, especially when cropping, and some of my crops are insane but still look fine on screen, but, you do have to make sure your technique is spot on, and especially exposure, because it shows up everything. I really can't see a need for more pixels than is currently available however, it's just going to make things harder.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

So I have a question, are megapixels the same when it comes to APSC versus Full Frame?
I've got 24 megapixels shoved into an APSC sensor similar to an A7C/A7III, which also has 24 MP.
If I wanted more professional quality out of Sony's APSC, should I be praying for more megapixels or a stacked sensor with the same megapixel count?

 

[Alan Clark]

If two sensors have the same number of pixels then the bigger sensor will have bigger pixels. This means that it will be more sensitive. It will also produce less noise because the photon count is averaged over a bigger area.

 

[Jeff A]

Interesting. Having come from a 21mp camera to a 61mp, I can say that, yes, the extra resolution is great, especially when cropping, and some of my crops are insane but still look fine on screen, but, you do have to make sure your technique is spot on, and especially exposure, because it shows up everything. I really can't see a need for more pixels than is currently available however, it's just going to make things harder.

Thank you for your insightful response Kev. It gives me even more to think about. For myself, I look at increased pixel count as a hedge against cropping. I have a tendency to crop all of my photos to cover up my poor composition. So far, I don't believe I have altered the resolution of my shots in a negative way. So would you agree that all things being equal and the viewing device remains the same, does the higher pixel count result in a sharper picture as long as it is not overly cropped?

So one other question Kev. How large (in file size) are pictures taken with the A7RIV compareds to your 21mp camera?

 

[liggy]

Personally some of my favorite pics are from 16 and 24mp sensors but IMO the 50mp A1 gives you a lot more than just bigger files.

As Keveriano menioned - the freedom to crop to your hearts content is a luxury. For birds/faraway objects it is nice to click into crop mode and still have a nice 21mp shot too. I like the controls better too.

Personally I think the biggest difference will be in the AF/tracking capabilities vs. the megapixel upgrades.

It'll be less forgiving regarding shutter speed/blur. For better looking images on Flickr I'd probably say save your $$$ and get something like Topaz DeNoise

Way less than $6500

 

[Jeff A]

Personally some of my favorite pics are from 16 and 24mp sensors but IMO the 50mp A1 gives you a lot more than just bigger files.

As Keveriano menioned - the freedom to crop to your hearts content is a luxury. For birds/faraway objects it is nice to click into crop mode and still have a nice 21mp shot too. I like the controls better too.

Personally I think the biggest difference will be in the AF/tracking capabilities vs. the megapixel upgrades.

It'll be less forgiving regarding shutter speed/blur. For better looking images on Flickr I'd probably say save your $$$ and get something like Topaz DeNoise

Way less than $6500

Iggy, trust me when say that I'm not looking to buy an a1. It's a wonderful dream, but a financial impossibility. I'm just discussing whether or not one camera or another with varying MP Sensors will display differently on MY monitor. I'm well aware of the benefits of cropping. An example, I have a 24MP camera. It's images look great to me. If I bought an A7IV with 33 MP, would I notice that? How about I buy an A 7RIV w/ 61 MP? Would it look different on MY MONITOR? In addition, in the Sony line we have a 42MP offering, and maybe others. Do you see where I'm going with this question? Using the MP size of the sensor, does it ultimately make a visual difference on my monitor. I'm certainly aware of the many desirable features we have available to us, but how important does the MP Number make, discounting cropping? I have a friend on this forum who has an A7 RIV. He takes some great images. As far as sharpness, I can't tell the difference between his or mine. What do you think, Iggy?

 

[Jeff A]

Interesting. Having come from a 21mp camera to a 61mp, I can say that, yes, the extra resolution is great, especially when cropping, and some of my crops are insane but still look fine on screen, but, you do have to make sure your technique is spot on, and especially exposure, because it shows up everything. I really can't see a need for more pixels than is currently available however, it's just going to make things harder.

Those are excellent points, Kev. Thanks.

 

[Jeff A]

Nice clickbait title @Jeff A
I think more megapixels can be a double-edged sword. On one hand with more megapixels, you can reframe your shot in post and still have a great amount of detail. On the other hand, the more you pixel peep, the sharper your pictures need to be to stay satisfied, ie: you may need to invest in better/pricier lenses... an escalation in expense!

An argument has even been made that you don't actually need all those megapixels though. Consider the A7SIII/FX3 with its conservative 12 megapixels. It still produces some of the best 4k video in the Sony lineup! Now look at this video comparing prints from the A7SIII versus the A7RIV:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Yes, it was Click Bait, which I hate! I promise I won't do it again.

 

[liggy]

Iggy, trust me when say that I'm not looking to buy an a1. It's a wonderful dream, but a financial impossibility. I'm just discussing whether or not one camera or another with varying MP Sensors will display differently on MY monitor. I'm well aware of the benefits of cropping. An example, I have a 24MP camera. It's images look great to me. If I bought an A7IV with 33 MP, would I notice that? How about I buy an A 7RIV w/ 61 MP? Would it look different on MY MONITOR? In addition, in the Sony line we have a 42MP offering, and maybe others. Do you see where I'm going with this question? Using the MP size of the sensor, does it ultimately make a visual difference on my monitor. I'm certainly aware of the many desirable features we have available to us, but how important does the MP Number make, discounting cropping? I have a friend on this forum who has an A7 RIV. He takes some great images. As far as sharpness, I can't tell the difference between his or mine. What do you think, Iggy?

Hey Jeff -

I suppose all my ramblings were really boiling down to this: it’ll be better but not game changing better IMO. I bet you’d hardly notice 33 VS. 24mp either unless you’re a hardcore pixel peeper.

If you’re considering the 102mp GFX cameras then you’ll see a difference on your monitor for sure but 24 VS 33 vs 50 vs 61? Not a game changing difference in my personal opinion.

 

[Boojum]

To embroider another row on this, I do no long distance shots of small animals. I do almost no long distance shots of anything now that I think of it. The Tamron 500mm f/8.0 mirror suffices for that. $135. My first 35mm camera was a Voigtländer Vito II (https://live.staticflickr.com/4348/37009345362_f6e919da30_b.jpg) followed by some Japanese 35mm cameras with 50mm lenses while in the Army a very long time ago. Zooms were much later on a Pentax ME Super. So I am not accustomed nor do I have a real need for a long reach. And I am in full agreement with Ken Rockwell when he says the 24 - 240 is all the lens I will ever need. There is a preponderance of folks here with needs for far away shots and very close shots, long telephoto and macro. I am spared that so my expenditures are quite less. I have the macro extenders for the Zeiss/Sony 55mm f/1.8 for the rare occasion when I need "up close and personal." And I crop nothing and edit very little, so I am spared the chase for pixels. I have succumbed to the KISS principle as a requirement for what I am doing.

And screwing around with RF cameras demands that discipline whether I like it or not. Zooms and long telephoto or macro just do not much happen there.

 

[lev29]

Yes, it was Click Bait, which I hate! I promise I won't do it again.

Thank you.

 

[pmenear]

This same question has always been asked and both side of the discussion have always defended their choice, AND YET, the megapixels keep going up from 6 to 60 etc so the demand is there from some of us. The demand is there for video on cameras which only some use but try to buy one without video. The more features included the wider the market and so megapixels will always increase.
The more megapixels the better for me, A1 image quality with 500mp would be in my bag if they made one. My favorite genre is wildlife, I want detail detail detail and I print big, I also do photogrammetry and archaeological finds recording. The megapixel race has never stopped and never will I hope.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

This same question has always been asked and both side of the discussion have always defended their choice, AND YET, the megapixels keep going up from 6 to 60 etc so the demand is there from some of us. The demand is there for video on cameras which only some use but try to buy one without video. The more features included the wider the market and so megapixels will always increase.
The more megapixels the better for me, A1 image quality with 500mp would be in my bag if they made one. My favorite genre is wildlife, I want detail detail detail and I print big, I also do photogrammetry and archaeological finds recording. The megapixel race has never stopped and never will I hope.

Marketing. Escalating specifications are highly marketable to both newbies and enthusiasts with Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS).

Regarding the evolution of digital cameras to include video capabilities... I'm all for it. In the 90's my dad had a camcorder he trotted out for every family vacation of note, but that's the only time it got used, a very defined use case. Now with my camera, I have both video and stills potential in one device at any given time. Anyway, I don't want to derail Jeff's thread with video talk as I might get carried away hehe.

 

[Boojum]

The entire cellphone crowd is convinced that MP are the king. Try to explain to someone with a 20MP phone why a 16MP camera with a larger sensor is better and it escapes them. Marketing has convinced everyone it's all about MP.

It is an easy concept to understand regardless of whether it has merit or not. The camera business is very competitive. It has become like the auto business. Just load the models up in order to sell another round. Regardless, it is possible to get rich color and detail with low megapixel sensors.

• CYBERSHOT
• 9.3 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/35 sec
• ISO 100

• CYBERSHOT
• 7.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/660 sec
• ISO 100

• M8 Digital Camera
• 2777/1000000 sec
• ISO 160

• M8 Digital Camera
• 2000/1000000 sec
• ISO 160

The first and second photos are with an old Sony DSC-S70, a 3 megapixel camera I have from 2000. The following three are with a Leica M8.2, a 10 megapixel sensor. They may not thrill pixel peepers but they have all rendered pretty good, detailed photos with good color and good B&W. If you want to see how the Leicas stack up against a Pentax Q-S1 and a Sony A7M II, follow the link. This is a game of more than pixels. https://flickr.com/photos/sandynoyes/albums/72157716739415061/with/50563694458/

 

[Jeff A]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[Jeff A]

The entire cellphone crowd is convinced that MP are the king. Try to explain to someone with a 20MP phone why a 16MP camera with a larger sensor is better and it escapes them. Marketing has convinced everyone it's all about MP.

Well, this is kind of why I started this thread. To be honest, I have an A7 IV on Pre-order and I'm looking forward to 33 MP but the only reason is to protect myself if I go Crop crazy on some photo. I have been very happy with the 24 MP sensor I have now as it turns out some sharp photos and sharp photos are important to me. The 33 MP sensor vs the 24 MP one is a mild upgrade and won't eat my hard drive storage up with HUGE images. I'm doing the upgrade for many reasons and a high Mega Pixel count isn't among them. Unfortunately, "Waiting Patiently" isn't a quality that I posses. Thankfully I have an outstanding A7 III to keep me busy in the mean time.