You don’t need a high-resolution camera… trust me.
2024 ж. 13 Мам.
152 748 Рет қаралды
Camera spec sheets can be confusing when considering a new camera purchase, especially megapixels. But is more actually better? In this video, we find the best image resolution that delivers the optimal image quality for modern photographers.
Get 2 FREE Presets and a FREE LUT when you sign up: www.georgeholden.media/newsle...
📸 Get My New Presets, LUTs and Templates Here: www.georgeholden.media/member...
You might be interested in these:
Website: www.georgeholden.com
Instagram: / georgeholdenmedia
Email: hello@georgeholden.media
0:00 - Megapixel Myths
1:28 - Popular Display Resolutions
3:09 - Low-Resolution Cameras
4:27 - Cropping Ability
5:23 - Lessons From Cropping
6:05 - Resolution vs Sensor Size
#imagequality
**Correction 🤦🏼♂️ I made a mistake in my explanation at 3:09. When detailing the cropping ability of 16MP and 12MP I used a crop factor of 2x and 1.5x respectively to get to the 8MP resolution - this is incorrect. To achieve 8MP on the 16MP would only require a crop factor of 1.4x. On 12MP only a crop factor is 1.2x is required. The reason for this is I had mistakenly calculated (4992x3328)/2 to achieve 8MP from 16MP. In fact this should be calculated with division preceding multiplication: (4992/1.4)X(3328/1.4). Apologies for the mistake, it doesn't change the ability of an 8MP image - only the variable crop factors to get there! 😂 And a thank you to Bjørn Friese for emailing to notify me of the mistake!
My first digital camera was the Kodak. Z650. It could hold Before gigabyte card, it was 6 Mega pixels.
Nice one. I was about to go all keyboard warrior on you for that one so well done on beating me to it 😜
As film wedding photographer, it took years for me to realize that the average client probably has a 5-10 year old computer at home, more than likely it's a laptop at best, most have smart phones, primarily Androids. And the only people who care about resolution.... is us, photographers.
Truee! And, the prints you would likely sell to a couple in a frame or a book are unlikely to exceed the capabilities of your camera
I'm going to chip in here with my experience from the other side of this equation. We had a small wedding and I asked my now brother in law to take some candid shots of people while we were doing the traditional posed group photos (when he wasn't needed to be in a shot). My favourite photos from the day, by far, were from extreme crops of photos taken on a Sony A7Rii. Anything much lower than that and the little moments wouldn't have been able to to be used. It's all little moments like grandparents sharing a joke with each other, or my wife interacting with my 1 year old nephew. Being able to pull out these shots and still have them at 8MP is an awesome thing to be able to do. All that being said, for general holiday photos I don't use the A7R and stick with an old 16MP Fujifilm fixed lens camera as it covers everything I need for out and about (pocket sized, good enough IQ and mainly that it's light weight). I think it's all about convenience, application and workflow, I'd rather take a slightly wider shot to make sure I get everything I want in the image, with the option to crop in later while keeping the photos printable in larger formats.
@@AxR558 keyword..... photographers care about resolution. Not the average client. Clearly, since you know what a A7Rii is, you're not the average client. You're a photographer. Proving my point.
@@AxR558 that's a viable and creative technique. I saw a video with a concert photographer using a 100 MP camera and then making several different images from a wide shot of the stage. Still niche uses though. I hardly ever crop, I had mentor that said crop = crap, that was a bit extreme.......but there is something to it I think...
@@thedrunkweddingphotographerValid point. Then again that argument stretched to people watching this video or that have the inclination to edit their photos in the first place. Anyone that this school of thought genuinely applies to might actually be better off sticking with the camera in their phone.
You’re right - I used to edit an image-lead fairly glossy / heavy paper magazine (you could buy in newsagents) and as long as the base image was good (I mean sharp, well exposed) we could usually get a double-page spread out of a 3mp image without any noticeable artefacts - and 6mp was never a problem.
There is an obsession with gear & tech and easy to forget about the ART of...
Very true, I've got some more creative focused videos on the way - this was me scratching the scrience of photography itch to get it out of my system
Not a problem when that obsession is by using much older more affordable gear and getting amazing results!
TOTALLY agree with that.
Totally agree. I've never given resolution a second thought. Light, composition and timing, however....
My first experience with Star Wars was a VHS tape with 288 lines of resolution. What’s on the screen is more important then how many pixels that was used.
I've always had a pet peeve regarding tech. And that is the notion that yesterday's state of the art is today's trash. Yesterday's "state of the art" cameras were capable of producing perfectly fine images. But, people, in general, are always looking for something bigger and better. They want the next big thing whether it's megapixels or whatever. In fact, companies depend on this to stay in business. But, how much is enough? Many years ago a friend of mine owned a very high end audio company. And he was telling me about the specs of the equipment. In particular how it was good that the equipment produced sound that you couldn't hear. At some point I stopped him and said, "I don't need the best equipment. It just has to be good enough for me." And that's pretty much where I am with lots of things in life these days.
Completely agree, the beauty is sometimes in the character of the past state of the art rubbish. For me camera design is one thing that makes me enjoy a camera over others, and the cheaper older cameras fit the bill nicely
Angry audiophile noises. Blind test any audio tech: Lossless and >180 kbps compressed audio. A few with good hearing can somewhat differentiate the lower bound. >256 kbps is a 50/50. Might as well toss a coin instead.
I needed a camera to take photos. Got one. I needed an affordable digital audio work station. I got it. I always waited for bargains online for anything that I needed. People just sell things they no longer want, or use. I never cared about the mega pixels. I always cared about the picture. I use my phone to take photos too.😊
Capitalism and greed is what pushes the idea that the newest thing is the best thing because companies want their audience to consume (consumers). It's stupid and dumb, and even wasteful and insulting towards true innovation. A camera is a camera, a phone is a phone, a car is a car, a TV is a TV, and etc. While there might be differences, we're at a point where everyone is copying each other and the "new" things of today do not make those from the past obsolete. I have a 6D Mark II I bought used, though I was looking at the Canon 5D Mark II because I kept hearing great things about it- and some people still shoot with it. Some people shoot with vintage film cameras. A camera is a tool and it really does depend on how the photographer uses it.
You right, I almost agree.
If you get a chance, check out Magnum Photographer Alex Majoli, who took a 5mp Olympus point and shoot and shot the presidential elections and the Iraq war for Newsweek -- those images won him several awards, including the award for international photographer of the year.
I believe it was the Olympus C-5060 & C-8080 I own the C-5060 it’s probably the best camera I have ever used and is so fun to use! Highly recommended 📸✨
You can generate a fairly good-sized print from lower mega-pixel (6-12MP) cameras as well. Plus, AI optimization programs can easily boost resolution (through interpolation) by 200% that you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference when compared with native resolution. Very few people view A3 or A2 prints hanging on the wall up close.
That is also true! It was only when I finished this edit I realised I could have included Lightroom's enhance feature but would like to have a final product to showcase - a future video maybe!
Interpolation would be a good topic for George to make a vid on. I have no idea how that all works. I tried to find out about it before but didn't get far.
@@stevesvids Interpolation is essentially intelligently adding pixels (through machine learning ) making the best mathematical approximation of what a pixel may have been if it had existed naturally for any given desired resolution. There is a limit to what can be done and nothing is as good as originally captured data. However, it is impressive what is possible while indiscernibly affecting the visual quality to the human eye.
@@kbarrett1844 thank you..
@@kbarrett1844AI interpolation is definitely an interesting subject to get into, I do wonder where the boundary lies between it being the original photograph (i.e. interpretation of actual captured photons) vs digitally created art.
If you dont crop a lot, megapixels don’t mean a lot. You only need 90,000 pixels per inch of printing. You need a little less than 9 megapixels to make. 8x12 print. So if you own a ten megapixel camera youre fine. It’s the dynamic range and color depth of the sensor that matters.
Very true. I didn't touch on those in detail in this video, it's hard to make tangible comparisons between two sensors or brands without just confusing yourself even more
@@GeorgeHolden I have an Olympus XZ1 that is at least twelve years old. With the newer editing apps out today that camera (and others like it) is better than it ever was in the past.
'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough' - Robert Capa I'm using 16MP M43 Panasonics and the image quality is great. Years ago I used a Fujifilm Finepix F200 EXR (12 or 6 MP according to mode), a Canon Powershot S70 (7.1MP) and a Konica Minolta Dynax 7D (6.1MP) and before that a Canon Powershot G2 (4MP) . They were good too! I couldn't care less about megapixels for most purposes. Really, as you say, on screen it hardly matters. It's when you print that it matters more. What more moderns sensors give you is much better dynamic range and truly excellent low light performance. Older digital cameras produced some very horrible low light results.
I was a wedding and portrait photographer back in the film and early digital days. The cameras I had back then (Nikon D1X, D100, Fujifilm S-3 Pro) were 5.7 to 6 megapixel cameras. From those cameras I printed images up to 20x24 inches for my clients. Now days I just shoot for fun using everything from a 10MP point and shoot to 24MP Nikon and Fuji. I really don't think that I need anything more than that.
I loved your video! I have developed practically all of my original work with digital cameras from the late 90s to the early 2000s. I find the resolution sufficient for my experiments and, even when I have to deal with just 1MP, I see it as an aesthetic challenge.
I found the same myself. 16MP is plenty and there are some great 16-24MP cameras out there. Focus is far more important - less throw always. And composition and subject matter the most important of all.
Yep 👍
12mp is the sweet spot in digital photography in my opinion.🌟📷🌟
That 4mp shot of the beach at 1:13 is gorgeous! Just goes to show it's not about having the flashiest gear
If I were to hire a photographer I would be choosing the person who's got a well-worn camera over the one with a bleeding edge and barely touched camera. Experience with your gear matters way more than what gear you have.
Old cameras downside isn’t that they are low res, its that they’re slow and a lot of them have bad autofocus that misses a lot of shots
nikon d700
And even though the resolution doesn’t matter the sensor size absolutely does
@@MrStruggle0 depends on what you are going for, at my local watering hole I see 1 guy with a medium-format camera, I imagine they are shooting a greater picture of an eagle in its habitat more so than the eagle perched or capturing a crappie.
Manual focus is another great option . I think we are very spoiled now days with digital and better AF systems. I shoot primarily with a Nikon D4 as my main event camera. Because of its amazing low-light handling and small RAW files. I can pull back 2 to 3 stops on exposure and not have much grain to deal with. My newer mirrorless suffers just pulling 1 stop back on exposure. Something about the older film grain looking DSLR sensors to me looks better than the digital grain you get in the mirrorless cameras.
@@simrtech3d I want one after shooting a Nikon D3 for an event or two. I ended up trading up to D4 which is may main camera currently. The D700 has amazing colors straight out of camera. Canon 5D is also an amazing budget camera that has amazing colors but dated AF system.
Your videos are great George, keep on doing what you're doing!
I have 3MP shots from a canon Powershot A30 (the early 2000s ) - the colours and sharpness are simply beautiful. And if you need more MP then there are plenty of apps that will boost it 2x or 4x with very good quality.
brooooo this video is incredible and so motivating for me to shoot more with what i have instead of always trying to upgrade my gear. THANK YOU!!
I worked many years in advertising and in 3d graphic and established for myself that it's enough to have a picture about 3500 x 2500 pixels and it will be enough for printing the picture of any size starting from a piece of paper and up to the big banner. You can have a little more pixels for cropping and that's it.
All good stuff George. Enjoyable and informative video as usual.
George, you had me laugh out loud when describing the screen resolutions versus the actual megapixel size! I DIDN"T KNOW THAT!!! I have been reviewing old photos that I took on my Nikon Coolpix 990 back in the early 2000s. This camera cost me over a grand in January 2000 (just after launch) and was state-of-the-art at that time. It has a 3.3 Megapixel sensor and on my 33" LG or HP monitors (I run them side-by-side off my MacBook Pro) the pics are still stunning. I found your video by accident and I'm so glad I did as I am fed up with listening to 'photographers' telling me I need the latest squillion megapixels to get a good photograph. I cut my teeth on film, had my own darkroom at home and learned that photography is about 'SEEING' not about the number of megapixels you have. Well done for a great video... absolutely love it!
Loved this and your whole style of presenting. Thank you!
I have a Canon 80D, a Canon 6D, and a sony a7iv...yet my 12mp drone has taken my favorite shots this year because it can simply get shots the others can't. And they look great alongside shots from cameras with 3x the resolution and sensor size.
I wish I could fly a drone in the locations I photograph, but sadly I can not my main spot prohibits it because it's one of the most populated places for eagles and ospreys, and another is very close to a military base.
It is easy. High MP crop is really useful when using prime lens and you don't have the reach (or even maxed out zoom). If you have the zoomies to churn out, just use zoom to do the work. It's just choosing how lazy or restricted you want to be. Because essence of doing crop with enough MP is legitimately backed up by birding or sports people
Love your vids, it get rid of my stress.. this is now my comfort zone 😁
That's so great to hear, always happy to have you!
Great video. My first DSLR was the Nikon D50 with about 5MP. At the time I had a part time engagement as a freelance journalist for a hifi magazine. One of my pictures could cover a full page, looking great.
I've been carrying around a Sony Cybershot DSC-T10 a friend gave me and I actually just genuinely love how "2006" it makes everything look. It's kind of like a time warp camera regardless of the results which look really nicely detailed and exposed on the little LCD screen but I have a memorystick duo card reader on the way so will have to wait and see how things look on a bigger screen. Certainly good enough for instagram!! Thanks for the explanation it helped a lot.
You make some great points in this video. And I'm already on board with you, I mostly shoot with older M4/3 cameras featuring 16 & 20 sensors. And I'm good with the image quality. Great video thanks for sharing.
My digital camera journey started with a Canon Ixus (2 MB resolution). The image quality of my photos from that era is still a sort of OK (watched on a 27" 2K screen) and there are some photos which I really like despite the low resolution. The best camera is that what inspires and enables you to take great shots. Some years ago I purchased a Sony A7R III. Factually it did not inspire me the same way like my ancient A7. Consequently I sold it without any regret because I was/am using primarily vintage lenses so that many features of the A7R III did not translate into a real-life advantage for me.
As an artist, all my life i've tried to make the most of the least possible, as a necessity at times, but always as a principle. I've never seen anyone explain why I love shooting with my Lumix cameras, and why I've been so eager to get friends and partners into them, as much as you have in this video. Well done, subscribed.
Thanks for this video. It's exactly why my D700 is my tool and probably continues until eternity.
Camera's I want to own someday. Nikon D700, Fuji x100s, then the Nikon Z9. I have one of my dream camera's which is the Nikon D4, I still cannot believe I own one after 10 years of waiting. But the D700 is next on my list, if only I can resist buying a D800e.
Amen! My Digital cameras are the Nikon D3, D700, and D300. They are all superb.👍🏆📷
@@sn4rl277 D800e.👍
OK. That one got me! Subscribed! 👏🏻
Excellent video, you make a lot of sense here. I like using older cameras as well, been doing some reviews on my channel about older cameras and they are proving very popular, more so than newer cameras.
My Nikon D700 is 12M and it still happily shoots great pics. I have been in photography for 40 years or so and I was shooting 35mm before and never had issues in enlarging. Unfortunately the marketing and social media hype in higher resolution has ruined photography in general. If you are a good photographer and have a creative talent, you can shoot with a "pinhole" camera and get great images, so the idea of higher resolution is better, is a myth for general photography. But, if you want to do architectural photography or other photography that requires more res that is fine, that is why in the film days you had and still have medium and large format films. Cheers
This will depend on what sort of images you are trying to capture. I use my a7r3 for nature photography along with family event photos. Its a hobby for me so I can't justify the cost of some of the best telephoto lenses. My 42mp images let me go for a sharp image with the lenses that I have and really crop in to get that little bird up in the tree or the hawk or eagle that won't let me get close.
Great video, cool to see the math sitting under the surface of the images we make with our older, funkier cameras. I’ll walk a bit taller next time I choose the EP3, GF1 or G9 for my random walk over my state of the art 40mp beast :-)
My first camera was a Nikon entry level thing that was 6MP. 12MP is good enough for most prints to probably 18”, you can certainly push that to twice that - you are never going to be that close to a 36” print It’s worth noting that lens sharpness becomes more important when you are pushing the size of your prints. If you’re viewing stuff on a phone then 6MP is totally cool
Nice video and advices! I am now more motivated to use old cameras (canon S90, fuji X10, fuji xf1 and many more still hibernating in the drawer) waiting to be waken up! Thanks George!
Great observation!. Not only that, I can get cinematic photographs on my old Canon G9 vs my Leica Q. If your a lens-based artist like me, what matters most is the art within the shot taken…and where it’s displayed. Thanks from Newfoundland.
I’m just a hobbyist photographer, but this made me realize there is more to the MP marketing than I was aware. Now to try and wrap my head around that math and cropping explanation you gave. 🤔
I have taken photos since the day's of the Ilford Box Camera, I know nothing of the technicalities of modern photography but I do understand what you say, I just rely on what my eye sees, If I like what I see I just keep going, I have Cameras from the beginning of Digital but never ever paid thousands for Camera or Lenses.
Got some really nice shots from my 10mpxl Nikon 1J1, and my 16mpxl Sony SLT-A57, and even a 5.1 mpxl Sony DSC-H1 that takes surprisingly nice photos. And since I only post to social media sites and don't print anything larger than A4, they all work for me.
Great video George. I agree it's really important to consider your output. I shoot mainly street and documentary style, my output besides web and social media is, books, prints for exhibitions, and if I am lucky print magazines. 16 by 20 is plenty big enough for exhibitions. 8 by 10 covers most books and magazines. Nat Geo only requires a 8 MP file so there you go.....just won an award with a 16 by 20 print in art exhibit, taken with a 16 MP Lumix.
Yep. That Sony A7s sensor is just a beast, especially paired with old vintage manual focus lenses. Great gigging setup. Just got to use your feet more :)
I used an A7iii with a 24MP sensor for many years. I found that to be a great resolution with plenty of options for cropping, but file sizes that were still manageable. With my iPhone 13 and its 12MP camera, on the other hand, I have definitely run into limitations with how much I could crop. That being said, I still take way more photos on my iPhone than on the Sony, because it’s so much more convenient to carry. And 12MP is fine most of the time. But if I’m going to carry around a separate camera in 2024, I probably want at least 20MP. And even smartphones now are going higher than that.
Great video, I run a cannon g9 for underwater photography.. was going to get rid . But maybe ill stick with it now
Great video, thanks :)
Cheers!
Amen! One of the best videos I ever shot indoors was inside a museum in Alaska -low light-with a Panasonic Lumix Leica Lens 16 mega pixels. Images were extremely clear. 😎😎
Great video and too true. Ive been shooting fashion/portraits professionally for 20 years now. Owned and shot with dozens of cameras from tiny sensor point and shoots to medium format and everything in between. I am no longer shooting for publications or in store ads where you needed more resolution. These days, mostly everything I shoot is for social media and people are viewing them on 5-6 inch smartphone screens. Zero use for high resolution cameras. In fact, I have grown tired of the over-sharpened, digital look with zero character that pretty much every modern mirrorless camera and lens produce these days. I have mostly gone back to shooting older CCD sensor cameras that have a much more filmic look and lots of character to the photos. Funny thing is, Ive had a lot more people ask me how I got that look or what camera I shot with then I ever did when using modern mirrorless cameras. Fun stuff.
Exceptionally good video! Thanks.
Artists can produce stunning photos with any camera. The problem especially nowadays is that few low-pixel-count camera have the functional niceties offered by high-pixel-count cameras. One high-end video-centric exception is the A7SIII at 12MP. Professionnal photographers don't need high-pixel-count cameras because they use the right lens to compose perfectly every time. But many leisure photographers lust for 40MP at least. And camera makers thrive largely by them.
love the content, love the graphical explanations, love the bits, subscribe! xD
In grad school I used a Canon 5d classic. For my thesis show I made 20x30in prints. And even with the 12 megapixel sensor, they look stunning. I'll be it with a little bit of tweaking the sharpness and adding a touch of noise after enlarging, final image is were perfect.
I make calendars each year (DIN A3). That worked with an 8MP camera if I took the whole picture, but not much cropping was possible (or the SW would warn you about detail loss). Then with 16 and 24MP it happened much rarer. I still would like to have more pixels if the need for more cropping arises (wildlife or some interesting detail). But going with the resolution you really have and need in the end is reassuring.
My first pro camera was the A7R IV for wildlife. I discarded so many photos because they were slightly soft from hand holding at slower shutter speeds, it's taken me a few years to realise that if I had taken those same photos on a 24mp sensor they would have been sharp because there is less fine detail at a 500% crop to see any micro movements effecting image quality. So now I will downsize any low detail 61mp file and see where I start losing detail, quite surprising a lot of them work out to be 12mp, ISO effects how much detail I'm allowed to capture as well.
Wonderful video George! I absolutely love how you communicated this concept, i couldn't agree with you more. I used a Fujifilm XT-5 for my wedding business for a full year. The resolution was overall a hindrance to me. The buffer was slower when shooting burst, my computer was slightly slower when working with the files, i had to spend more on storage because the files were massive. The low light performance was significantly worse than a lower resolution sensor as well. Theoretically my images were sharper, however nobody other than me would notice this. I could crop the images more, however that's a skill issue more so than a feature imo. Unless you're a professional photographer in a niche that demands high resolution, anything over 24 is overkill. If you're a hobbyist, resolution matters even less. It's just marketing.
This videos has completely blown my mind
I like having some "extra" MP at my disposal (namely for potential printing) but I literally shop with the intention of not going past like 24mp if possible. For day to day photography 12-16 is all I would need, it's just that I sometimes need to print 24 inches wide (wedding albums for clients) and if we go by the 300dpi standard even 24mp falls just a bit short of achieving it, and that's with no cropping. But it still prints just fine.
It really depends what you do later, if all what matters is picture for social media then of course you don’t need extra detail of extra resolution, but on the other hand. after nice holiday you look back on some old photos, you like to check in the background for example name of restaurant or look closer at the flowers on the table then its amazing to have that big sensor and hi resolution. Its all about attention to detail
I started photography because of you. Actually, after watching your Canon G9 video, I started hunting for one and ended up with a G10. Now I'm in a CCD rabbit hole and have been collecting cameras 🤣
That's amazing, thanks so much for keeping up with the channel. Hope you're not hoarding too many CCD cameras, it's a dangerous game 😅
Spare some for us none sir 😅
Wait till you try Sigma Foveon sensor.... 😉
We have Canon G16 at home. The last from the G line. I really like it. Occasionally i took for a walk and have fun with it. I will never get rid of it...
I have mft, apsc, and full frame cameras, and all of them are on jpeg medium for casual photos since i dont need anything above 13 MP. I've had restaurant shoots where i forgot to switch it back, and edited over jpegs. If i hadn't noticed the megapixel count, i wouldn't have known they were lower resolution
So true 😄 I have a 5d classic and I tend to choose that over my newer nikon, just for the enjoyment I get shooting with it and the images it produces! Plus being only 12 megapixel you would never tell I only tend to take the newer nikon if I know there's fast moving subjects or for surf photography etc Cheers mate good video 😁
I enjoy shooting with my 10mp Canon 40D for a softer, vintage monochrome result in stark contrast to my normal output.
Very informative. Thanks!
Thank you, great video.
I have a mft camera with 20 mp. In lightroom, under photo, enhance, the program fixes the image. After that, I can print the image in 100*70 cm format with excellent quality. Yes, even pictures taken with the iPhone 11 can be printed in large format. So, better invest in some rammine for the computer. This editing doesn't take long and goes smoothly. Thanks for highlighting this.
amazing video! Very motivated!
Totally agree I use a 93rd second hand Canon Ixus 12.1 mega pixel camera and its awesome.
The G9 has that great tele length to help with cutting down on cropping. The only time I really need larger megapixels are for shooting birds. My 24mpx sensor and 70-200/2.8 still isn’t enough sometimes. 😂
Just found your channel, liked and subscribed 👍. I'm using a canon power shot 620hs, your video re energised my thoughts of "use what you have, it's still good".
I on occasion still shoot with my old Canon G5 that still produces good pixs. Sure it doesn't have some of the features and performance of my newer cameras, but you can't deny the results.
Hello George, what exact model is your lg 4k monitor? Thanks!
My first digital camera was a 3.2mp point and shoot. I took some lovely photos on that. Granted you're not making posters out of those shots but for sharing online or standard small prints it was fine. I'm only shooting 20mp these days (Canon 6D). Unless you're a crop monster or want to cover the size of a football pitch with a picture then resolution is bottom on my list of considerations when buying a camera
the most important is the camera sensor size but if have a large mega pixels its a strength to the resault of the picture,more flexible and good for zooming in the devices screen.more size of the sensor and pixel the resault is more goodness
Looking to replace a bridge camera whose body sort of fell apart, I was shopping and thinking I'd have to sell a body part or two to afford something worthwhile. Then I dug out my old Sony f717 and Canon PowerShot A610 that I never got around to selling and ... was quite pleasantly surprised at what these two 5mp shooters could do. In particular, I'd forgotten how much FUN it was to use the F717. But I should remember to take my DSLR out every now and again to keep it from getting lonely.
I've been using a camera from 2004 for almost a decade now. I'm the only person who even notices the grain at high isos and low resolution. Everyone else loves the photos. Old tech is fun and cool
, 100% agree. I realized the same thing about megapixels a while back,.Our monitors and daily screens are not even close to using what our cameras can produce, nowhere near. I looked up IG resolution and it was 600x600 at the time. I think they have increased it but only by a small amount. But ever since then I started caring less about MPs and more about composition. And my $20 or less old point and shoot collection grew from there, no need to raise my shutter counts on my DSLRs for daily shooting. Anything above 5 MP is enough for 4x6 prints and enough for even a 4k monitor. Obviously if the screen is bigger the more flaws you notice, but even then its not a big deal, just move onto the next image. What really made me stop caring so much is knowing that the majority of people will view my images on a phone. That also why IG doesn't care to make higher MP images the standard, view time, screen size and viewing distance doesn't justify going bigger. For online sharing I make my images 1600 or 1200 at max with 240 dpi, dpi goes a lomg way in preserving image quality. Files come out to 800kb -1mb and still look good on all my screens. Less MP on a camera does limit cropping though, thats about it, so just don't crop, problem solved lol.
I have a Lumix lx7 with 10.1 MP - looking for a body that I can use with my R-Lenses. The Lumix LX7 has a 1/1.7" sensor, what MP resolution should a full frame digital camera have to have a similar resolution as the Lumix? All what you said is correct for screen resolution, but when it comes to printing photos, at 300dpi, it's a whole different story, isn't it?
I wish what I had known at the beginning was to buy the best and most expensive, highest IQ and widest aperture lens possible for what I want to shoot, and whatever camera was over 12mp for it.
Excellent video and good fun :)
After a while away I’m back to my photography and joined the digital revolution, finally. Having had a lot of satisfaction from 35mm film I realised that chasing massive megapixels didn’t make sense. The maths of megapixels to dpi and print size spoke volumes about camera sales talk vs actual use. My focus turned to getting the best camera with megapixels being the compromise variable. Very happy owner of an 18mp dslr that left money to spare for very nice glass. I can’t see me printing larger than A4 so I should avoid any megapixel-envy😂
This was great! I have been saying this for years. Although I do have a 60 megapixel Leica M11 and a 24 megapixel Nikon D750, I have been extremely happy with all my 16 megapixel and below cameras. You should do a follow-up on printing images and the various sizes. It will blow your mind the size of useable print you can get from a 6-10 megapixel sensor.
My friend you have read my mind! I just need to borrow a high res camera 😅
This is why I love my Olympus/OM System Cameras and won't be changing systems anytime soon, 20 megapixels is more than enough and the auto focus & image stabilisation is among the best
I have an A3 print on my wall, I took it using my 1500mm fl F5 telescope, of the moon. it's RAZOR sharp, hence I was so happy with it.. and it wasn't full moon, it was just past the 1st quarter so craters were obliquely lit giving lovely long shadows.. anyway.. the camera?... Canon 30D.. 8MP.. more than enough for A3... many other images from that camera at A3 knocking about the house.. rarely is the sharpness something that draws you in to "see how much you can see".. because you don't do that with portraits, but the moon shot does that.. and pulls it off.
Yep this is hilarious,the gear really isn’t that important, don’t get seduced by shiny new things! Spend the cash saved on travel and experiences.
Problem is… I’m getting seduced by banged up old things…
Thank you for that very interesting and fact filled video George ! The actual numbers regarding display resolution was a shocker ! One can really wonder who has been driving the resolution hype !? Is it the manufacturers or the photo nerds ? I have been using a Canon G5x for the last 7 years for just about all my snaps and it produces the most amazing pin sharp images from just a tiny little sensor ! Keep up the good work!
Resolution is measured in dpi, while MP (megapixels) refer to size: 16MP is the result of multiplying the number of pixels contained on the larger side of the image, by those on the smaller side. Example, If you have a picture with 1,200 pixels on one side and 800 on the other side, it will be 960,000, roughly 1MP. But you can have two copies of the same 15x10 cm image, one at resolution low-res 72 dpi, and the other at higher resolution with 300 dpi. Again: Megapixels MP = size. Resolution dpi = quality of image.
Heres a question for you: I currently have a Sony a7iv that I use mainly for video. I wanted a new camera for photography mainly and I love the aesthetic of the film simulations. which cam should I be looking at any recs?
The A7IV is one of the best all round cameras, it's better for photography than it is for video! You can use film simulations presets then you're in business, I do the same with my A7S III. Unless you're after film simulation JPEGs? Then your only options are Fuji or an Olympus Pen F
@@GeorgeHolden yes Ideally Jpegs to make workflow much quicker. I prefer the color with Fuji. X100 series?
Last year I was getting a new camera after shooting for 15+ years as a pro. I was debating the R6 II (24 MP) or R5 (45 MP). I had sample raws from both using the same lenses (best RF lenses you could buy) and compared them by upscaling the R6 files in Adobe Camera Raw (you can set output resolution) to 45 MP. Most of the time I couldn't tell the difference, even zoomed to 100% on a 27" 5k monitor. Then I tried upscaling the R6 II files using Adobe Camera Raw's built in "Super Resolution" feature then placing over top the R5 files (at 45 MP output). 9/10 times the R6 II files looked better than the native R5 files. I also had a friend who has 15 years photo/design experience look at them, unlabelled, and he picked the R6 II files as being sharper and more detailed 9 out of 10 times. I then tried AI upscale from various online free sites, and the images looked even better. I saved $1500 buying the R6 II and have smaller files and better AF than if I bought the R5. I've printed 8 MP 1D IIN files at billboard sizes (for a radio station) and they looked excellent. 24 MP is actually large compared to anything I was used to prior and will print any size needed... the same also applies to cropping. Lens sharpness and AF accuracy will make a bigger difference than going from 24 MP to 45 MP (in my tests). But MP is great for marketing and helps to sell new cams.
Very helpful, thanks. Your comparison on how smaller sensors have bigger pixels that capture more information and thus perform better in lower light made me think about Leica`s ne Q3 or now SL3 that have a feature that lets you shoot in less pixels or resolution(?). Instead of 60 you can go down to 18 I believe. Don't know if your explanation is applicable for this example as the sensor should stay the same and the pixel sizes too, I guess. But I don't know what wonders camera computing can do. Maybe they did that exactly to get more information on bigger pixels?
It's important to remember that the smaller and bigger sensors capture the same amount of light, so the same exposure at the same ISO will be the same in terms of brightness. But it's noise performance at those respective exposures and ISOs. And yes I don't believe reducing the resolution on the larger sensor would have the same effect, it's effectively downsampling the sensor to a lower resolution.
I got my 1st digicam in 96, and always check the the resolution and quality at 1:1 px resolution, one px from the camera is one px on the monitor. No interpolation or scaling. I made my own DIY software to check out the files, and quickly found out that numbers alone is not that important. My back in the days Nokia phone was 40mpx, of shadows and blur, my Foveon Sigma is 4.8 mpix is pin sharp details down to each pixel. CCD sensors are close, CMOS is noise.
This varies by genre though. Megapixels are essential when you are photographing small birds, for example; they won't let you get close, and in order to get appreciable detail you almost always must crop. Bird photographers generally find even 24 MP to be too little (which is why the Canon R3 never made it as a competitor for the Sony A1 or the Nikon X8 and X9 as a bird photography camera; the Canon gold standard for bird photography still is the R5, precisely because of its higher resolution). In addition, seeing pictures on a screen is one thing; printing them out is another game altogether, and megapixels make a huge difference.
Thanks!
Thank you very much!
@@GeorgeHolden You are welcome! Best regards with your channel and in general!
I remember from decades ago that a 4MP image was sharp enough for a 8x10 inch print (which was a standard size for a large print at the time). Of course, we have larger screens now. But as you said, even a 4K monitor is only equivalent to 8MP.
Glass… beats the resolution race. My studio uses a Nikon 850 45MP. The lenses are ok. Got a a TS lens… boom! More detail than ever.
I use the Sony Xperia 5III and Olympus TG7 for my hiking stories and am quite satisfied with them.
The early 2000's Nat Geo covers were shot on 3 megapixel Nikon D1 and D1X cameras. I printed many 17x22 prints from a 4 mp Olympus in the same period. They were beautiful. It's nice to have megapixels to waster these days, but no essential.
I think a high resolution camera (something like 36 MP or bigger) is definitely nice for making huge prints, like the ones you see on art galleries. Well.... usually landscape or fine art folks. Most of us hobbyists rarely do it. And usually post on social medias/websites. 24 MP or 16 MP is still very usable. Remember, processing big RAW files (e.g GFX 100 RAW file is around 400 MB) takes more computing power and storage :p
That's one of my secret reasons, I love the smaller files and not worrying so much about storage 😅
Yep dead right. My favourite camera for landscape, Sony DSCR1 , 2005 model, 10mp, Zeiss lens APSC. Stunning 20x30 prints.
Nice video! I myself use 16 mp MFT camera, and I used 24 mp Nikon DSLR before, and while old camera had some advantages, like bigger sensor and more resolution, my skill didn't get worse when I switched to Lumix camera, in fact, I think that I got better at photography because my current camera suits me and my needs much better despite smaller resolution And also thanks for Ukrainian subtitles, that's really nice to see people adding them)
Thanks! And you're very welcome, it was another viewer who suggested I add them!
As a best guess, I would imagine that when comparing a smaller sensor to a larger one, bothe containing some number of MPs, that the larger sensor would be more beneficial in allowing more light? Unless, of course, there is a whole different discussing tegarding the size of the pixels when comparing 2 different size sensors? So, in my mind, it doesnt make a lot sense that a d610 with 24MPs, is better in low light performance than a d700, with only 12 MPs? Ive always gone on the thinking of less pixels, result in larger eyeballs.