What’s more important a camera with 50 megapixels or a camera with better sensors, lens,etc? Everyone thinks that megapixels matters most when it may be something else. What matters most for the best shots? If I am that impressed with my Powershot which shoots better shots at 4.4MP over my iPhone at 12MP then how would I feel about a pro camera?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Megapixels or sensors?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sensor size and lenses are vastly more important.
The lens (how the light is captured), sensor size, pixel size and imaging pipeline (how the image is ultimately built and written) tend to matter in image quality. Image quality doesn’t always mean the same thing as “enjoyment of an image”, just FYI. Smaller sensors with smaller pixel wells need more help from the imaging pipeline part of the equation to tamp down things like noise and therefore produce pleasing colors in out-of-camera JPEGs.
Note that number of pixels doesn’t define “pro camera” and you could even say a definition of such is “camera a professional photographer uses”. Could be a Powershot or an iPhone in the right hands and right situations. But cameras pros and photography enthusiasts use tend to be cameras with a lot of flexibility in the most situations with a focus on image quality. They do tend to have larger sensors with better quality pixels for capturing more light with less noise that needs to be dealt with. They tend to have a larger number of ”fast lenses” available with larger apertures that allow more light in, faster shutter speeds or allow better control of depth of field. They tend to have imaging pipelines that let them rattle off a lot of frames per second to capture just the right moment in fast moving or unpredictable scenes. They tend to have sophisticated and very fast autofocus across the sensor to get just the right part of the image in focus, such as someone’s eyes, and do this very quickly. There are pro 12mp cameras such as the Sony A7s series, a camera with fewer but larger pixels to really excel in low light and video use cases. There are cameras with larger sensors with 100 or 150mp. Many today are in the 50-60 mp range.
Only you can decide whether any of that flexibility would be of use to you.
Note that number of pixels doesn’t define “pro camera” and you could even say a definition of such is “camera a professional photographer uses”. Could be a Powershot or an iPhone in the right hands and right situations. But cameras pros and photography enthusiasts use tend to be cameras with a lot of flexibility in the most situations with a focus on image quality. They do tend to have larger sensors with better quality pixels for capturing more light with less noise that needs to be dealt with. They tend to have a larger number of ”fast lenses” available with larger apertures that allow more light in, faster shutter speeds or allow better control of depth of field. They tend to have imaging pipelines that let them rattle off a lot of frames per second to capture just the right moment in fast moving or unpredictable scenes. They tend to have sophisticated and very fast autofocus across the sensor to get just the right part of the image in focus, such as someone’s eyes, and do this very quickly. There are pro 12mp cameras such as the Sony A7s series, a camera with fewer but larger pixels to really excel in low light and video use cases. There are cameras with larger sensors with 100 or 150mp. Many today are in the 50-60 mp range.
Only you can decide whether any of that flexibility would be of use to you.
With small cameras there are two types of pixels, real and interpolated. For an example a small sensor might capture at 2, 3 or perhaps 4MP, then interpolate up to 8, 12, 16 or even 20MP in camera. However the detail captured is limited to that smaller number. When I get some clear skies I will set up the tripod and do some sample shots to illustrate that point.
But put quite simply when you compare surface areas, 3MP on a small 4.8x6.4mm sensor, translates to about 75MP on a full frame 24x32mm sensor. That's why any pixel count beyond 3 or 4MP on a small sensor camera should be considered largely bogus.
So from there it comes down to; What do you do with the image captured and what do you want to do beyond normal daylight stills. All of my cameras have been of the small sensor variety. Most but not all of the images captured will display well full screen on either my NEC 21"-1200x1600 monitor, or my 24"-1080x1920 monitor. That said they would not fare nearly as well on a jumbo 4 or 5G monitor and I am very well aware of that limitation. Night photography no way. Almost every image I take will print well at 5x7 inches, most at 8x10 inches and at least a few would even fare well at 11x14 inches. Beyond that forget about it. I am fully aware of that limitation and it doesn't bother me. However if I was still using my cameras to make my living or to supplement my income, it would be a critical consideration. Ditto if I wanted to produce the occasional crisp & noise free 16"x24" or 24"x36" poster. Also keep in mind that digital cropping ability either in camera or after the fact is of course pretty much non-existent, when working with a small sensor camera.
But put quite simply when you compare surface areas, 3MP on a small 4.8x6.4mm sensor, translates to about 75MP on a full frame 24x32mm sensor. That's why any pixel count beyond 3 or 4MP on a small sensor camera should be considered largely bogus.
So from there it comes down to; What do you do with the image captured and what do you want to do beyond normal daylight stills. All of my cameras have been of the small sensor variety. Most but not all of the images captured will display well full screen on either my NEC 21"-1200x1600 monitor, or my 24"-1080x1920 monitor. That said they would not fare nearly as well on a jumbo 4 or 5G monitor and I am very well aware of that limitation. Night photography no way. Almost every image I take will print well at 5x7 inches, most at 8x10 inches and at least a few would even fare well at 11x14 inches. Beyond that forget about it. I am fully aware of that limitation and it doesn't bother me. However if I was still using my cameras to make my living or to supplement my income, it would be a critical consideration. Ditto if I wanted to produce the occasional crisp & noise free 16"x24" or 24"x36" poster. Also keep in mind that digital cropping ability either in camera or after the fact is of course pretty much non-existent, when working with a small sensor camera.
Why do pictures on Powershot look clearer than pictures on iPhone? I shoot at 4.4MP on Powershot and 12MP on iPhone.
There’s a lot of factors in place. We need more context in what you mean by clearer. Also there’s the point of subjective preference.
Offhand I'd say there is better glass on the powershot than the iphone.
The megapixel race became irrelevant years ago, it's about pixel density for me. I loved my Canon 1Dx at 18MP and my clients were very happy. Since then, I've purchased a couple 5DIV's at 30MP and think that they are comparable to my eye. I believe that the lens is most important followed by the camera.
Glass for sure. However the iphone also has a small sensor. Perhaps your Powershot captures at the 4.4MP you are shooting at whereas the iPhone is capturing at 3MP and interpolating up to 12MP.
It can also relate to the viewing size. Perhaps you are viewing your 4.4MP at 50% actual size whereas the 12 MP are being viewed at 16.5% actual size. In English, viewing ratios of 12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100% will always look better than 67% or any other odd value Preview or Photos happen to pick. It relates to how your monitor spills those excess pixels.
Last edited:
Not all megapixels are of equal size. But the truth is none of this matters. The photographer is the only thing that matters. The rest is GAS.
No problem. It would still have the things that matter.
Composition
Lighting
The rest is of much less importance.
Composition and lighting are absolutely key in any photo, whether it is shot with a smartphone, a P&S with a 1" sensor or a MILC with a full-frame 35mm sensor. I have shot some pretty decent images with my iPhones over the years and I've also occasionally shot some pretty lousy images with my full-frame Sony A7R IV that offers 61 megapixels.
Sometimes it's a matter of choosing the right camera for the job, other times it's a quick reach for the nearest camera. I grab the iPhone when out somewhere and see something interesting and fire off a snapshot or two, or at home, I'll grab the RX10 M4 "bridge" camera with its 20.1 megapixels on a 1" sensor and incredible 24-600mm (35mm equivalent) lens and run out to the deck to quickly capture some interesting bird action that is suddenly occurring on the lake. When I have more time the A7R IV with a long lens mounted on the tripod and I stand out on the deck capturing more bird images at a more leisurely pace. The small RX100 M7 compact camera usually doesn't see as much action as the others in the household, as it really is meant more for when I travel, and of course unfortunately this past year has not been one for out-of-town trips.
Those 61 MP images, shot in RAW, offer a lot of flexibility when sitting at the computer ready to edit my results. Often cropping is needed in shots of wildlife, especially at a distance, and that is where those 61 MP come in very handy. Composition skills are important, but wildlife is unpredictable. Other times when I'm shooting macro and under controlled circumstances and can properly compose without worrying about the subject doing something unexpected and changing the intended image on me, cropping isn't as necessary but I derive the full benefit of the resolution which those megapixels provide.
With the RX10 and its smaller sensor and fewer megapixels, especially with that long lens, resolution is not as good, especially in low-light situations. However that camera's Zeiss lens is really remarkable and I have gotten some surprisingly good images with it in good lighting and favorable conditions. That mirrorless camera body with its fixed zoom lens handles much like a small DSLR and will always be a favorite.
One thing which is also important and why resolution is significant is how the image(s) will be viewed and shared later. Printing an image in a large size requires decent resolution. Sharing an image on a computer screen or cell phone screen is more dependent upon the size of the device upon which the viewer is looking at the image.
What matters most? Again, it's back to the photographer. One can have the best, most expensive, top-of-the-line flagship with a zillion megapixels and a massive sensor size equivalent to medium or even large format, all the best lenses.....and still come home with poor results time after time.
What is important is knowing what to do with the gear, how to get the best from what it has to offer, knowing its strengths and its limitations and working with it accordingly. Knowing which tool to choose in a given situation is also important, and knowing how to handle a situation when the right camera is in hand but maybe the wrong lens is on it is also key. There is much more to photography than simply holding a camera, pointing it at something and pressing the shutter button.
Sometimes it's a matter of choosing the right camera for the job, other times it's a quick reach for the nearest camera. I grab the iPhone when out somewhere and see something interesting and fire off a snapshot or two, or at home, I'll grab the RX10 M4 "bridge" camera with its 20.1 megapixels on a 1" sensor and incredible 24-600mm (35mm equivalent) lens and run out to the deck to quickly capture some interesting bird action that is suddenly occurring on the lake. When I have more time the A7R IV with a long lens mounted on the tripod and I stand out on the deck capturing more bird images at a more leisurely pace. The small RX100 M7 compact camera usually doesn't see as much action as the others in the household, as it really is meant more for when I travel, and of course unfortunately this past year has not been one for out-of-town trips.
Those 61 MP images, shot in RAW, offer a lot of flexibility when sitting at the computer ready to edit my results. Often cropping is needed in shots of wildlife, especially at a distance, and that is where those 61 MP come in very handy. Composition skills are important, but wildlife is unpredictable. Other times when I'm shooting macro and under controlled circumstances and can properly compose without worrying about the subject doing something unexpected and changing the intended image on me, cropping isn't as necessary but I derive the full benefit of the resolution which those megapixels provide.
With the RX10 and its smaller sensor and fewer megapixels, especially with that long lens, resolution is not as good, especially in low-light situations. However that camera's Zeiss lens is really remarkable and I have gotten some surprisingly good images with it in good lighting and favorable conditions. That mirrorless camera body with its fixed zoom lens handles much like a small DSLR and will always be a favorite.
One thing which is also important and why resolution is significant is how the image(s) will be viewed and shared later. Printing an image in a large size requires decent resolution. Sharing an image on a computer screen or cell phone screen is more dependent upon the size of the device upon which the viewer is looking at the image.
What matters most? Again, it's back to the photographer. One can have the best, most expensive, top-of-the-line flagship with a zillion megapixels and a massive sensor size equivalent to medium or even large format, all the best lenses.....and still come home with poor results time after time.
What is important is knowing what to do with the gear, how to get the best from what it has to offer, knowing its strengths and its limitations and working with it accordingly. Knowing which tool to choose in a given situation is also important, and knowing how to handle a situation when the right camera is in hand but maybe the wrong lens is on it is also key. There is much more to photography than simply holding a camera, pointing it at something and pressing the shutter button.
Short answer: Yes
All of it matters. Number of pixels determines how large you can print. Photo cell size determines how well each pixel captures light. Lens determines how sharp the image is. And so on.
My D800s are still going strong and are pushing a decade of use. I pre-ordered my first D800 and had to wait for delivery. Newer cameras can push the limits even further but they are still great cameras.
As for your question as to why the Powershot looks better than the iPhone - have you cleaned the lens on the iPhone? Some time ago I noticed images were blurry on my iPhone X. I checked the lens and it was in pretty bad shape. You are always handling the phone and the lens is exposed. You are going to get schmutz on the lens that you won't get on point and shoot that has a built in lens cap. You would be surprised how much of a difference it makes. Anytime I want to take a good picture I make sure the give the phone's lens a quick wipe.
Even so as technology advances it is amazing what new cameras can do. I have a Sony Cyber-shot RX100 that I picked up a couple of years ago. I bought the Mark V over the Mark VI simply because it had a lens that opened up to f1.8 where the newer version was f2.8. That's more than a full stop more light and they use the same sensor. I can get the same night performance that I get with the D800.
All of it matters. Number of pixels determines how large you can print. Photo cell size determines how well each pixel captures light. Lens determines how sharp the image is. And so on.
My D800s are still going strong and are pushing a decade of use. I pre-ordered my first D800 and had to wait for delivery. Newer cameras can push the limits even further but they are still great cameras.
As for your question as to why the Powershot looks better than the iPhone - have you cleaned the lens on the iPhone? Some time ago I noticed images were blurry on my iPhone X. I checked the lens and it was in pretty bad shape. You are always handling the phone and the lens is exposed. You are going to get schmutz on the lens that you won't get on point and shoot that has a built in lens cap. You would be surprised how much of a difference it makes. Anytime I want to take a good picture I make sure the give the phone's lens a quick wipe.
Even so as technology advances it is amazing what new cameras can do. I have a Sony Cyber-shot RX100 that I picked up a couple of years ago. I bought the Mark V over the Mark VI simply because it had a lens that opened up to f1.8 where the newer version was f2.8. That's more than a full stop more light and they use the same sensor. I can get the same night performance that I get with the D800.
More MP are beneficial when cropping and/or printing large prints.
I'd rather have a great 3-5 MP sensor than a mediocre 108 MP sensor.
But. The 3-5 MP sensor will be some what limited if printing large prints (like A2 and above) and the cropping factor a n d a large print on the final image is v e r y limited in quality.
But I stand by my word, rather a great 3-5 MP sensor than a mediocre ~108 MP one
I'd rather have a great 3-5 MP sensor than a mediocre 108 MP sensor.
But. The 3-5 MP sensor will be some what limited if printing large prints (like A2 and above) and the cropping factor a n d a large print on the final image is v e r y limited in quality.
But I stand by my word, rather a great 3-5 MP sensor than a mediocre ~108 MP one
It seems a lot of folks with larger sensor cameras did not clue in to my earlier post where I attempted to point out that the higher pixel counts on small sensor cameras are pretty much bogus. The following three images were shot within seconds of each other on my Fuji XP90 waterproof camera. Used a tripod with all antishake settings disabled.
One was shot at 3.2MP and interpolated up to 16MP in PhotoShop Elements. The next shot at 8MP also interpolated up to 16. The third is as it came from the camera at 16 MP. No other manipulation. I picked the subject to show two things, how it affects blue skies. As CMOS sensors do a very poor job on detailed green subjects, any differences should also be noticeable there.
Just a small portion of the images as seen at 100%.
One was shot at 3.2MP and interpolated up to 16MP in PhotoShop Elements. The next shot at 8MP also interpolated up to 16. The third is as it came from the camera at 16 MP. No other manipulation. I picked the subject to show two things, how it affects blue skies. As CMOS sensors do a very poor job on detailed green subjects, any differences should also be noticeable there.
Just a small portion of the images as seen at 100%.
Last edited:
I have a 32GB card. I wonder if I should up my resolution to 10MP when shooting. Hmm….
Why would you shoot 3.2 mega pixels at full resolution. 4608x3456? Of course it would look bad.
It's the whole package, not one OR the other.
A 12MP sensor in a 1" Camera won't beat a 61MP sensor in a full frame one.
A 12MP sensor in a 1" Camera won't beat a 61MP sensor in a full frame one.
Native full resolutions are different as well. You can’t upscale a 12mp sensor. Just shoot what it is capable of. Unless you are pixel peeping it won’t matter.
You should shoot at 10mp because that is the best image quality from your camera!
As for your original question, it depends. I think the biggest most noticeable difference to make comes from better lens quality all else being equal.
The sensor matters for a whole gamut of reasons pixel pitch, density, bayer array, x-trans, foveon, CCD, CMOS, crop, full, medium format, BSI etc. mega pixels is something that the sales people in the chain camera stores have used to sell on for years. The reality is that unless you are printing big, and you want to look up close, then the mega pixels dont add much to the pixels per inch argument. Take a billboard - a billboard is viewed from a distance and they are mostly images in the 2-3 mp range but as you know, stand 4 feet away as you would a picture on your wall and they look horrid.
I think the CMOS sensor industry has been consolidated now and we see that actually there are only a couple of actual sensor manufacturers and they sell them to multiple camera manufacturers so the magic happens in the software in the algorithms for getting the image from sensor to image file.
When it comes to taking images from your Powershot vs the iphone, it is a much argued conflict. Some people on here - @akash.nu for example has kicked my ass for years using his iphone to demolish various camera combos I have used. The largest element of the equation is who is wielding the weapon. @Apple fanboy has beat the snot out of my foray into Sony with his rickety DSLR Nikon
p) as has @mollyc who has me looking at my now Nikon and throwing tantrums because I am not getting anything like the quality of the shots she gets from hers.Wow off on one again.
When it comes to lenses, and we think of quality of optics, we may think of Canon L series and Nikon or Zeiss and Leica (the last two are amazing btw). Actually though, Fuji are arguably the best lens makers on the planet. Fuji make lenses for NASA, Fuji sell a $50,000 TV camera lens perfectly corrected with no focus breathing but in the camera place we often discount them because they dont tout L series, APO, Aspherical etc....
Sorry still off in the weeds....
Back on point.... I think it is a dimishing returns scenario. I think for 99.999% of us, a 24mp full frame sensor capable of clean shots at 3200 ISO with a decent 3 lens trinity (zoom or primes) is about the best we need. Beyond that we are getting into nuances and specific benefit use cases at which point each step of added magic costs exponentially more than the last.
The common point we all know to be true though is that a camera is a tool and knowing how to use it trumps the go faster stripes and the turbo.
Now..... here is the other thing to consider.... as every camera and manufacturer approaches perfection in image reproduction, colour definition, clean noise free detail rich images..... then we start to crave flaws in the name of character, as a means to stand apart. I love a certain manufacturer for a reason, I use their old cameras for a reason - they are different, they are not perfect, they are annoying but you know what? when you nail a shot, nothing touches them.
Hell right now I am obsessed with making my images from a full frame sensor camera look like the images from a Holga! I should just save a fortune and get a bloody Holga - zero megapixels, infinite joy.....
Erm, sorry...... totally went down a rabbit hole there...