Wow!!! You sure know your stuff. Well in my case 10M is the middle setting. I won’t shoot at 4.4M but rather at 10M.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 Nikonp) 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...
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
Why are you holding back and not shooting at native resolution of the camera?
Question: Do you have a computer monitor with lets say a HD display that you run at 800x600 resolution? no because it makes the screen fuzzy - same thing with your camera. Using the onboard camera processor to mangle your images is not good for squeezing the best out of it. If you want to down scale them to 4.4mp, fine but use a computer that is much better equipped to do it cleanly.
10 mp on a 32gb card must be something pushing 10,000 images on the card right? plenty of space. When I shot Sony, a 32gb card would hold about 400 images.... on the 24mp sensors I have moved to, I get about 1500 on 32gb but at $20 a card, storage is cheap.
Also, think about the age of the card. They have a limited lifespan - 10,000 writes to each individual byte location so they can wear out and fail, so having a couple of cards to swap between is a good idea. If you go on a week vacation for example, then having 2 or 3 cards kept safe away from the camera that you then rotate through means that should you lose one of them, you dont lose ALL of your images.
Seeing your other posts, why not go to a store and try out a Sony RX100 - that range has a 1 inch sensor the same size as the pro camcorder you spoke of in the other thread. If you try a Mark 5 or newer, I think it will blow your mind in terms of image quality over and above the Powershot.
I have an IR converted RX100 MK5a and I think I use it more than my full frame mirrorless cameras.
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
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...
Oh my my now that is what I call a comprehensive response.
Oh and thank you for including my name in there even though we all know when it comes to skills I’m not going close to you or the others you have named and many more who we all know about.
My point was it did not look any worse interpolated up to 4608x3456 as compared to an identical 4608x3456 image taken a moment later. The small sensor cameras shoot at that lower resolution. The only question is does the camera or the computer do a better job of bumping the pixel count?
Personally I shoot at 8MP, but I cannot honestly claim those extra pixels capture any more detail when compared to a 3.2 MP image. I will shoot at 3.2 when doing a series of machine gun blasts, mainly because the battery will hold in a bit longer. But I only do that a couple of times a year.
@kenoh it is nice to have you back. please start sharing again! your images are lovely.
ps....what nikon are you using nowadays?
ps....what nikon are you using nowadays?
Are you sure? when you say you shoot at 8mp, you know the camera still captures the full resolution right? then the image processor mangles it to 8mp for writing to the card ? so it doesnt save battery. If anything the extra processing will take more power. The saving is more likely because the screen or EVF blacks out between the shots.
Thank you, you are too kind.
Still got the Z6.... still love it (shut it @Apple fanboy).... no reason to upgrade/change.... finally got over the cost of XQD cards.... almost.... ?sony
Lol. I think my pictures are slightly below par compared to yours!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
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...
My D800/D810 combo at 36mp does it for most things for me. Those are both 36mp. BTW, just to throw another wrench into the works, all else being equal the D810 is actually a tiny bit sharper than the D800 provided the lens is good enough to show. The cameras use essentially identical silicon for the sensors, but the D800 puts an anti-aliasing filter in front of it, and the D810 lacks that. Of course if you do get something that will cause aliasing, you'll wish you had the AA filter. In the real world, I can make aliasing happen pretty easily on my(now a relic, not really used) Kodak DCS 14/n without an AA filter, but the pixel pitch of the D810 is such that it's difficult to have happen.
My Df is, bar none, the best camera I have for low light, and gives amazingly clean ISO 12,800 images. It's "only" 16mp.
I also have a D3s still for the rare occasion I do action photography, such as at my in-laws volleyball games the last few weeks. In a dim YMCA gym, the combination of fast focus, high frame rates, and ISO 12,800 nearly as clean as the Df made it a perfect combination with my 70-200mm f/2.8. If I actually had a reason to justify it, I'd replace it with a D4, which has the same sensor as the Df(or really the other way around-the D4 came before the Df). The D5 is supposed to be even better, but that's still too expensive for what to me is a niche use.
I'm hoping at some point this summer to get a D850. The newer generation backside illuminated Sony sensors are nothing short of phenomenal.
My Df is, bar none, the best camera I have for low light, and gives amazingly clean ISO 12,800 images. It's "only" 16mp.
I also have a D3s still for the rare occasion I do action photography, such as at my in-laws volleyball games the last few weeks. In a dim YMCA gym, the combination of fast focus, high frame rates, and ISO 12,800 nearly as clean as the Df made it a perfect combination with my 70-200mm f/2.8. If I actually had a reason to justify it, I'd replace it with a D4, which has the same sensor as the Df(or really the other way around-the D4 came before the Df). The D5 is supposed to be even better, but that's still too expensive for what to me is a niche use.
I'm hoping at some point this summer to get a D850. The newer generation backside illuminated Sony sensors are nothing short of phenomenal.
Being late here to comment. So what matters in a camera?
I'll throw in my 3 decades of experience working in the imaging industry from film into the digital era. I remembered during the pioneering days that megapixels, progressive improvements on sensors and better lens design were just the hallmarks of the coming of the Golden Age of imaging. Thankfully, I was able to retire on a good note and moved on to a different career. But my heart will always be in photography. It was fun then. Today though; does it really matter what you have camera wise?
So what truly matters in a camera? Not anymore except for special needs. I'll get to that later. Today, we are gifted with computational photography and A.I. The iPhone and Android benefit most of that. Just point and shoot and let the computer takes care of the rest. Screwed up on your shot because it was blurry, noisy and unsharp. Well we can fix that today with the Topaz Suite of AI software. I own the whole lot and dedicated my Mac Pro just for this purpose. Hours and sometimes days of trying to fix an image has been dumbed down to just less than 5 minutes with my Mac Pro, a capable GPU card and the Topaz software. In fact, during the pandemic, I shot a lot with my iPhone and my Lumix ZS-100. I used to shoot professionally with a Nikon full frame like the D3s and the D4 before I left my career. But with Topaz, I am quite happy with my iPhone and my Lumix. Computational photography have come a long way and I suspect will go even further.
So why do you need a large megapixel camera like full frame or a medium format? While computational photography addressed a number of technical challenges posed by a smaller sensor, it can not replace the benefits from a large sensor, namely pixel density which then translates to lower noise and a wider dynamic range. Both of which are sought after by professionals for cleaner images that can be enlarged to larger prints. If you sell your prints or want to compete with other capable photographers who also have very capable skills, then it will always come down to how your images compare to other photographers.
Selling images aren't the same as it used to. Decades ago, it was simply easy to sell your work without a lot of skills, because the market for images was restricted. It was meant to be restricted, because scarcity brings inflation to the photographs being sold. Limited prints and this and that allowed myself and many photographers to work less and get paid more. That was decades ago. What happened to digital was the digitization of the whole industry. All of a sudden, other photographers from other parts of the world can sell images, thus increasing the pool of photographs. And then with digital, you no longer compete on scarcity, but rather compete with the abundance of low cost and free images all taken by photographers who were funded by the mom and dad piggy banks. For me and many other photographers, it became extremely difficult to make a living when these photographers out compete us with better cameras and gear and thus brought in a decade of gear envy, where lots of photographers seek out better and better gear all in the need to outcompete one another. This lowered the cost of photography and photographs but much more as people seek out higher megapixel sensors, lower noise and wider dynamic range thinking that's how you can win more work, more business. That is true to a certain point, but what I saw was the commoditization of the whole imaging industry with the focus on better sensors and higher megapixels etc, but the amount of money you get paid for those images do not necessarily help people recover the intrinsic cost of their investments. Only a few with exceptional talents and savvy marketing skills continue on with their greatness, while others like myself decided to retire either forcefully or unwillingly.
All I'm saying is that, great gear will always take better photos but photos today aren't really worth a lot to justify owning those gear. So it all comes down to your passion in photography and how deep is your passion. Some photographers with deep passion own the best gear they can afford, while those who just dabble with photography shoot with what they have. Today's gear are more than good enough and it really now depends upon the photographer behind the camera to extract all of the camera's capabilities to create amazing photos. There are some great photographers who use an iPhone and make great images. They know how to squeeze out the most out of the iPhone.