How many pixels do you need

[blackadder]

I have been looking at all the new cameras out now with huge resolution figures (millions of pixels) and ask myself "do I need that many"
Having looked at some old images from my now gone Canon 1Ds 3 that had 21 mps, I must say the images are just as good as from my 5D4 (30 mps).
Also I wonder how many lenses can resolve the detail the sensors can give.
Further, my prints are mainly A3 or A4, so I am "dumping" a lot of pixels.
The larger files will need a higher spec computer to prevent slow processing,
My view is that instead of pixels the manufacturers would serve us better with improving dynamic range, noise control, IBIS and ergonomics.
Do you have a camera with huge resolution and has it actually made your images better.
Charles

[mikew]

Good question, my answer is not as many as we buy most of the time, its early days for me with the Z50 but ime finding the 20.9mp plenty.


The 6.1mp of my D70 was enough for most things, just a modern 6.1mp would have made the difference.

[blackadder]

The Z 50 has had some very good reviews mikew, I look forwards to seeing some images in the gallery soon.
The trio here are spot on.
Charles

[mikew]

Without going Off Topic i would add what size sensor do you need, cameras are only recording tools, pictures are made by the person using it,in my time i have owned and used most sizes from 1/2.5 to full-frame. Everyone has been up to the job so long as it was the right one for the job.
I owned a Nikon p900 for a year as i had a use for a narrow field of view (crop as some call it).

Some P900 samples.

[blackadder]

Like you mikew.I have over the years had all sorts of cameras, I still have my first one, a 1/2 frame 35mm plastic one from Woolies for 2/6 pence, and it still works.
I still have a 1932 Zeis Ikon folding 120 roll film bellows camera that still works.
I have had the full gamut of sizes over the years and if I had to choose a favourite it would be the Canon 1Ds 3. I have currently a 1" sensor camera, a APS C and a. full frame, as you say it depends what I am photographing.
Charles

[Stephen Batey]

Not strictly on the megapixels theme, but I've used cameras from subminiature (least said the better!), half frame, 35mm full frame, all the 120 negative sizes up to 6x7, and large format. My favorite is 5x7". When using digital, I use a Sony a7rii.

What makes me "go large" is the twin reason of preferrring large prints (A3 minimum) and preferring subjects where there is a lot of fine detail. Putting the two together means I need a good level of resolution to start with.

[blackadder]

Hello Stephen, I know you are a 5x7 man, and like big prints, so can see why you have the cameras with film or high resolution, you are what I regard as a "top end" ie traditional photographer who takes considered images for maximum quality and impact.
All the best and have a great Christmas Stephen.
Charles.

[davet47]

Charles-I've had all sorts of digital cameras over the years and I don't think the pixel count is as important as the AF and processing speeds. I'm currently using Fuji X-T30 bodies and 2 Fuji lenses and I can tell a difference in this camera from its X-T20 and X-T10 predecessors. I think this will be my last upgrade though; the camera is (and always has been) a lot cleverer than me.

Dave

[blackadder]

I agree Dave, AF, Processing speed and Dynamic Range are to me more important than high pixel count.
My favourite digital has always been my old Canon 1Ds 3. (20mp), it did everything I wanted, and I only changed it because the batteries were discontinued.
I am torn at the minute as I have found a near mint one with only 5000 shutter actuations, they also have a "spares only" one for £400 (scratched sensor) this is cheaper than getting a spare charger and battery so I am considering getting both xo I can be sure of having it for a long time.
Charles

[davet47]

Well it is Xmas!