Beginner Does the number of Megapixels matter that much?

Steve Law

Steve Law

Messages
12
Name
Stephen Law
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, I've been out of the DSLR world for a few years and want to get back in. I have the Canon 350D which is very long in the tooth and I'm a bit torn on the replacement for it. I do have the G1X compact, but it's limitations on how quickly it can take a picture are annoying when I hear the clicks of the DSLRs around me firing off and capturing moments I'm missing.
I've narrowed my search to the Canon 700D, 750D/760D or a second hand 70D, all would probably be bought with a kit lens.
The newer models have higher megapixel counts, but does a 24.2mp sensor really give noticeably different results compared to an 18mp one?
I'd like to either rule it in or out from the features that decide which camera body I eventually buy.
 
Steve Law said:
does a 24.2mp sensor really give noticeably different results compared to an 18mp one?
Click to expand...

No

Look for other more useful features in the models you're considering regarding such as focusing, dynamic range etc. You may find these are in the later models which may have 24mp, but 24 over 18 is sod all :)

Dave
 
Depends what you're taking. If you need to crop heavily for example for birding, higher MP gives you more chance of getting some sort of shot. But for things where you'd never really need to crop such as portraits etc., to all intents and purposes you'll see little benefit from 24mp over 18mp. I don't use Canon so don't know the models, but aside from the higher MP, newer models tend to manage noise better at higher ISO and also have more sophisticated AF systems.
 
As i understand it, it's really only an issue (if that's the right word) when printing big.
According to Scott Kelby in one of his books, it goes live this,
4mp= 8x10
5mp=11x14
6mp=13x19
8mp=16x20
10-12mp=24x36
36mp=30x40 and up.
These sizes are in inches.
I'm sure there are some other benefits to more mp.
I am using a 12mp camera and really don't have a problem with the amount of mp, only when i enlarge to near 100% (rarely) on my monitor do i notice.
 
In my opinion the highest gains from new sensors are in the higher ISO ranges. If you don't find you are needing to shoot higher ISO (by using flash for example, or outdoors or fast glass), then you don't really need the benefit. But I'm guessing that in reality you will be shooting a lot of indoors shots, possibly without flash. My wife uses a 100D with the 50f1.8 a lot indoors without flash. Its a great light camera for her, but the 70D is definitely better in video (and more solid feel to it). I would think something of that generation of Canon 18M sensor or newer would probably be a good place to start.

And for whats its worth, I've done poster prints from a 350D that turned out pretty well considering.
 
Thanks everyone for such fast responses, it appreciated.
I think the 70D is just taken the lead on my short list ;)
 
I was going to say that 12mp is enough for most people and with a good camera, you can have great results. The above answers just confirmed my opinion anyway. If I were you, I'd go for 50d or 60d if canon is what you look for and get a better lens.
 
My previous camera, a 10.4mp DSC-R1, lasted me from 2006 to late 2014 before I replaced it with a Nikon D7100. I never had any issues relating to its sensor size, having regularly printed exhibition size prints.

The biggest changes with the new camera has been much higher iso performance, burst rate and image sharpness in relation to having no anti aliasing filter. On the down side I've missed the Sony's articulated screen. Previously I understood my last camera's limitations and worked within them. Since then I've enjoyed widening my range of photographic interests that weren't previously possible with the old camera.

"does a 24.2mp sensor really give noticeably different results compared to an 18mp one?" No, but it's hard to avoid larger sensors even on entry level cameras. Look for what the new camera can do for you now and in the future.
 
In order to actually record 24MP's of detail you need an incredibly sharp lens used at f/5.6 or wider (along with the other factors such as SS/AF/ISO/etc). At f/8 you are recording a maximum more like 12MP (or less) on an APS sensor, regardless of the number of pixels the sensor has.

An actual resolution of ~12MP recorded/remaining is suitable for any normal use.
 
It doesn't really matter no. Unless you plan to print HUUUUGE or make big crops, then anything is good. I used to use a Nikon D700 - that was 12MP and I printed large. Now some cameras have 50MP+, and that's just crazy. Specialist stuff really.
 
I use a Canon 5Ds thats a whopping 50 million, it is a bit special and produces very detailed results it suits my field but it isn't absolutely necessary for great pictures but the resolution even on the preview screen really tells you how good your last shot is.
 
Steve, you've pretty much answered your own question when you said:

Steve Law said:
I do have the G1X compact, but it's limitations on how quickly it can take a picture are annoying when I hear the clicks of the DSLRs around me firing off and capturing moments I'm missing.
Click to expand...

So, the reason for the upgrade is primarily to reduce lag between pressing the button and capturing a picture. Rather than concerns over megapixels etc.

I'd say if you're happy with the resolution of your current compact, then don't stress about increasing the MP count above that.

Play with a few different cameras in shops - feel how they are and how the layout of buttons and dials works for you. Do a bit of research beforehand on how each of the Canons, Nikons etc. works (at least the ones that are in your budget range).

At the end of the day, every single DSLR on sale at the moment is probably capable of better images than many of us are able to take. So don't stress the small stuff and don't get too hung up on marketing which will try to sell you a camera with more megapixels, higher max ISO range (which can be useful) and higher frames per second rate (again, can be useful for some things).
 
No. Unless you are shooting for some specialist application. I think the DSLR manufacturers have pushed the whole megapixel thing over the last few years to sell us more cameras rather, as mirrorless manufacturers have done, improving and innovating the technology.
 
PhotographySponge said:
No. Unless you are shooting for some specialist application. I think the DSLR manufacturers have pushed the whole megapixel thing over the last few years to sell us more cameras rather, as mirrorless manufacturers have done, improving and innovating the technology.
Click to expand...

It's no different from so much that's sold to the consumer though. TVs and size/4K-ness rather than black levels and colour accuracy, cars being sold based on BHP rather than torque... etc.
 
I've used various cameras over the years from 320K VGA resolution up to a max of 24MP. The resolution is less important than what your camera sensor is doing with the information it receives and how the data is being processed. A couple of years back someone posted a comparison image taken of the same subject (a macro flower shot) using a high-end superzoom compact and a DSLR of similar resolution, with the DSLR having better range of subtle tones and giving a beauty to the image that the compact could not manage. It isn't helpful to say "12MP is good enough for 36X24" because there are many other variables, and although it may be fine for a viewing distance of 3 feet or more, you might find yourself disappointed if you got closer than that - something you would expect to do as a photographer.

For a couple of years I shot using a Sony with 20MP APS-C sensor, and found that the limitations weren't in the printing as such, but in the processing, where halos and other odd artefacts would show up if one were trying to push the image a little in post. In December I moved to a Nikon 24MP FF camera, and find less of a problem with artefacts, even though 20MP and 24MP are very very similar in terms of resolution. In fact the Nikon produces grittier (in terms of noise) images than the Sony at base ISO, but the image data has a different quality to it, probably due to enlarging the original image less, that makes it *potentially* more useful.

All things being equal, if noise, detail, post-processing issues, storage space/file handling and cost were not a problem then I suspect 50MP-75MP would be about perfect for what I want (generally landscape work and holiday snaps) even though my present lenses are all out-resolved by the camera sensor.
 
Craig20264 said:
Less Pixels means bigger pixels means more light gathering potential means less noise (y)
Click to expand...

Conversely on modern sensors the increase in noise is more than offset by the increase in resolution. Often when images from a sensor with bigger pixels are viewed alongside a similar size sensor with smaller pixels at a similar size the difference is negligible. I remember when the 50D was announced and there was a lot of guff about increased noise at similar ISO to the previous 40D. At 100% there was more noise, yes, but when the 15mp 50D image was downsized to the same as the 10mp 40D image the 50D had less noise and retained more detail.
 
coming from 16mg and 20mg to 43mg the pictures are Pin sharp, as compared to sharp,

Try looking at Flikr and search Camera models find the ones you can dload at full res and check yourself, do some pixel peeping

But in answer to your ask, i doubt you'll see much difference, i didn't between 16 and 20, only when i went to 43 did i notice it.
 
Last edited:
Craig20264 said:
Less Pixels means bigger pixels means more light gathering potential means less noise (y)
Click to expand...

Although my D750 is quieter than my D700 despite having more, smaller photosites...

In answer to the OP's question, yes but only if the final use needs the extras. (Like big prints after reasonable cropping.) However, more MP tends to now go with more recent sensors which in turn have better performance in other areas as well as more pixies.
 
There won't be a huge difference 24 versus 18mp but I don't see why you'd pass up on an increase. Even Nikon's base model DSLRs have 24mp sensors these days and it does give you a greater capability to crop. Dynamic range and low light capabilities etc should be taken into account as much as megapixel count though
 
If you want to print a 10"x8" photo at 300dpi then you need 300x10 by 300x8 (3000x2400) which is 7.2MP - you can usually get away with 150dpi so 1.8MP but this is not recommended.

There is a major disadvantage to higher MPs and that is computer/disk space and loading into programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. I shouldn't think you'll notice much final image quality difference although there will be a little but you will notice files being 33% larger.

I used to have a 16MP bridge camera and changed to a 5DMk1 which was 12MP. The difference in image quality, printing and so on was massive (the Canon being far better) because the sensor size was so much larger. 10 years on the 6D and 20MP is a vast difference for the better. What I'm saying is you'll notice a huge leap up from the 350 but I'm not sure there will be large changes with the others.

imho :)
 
At a guess, Moore's law means that one of today's computers can process files from one of today's high MP cameras as fast as a 10 year old computer can deal with a 10 year old camera's files.
 
Nod said:
At a guess, Moore's law means that one of today's computers can process files from one of today's high MP cameras as fast as a 10 year old computer can deal with a 10 year old camera's files.
Click to expand...

This really. If your computer is struggling with 20+ MP files then it's probably time for an upgrade. Storage space is also very cheap, and 40MB & 50MB files can probably be stored more cheaply than 10MB files 10 years ago.
 
EdwardL said:
If you want to print a 10"x8" photo at 300dpi then you need 300x10 by 300x8 (3000x2400) which is 7.2MP - you can usually get away with 150dpi so 1.8MP but this is not recommended.
Click to expand...
IMO, this is crap... if it looks good on your monitor it will look good displayed/printed at *any size* if viewed from a corresponding (larger) distance (where you can see the whole image at once). DPI is a printer resolution and it will always run at what it's set for.
EdwardL said:
The difference in image quality, printing and so on was massive (the Canon being far better) because the sensor size was so much larger.
Click to expand...
This is the truth of it...
 
Hmm sk66 not so sure about your comment if it looks good on your monitor it will look good displayed/printed at *any size* even though you qualify by saying to be viewed at a larger distance etc.
I work for a printers, Extra Large digital in Gosport, we print up to 5 metres wide and 50 metres long in one go if needed.
Our bread and butter is 3.2 mtrs by 2 mtrs though. Of which we regularly get art work, ie a jpeg or tiff at some rubbish size which looks good on screen but prints rubbish because it has too low a resolution.
As an absolute minimum 150dpi viewed from any sensible distance (not say 500 yards) I mean where you can at least see some of the detail, not the finest but most of it, then 150 dpi is needed from the file to begin with.
Should your photo contain a landscape and not a building then you can drop this to 72dpi as the subject helps to soften edges.
Of course I will accept this is subjective to each persons own eyes, but from a generally acceptable level not those that have very low standards what I have mentioned has become fairly norm in the print industry regards the large format side of things.
We do have some clients that send us absolute rubbish and still expect fantastic results though and also there are those that simply don't care.
The interpolation of some software has become extremely good and often is our only way forward when supplied with some low res files.

There are some companies that expect ultra high res files to be supplied that not even the new 100mp medium format cameras can supply but haven't cottoned on to this fact and also that the files they are getting are in fact created via the likes of resize etc.

I was contacted by such a company to supply images and pointed this out to them but they are so thick they didn't understand this fact.
When I gave them a link to said new 100mp sensor and that this was lower than their requirements they sent me back a reply saying they could help me if I recontacted them.
I didn't bother as having given them the info they requested and then getting back this reply I realised how stupid they are.
 
retrosi said:
Hmm sk66 not so sure about your comment if it looks good on your monitor it will look good displayed/printed at *any size* even though you qualify by saying to be viewed at a larger distance etc.
I work for a printers, Extra Large digital in Gosport, we print up to 5 metres wide and 50 metres long in one go if needed.
Click to expand...
With the advent of digital, billboards were printed from 10MB (or less) files... Note that I said "good," and that's for standard requirements where the image is viewed at the same relative size. But, I agree that if you have a higher requirement (i.e. fine art) then you need to apply a different COC/resolution standard.
That said, you can't get something from nothing... IMO, just letting the printer/shop interpolate the image generates as good/better results than most will get doing it themselves with basic/standard programs.
retrosi said:
As an absolute minimum 150dpi viewed from any sensible distance (not say 500 yards) I mean where you can at least see some of the detail, not the finest but most of it, then 150 dpi is needed from the file to begin with.
Click to expand...
BTW, that would be PPI...
retrosi said:
There are some companies that expect ultra high res files to be supplied that not even the new 100mp medium format cameras can supply but haven't cottoned on to this fact and also that the files they are getting are in fact created via the likes of resize etc.
Click to expand...
I've had clients put forth such requirements... sometimes they will specify a file size in MB instead of a resolution, or request something like 50MP for use at less than 24". I've never been successful at "educating" such clients...
 
Last edited:
Getting my dpi mixed with ppi but dpi viewed when printed comes from ppi viewed via the monitor of course.

As an absolute minimum 150dpi viewed from any sensible distance (not say 500 yards) I mean where you can at least see some of the detail, not the finest but most of it, then 150 dpi is needed from the file to begin with.
BTW, that would be PPI...

So were both half right and half wrong...
 
retrosi said:
Hmm sk66 not so sure about your comment if it looks good on your monitor it will look good displayed/printed at *any size* even though you qualify by saying to be viewed at a larger distance etc.
I work for a printers, Extra Large digital in Gosport, we print up to 5 metres wide and 50 metres long in one go if needed.
Our bread and butter is 3.2 mtrs by 2 mtrs though. Of which we regularly get art work, ie a jpeg or tiff at some rubbish size which looks good on screen but prints rubbish because it has too low a resolution.
As an absolute minimum 150dpi viewed from any sensible distance (not say 500 yards) I mean where you can at least see some of the detail, not the finest but most of it, then 150 dpi is needed from the file to begin with.
Should your photo contain a landscape and not a building then you can drop this to 72dpi as the subject helps to soften edges.
Of course I will accept this is subjective to each persons own eyes, but from a generally acceptable level not those that have very low standards what I have mentioned has become fairly norm in the print industry regards the large format side of things.
We do have some clients that send us absolute rubbish and still expect fantastic results though and also there are those that simply don't care.
The interpolation of some software has become extremely good and often is our only way forward when supplied with some low res files.

There are some companies that expect ultra high res files to be supplied that not even the new 100mp medium format cameras can supply but haven't cottoned on to this fact and also that the files they are getting are in fact created via the likes of resize etc.

I was contacted by such a company to supply images and pointed this out to them but they are so thick they didn't understand this fact.
When I gave them a link to said new 100mp sensor and that this was lower than their requirements they sent me back a reply saying they could help me if I recontacted them.
I didn't bother as having given them the info they requested and then getting back this reply I realised how stupid they are.
Click to expand...

Just a suggestion, if you are going to call potential customers thick, you may want to remove your companies details. You never know who maybe reading (y)
 
Good point but sometimes it wastes our time more often than not and our sales team are as bad with wasting our time and therefore money. I just get angry when the boss says there's no pay rise for the 3rd year running. To such an extent that if the national minimum wage goes up accordingly to get to the £9 by 2020 I will in fact be on it, the minimum, as of next year as it catches me up.
The only way I make ends meet is by my freelance photography.
But none the less Swanseajack a fair point.
 
People answering NO should also state they mean NO for them... Either that or they live in a blinkered world and don't understand that everyones needs are different..


Yes megapixels are important if you need them and NO they are not if you don't :) and thats the same answer for any other aspect of a camera.


I lot of my photogrpahy will be on a prime 400mm lens with a full frame camera... so I can't zoom in to a subject and sometimes the subject can be 80% or 20% of the picture... the more mega pixels I have the more I can zoom in afterwards and the bigger prints i can get from smaller crops.. So for me the answer is YES ..It may not be the most important aspect but it is definitely better to have more in my line of work.. The difference between 18 and 24 mp for me is great..

Post made on behalf of the Bleeding Obvious party....

:)

AS for printing.. please.. All those charts with x mp=AxB prints haha Again it depends what you want the print for.. Take a look at the pic below.. thats a JPG file saved at 90% (just over 1mb) and is 2300 pixels at longest edge...it looks great.... anyone going into accrington.. go to the football club its there...(this picture of the pic is taken on a camera phone of my wife in front of it and shes about 5ft nothing)... seriously looks good and at that size for that small file :) yet according to the charts i shouldnt be making bigger than 7 inch :) as i say.. its a big world.. we all have different needs and those charts might be good for gallery quality prints selling for hundreds of pounds.. but..

My point is... different strokes for different folks.. dont believe anyone who says YES or NO to a question on photogrpahy :)


bigbilly.jpg
 
KIPAX said:
<snip>
AS for printing.. please.. All those charts with x mp=AxB prints haha <snip>
Click to expand...

Yes, (almost completely) irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top