How Many Mega Pixels?

[willie_901]

I stumbled upon an interesting article regarding the practical utility high sensor megapixel counts.

The author stresses the role of viewing distance in the minimum number of pixels required for relatively large prints as well as for evaluating resolution and perceived sharpness on computer screens.

So post-production cropping aside, how important are megapixels to your work? In your experience, what's the minimum (or maximum) acceptable MP count for a sensor?

 

[noimmunity]

One more reason to see APS-C as a "sweet spot" for general digital application.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Gid]

You can't sell new cameras with reality.

How very true.

Part of the problem may be that some people associate MP with personal standing or the ability to crop to make up for either lack of skill or lack of lenses. 😛

Coincidentally, I was looking, this evening, at a number of A3 (15 x 10 inch approx) prints taken with 5MP, 6MP, 10MP and 21MP cameras and although I know which is which, there is really no difference between them - similar, but not the same subject matter. About four feet in front of me is a 40 x 30 inch (approx) canvas print of a shot taken with a Fuji X100 (only 12 MP 😱) that is perfectly acceptable IMO (my wife took the shot not me). I've seen very good two page spreads taken with a D2H (4MP 😱😱). So I would agree that you don't need a gazillion MP particularly if you just view on screen.

 

[Mcary]

Not very important! The way I look at it the 10.9 MP of my Leica M8 meet my needs very nicely as they allow me do 10x15 inch prints at approx 254 PPI and 12x18 at 215 PPI, so I feel no reason to get a higher MP camera until my current camera stops working at which time I'll likely get an M with a 24 MP sensor

 

[Paddy C]

Frankly, these sort of articles (which appear from time to time) are quite pointless.

How many mega-pixels you need depends a lot on what you are doing and what will be done with your images.

Is 16mp enough? Enough for what? It isn't enough if you want to carry a double page spread in a coffee-table sized art book that's being printed with a stochastic screen where image files can benefit from being 400ppi.

Sorry but I don't want files from your 16mp 4/3rds camera in this case.

But for hobbyists/non-pros, yes 16mp is quite enough.

It's so funny when someone says "I don't need more mp, I've made great 60" x 40" prints from my old 10mp Nikon!". I'm sure they are great. If you don't know what a good print looks like and if you are never getting closer than a 10' viewing distance.

A strange thing happens in galleries and museums—people actually move closer sometimes to look at the detail. 😱

 

[Pioneer]

More megapixels always sells. For the same reason that ultra large format still exists.

It is the same with horsepower. Someone always wants more.

 

[RichC]

More megapixels please! My 36MP Nikon D800E has barely enough resolution and sharpness for my needs...

Recent print sizes have included A0 (1.2 m, 47 inch), and while this size is acceptable it's at the limit - I can see a definite degradation in quality even with careful postproduction and resampling compared with A1 (0.8 m, 33 inch) prints, which I consider the outer edge of optimum (220 ppi prints with no resampling) for this camera.

If the image quality of the new Canon 50MP camera matches my Nikon, I'll trade in the D800E. Ideally I'd like an 80MP digital back, but it's unaffordable.

There's a huge flaw with the argument that as the viewing distance increases for large prints, less resolution is needed for a print to appear sharp: even if the print is huge, everyone will go up close! Everyone does this - you can see them at your local museum, looking at a painting from afar, then going right up to it, then backing away... So, the article in the OP's post is incorrect unless you fence off your large print to stop people going up close!

Of course, you may not make large prints, or consider the loss in sharpness if your print resolution drops below 200 ppi or so to be acceptable.

(Note: Most cameras are about 20MP, which will give you pin-sharp A3 (0.6 m, 23 inch) prints, but larger prints will visibly lose quality.)

 

[Corran]

If by "sensor" you mean 4x5 film, my answer is about 175mp.

Anyway, every megapixel is not created equal.

 

[daveleo]

Well, if you need to print 12"x18" pictures at 300ppi, that gets you just about 20Mp.
If you can live with 250ppi on the print, that would be 13.5Mp.
From my personal printing experience at 12X18, 16Mp is more than fine.
Now..... how big do the pixels need to be? .... good question.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I like a print sharp enough you can bring it right up close.

I've made 20x30 that work very well from 12 MPx (Nikon D300).

There's something about the quality of the pixels. All that said, more MPx helps. I do a stitch for architectural and panoramas.

 

[Pablito]

The more the better, baby.

For my last exhibition I printed really big. What a luxury it was to work with those 36mp files.

 

[JChrome]

As others have said, it really only matters in post or printing.

What I would like to defend though is the everyday use of high mp cameras. I always tell friends, "sure many of your images on the net can be taken with an iPhone. But what if you get that once in a lifetime image?"

If you really got a once in a lifetime image that you were dying to print really large and you shot it with a 16mbp sensor.. You'd be upset.

Will I get the photo of my dreams tomorrow? Probably not. But maybe. That's why I'll either shoot it with a 6x9 or 4x5 🙂.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Depends on your print size.

Flatbed scanned 35mm film = about 4 mp with a P&S. Everything we have in digital is light years better..at least with res. But film has a timeless look I prefer. Prob with film is the time needed to deal with it.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

For me something around 24 mp crop or FF is good. I get nice shots with a 16mp Fuji X. But I only make prints up to 11 x 14 or so.

 

[JoeV]

Dynamic range and haptics are more important to me.

~Joe

 

[Pioneer]

As others have said, it really only matters in post or printing.

What I would like to defend though is the everyday use of high mp cameras. I always tell friends, "sure many of your images on the net can be taken with an iPhone. But what if you get that once in a lifetime image?"

If you really got a once in a lifetime image that you were dying to print really large and you shot it with a 16mbp sensor.. You'd be upset.

Will I get the photo of my dreams tomorrow? Probably not. But maybe. That's why I'll either shoot it with a 6x9 or 4x5 🙂.

If everyone followed that logic the 35mm would have been born dead and everyone would have an 8x10 folder with them.

I was not aware that the ability to print big is one of the prerequisites for iconic and amazing pictures.

 

[JChrome]

I was not aware that the ability to print big is one of the prerequisites for iconic and amazing pictures.

I never said nor implied anything to that effect. I said, if* I take an amazing photo then I want it to be with a 6x9 or larger.

You can take great photos with anything, including your iPhone.

 

[newspaperguy]

Gee... Should i be concerned that I'm so satisfied with my three 5mp antiques?

 

[RichC]

Gee... Should i be concerned that I'm so satisfied with my three 5mp antiques?

If you don't print larger than 12 inches/30 cm, no...

 

[David Hughes]

Wow, I do love the logic of these once in a lifetime arguments.

So I shouldn't by a bicycle because one day I may have to escape from a tsunami, I shouldn't diet because one day I might have to survive three weeks in the Atlantic in a lifeboat, I shouldn't got to church because one day ISIS will over run the country, I shouldn't vote because one day... And so on and so forth. None of it makes sense in the real world.

As I see it, buy a 10 x 8 for posters and bigger for billboards. Not a P&S. It's just horses for courses, or the right tool for the job; that's not going to strain anyone's brain is it?.

Regards, David

 

[Gid]

If you don't print larger than 12 inches/30 cm, no...

Clearly your standards are much higher than mine - probably not a bad thing😉.

I have printed a crop from a 5MP camera that was effectively an A2 sized print and sharp. I saw an exhibition by a photographer in our local library last year that had some very good A4 and A3 prints from a bridge camera with a 1/1.7 sensor - and you could go right up close and see the detail. Alex Majoli was doing work for National Geographic with a pair of small sensor Olympus cameras and so on ................

If printing very large with amazing detail is your USP, then the more the better, but there is plenty of good work that has been done and will continue to be done with relatively low MP cameras.