Do You Need High Resolution Photos?

[@cdavey7654]

One of the better videos I’ve seen on this topic, thank you. I shoot landscape with the a7RIV (61MP), and if I come across an amazing scene (and if time and conditions allow) I will often actually shoot a pano which ends up often being over 200 megapixels. I want to be able to print really big and still have some decent detail in image for closer viewing distances. Of course the crop-ability factor is a big deal too, as that gives more options. So for landscape I’d argue that it’s more important to to have high res photos than something like weddings and portraits, as those photos are rarely ever going to be printed super large (though there is still some advantage in cropping, but that is less required if using the correct lens and have good composition in the first place). I’m curious to see if the upcoming a7RVI will be higher MP and/or just same MP but maybe either a faster sensor or better performance in low light. Either way would be a nice update. But for me it would be nice to have a ~100MP or higher body… Of course there are practical limits with sensor size also, if the pixel pitch gets so small you are dealing with bad diffraction even at f/7 or f/8 then one might be better off with just a larger sensor (medium format etc.) camera.

[@Christellezphoto]

I’m very curious what the next 12-18 months will bring in cameras. I think there’s a lot on the horizon!

[@comeraczy2483]

Excellent video, thanks. Maybe an additional point: higher resolution sensors don't need an anti aliasing filter and this can be really noticeable. When I switched from the canon 5d iv to the sony a7 iv, going from 30MP with an AA filter, to 33MP without the AA filter, using the exact same lenses (with an adapter) I was surprised by the difference. As a side note, regarding the low light performances of lower MP, it is worth noting that the sony a7s III does have a 48MP sensor.

[@Christellezphoto]

Yeah the AA filter is a big deal for sure! Thanks for the reminder on that one! I was under the impression that the A7Siii was a 12mp sensor though, no?

[@comeraczy2483]

@@Christellezphoto it is a 48MP sensor with a 2x2 bin mode. Sony could have released that camera with an option to unlock the binning mode and turn it into a fantastic 48MP photography beast. But of course, that would have killed the A7R line, and hurt the A7IV as well. Market segmentation is key to profit.

[@smc1377]

PPI is just a reference number, not a measure of resolution. Your resolution is set. If your photo is 3000x2000 pixels, your ppi can be 10ppi or 1000ppi, but your resolution is still 3000x2000 which is 6mp. The ppi is merely telling whatever that's displaying the photo to cram a certain amount of pixels per inch. So in the image example above, if your ppi is 10, then your image will appear to be 300 inches by 200 inches. And if the PPI is 1000, it would display at 3 inch by 2 inch. Your EFFECTIVE resolution on your screen changes depending on your screen and the amount of pixels it can display per inch, but the image will ALWAYS have the same 3000x2000 resolution irregardless of the PPI. All the PPI does is tell the browser or the whatever to display X amount of pixels per inch. You can go into photoshop and change the PPI to 1000 or 10, and your image still has the same exact resolution when you zoom in/out to matching physical dimensions on your monitor. And likewise, your printer will print the same exact resolution if you were to print it at the same physical size print.

[@Christellezphoto]

Yes! Definitely! The portion surrounding PPI is more of a reference in regards to what certain monitors PPI values are, as in, what their manufacturers rate them at, and how we don’t actually have control over which screen outcomes are viewed on. I understand that the image resolution itself never changes, but the screen resolution varies, which is why I high resolution photo doesn’t always matter. I probably should have made that more clear! Thanks for that, I’ll pin this comment :)

[@snowhite1qazse4]

Why do we still need to talk about this stuff?? Of course we need it or someone needs it, that's why it was created by manufacturer base on emerging demands from innovations. For us, it's a personal choice. I mean, look i'm just a hobbyist and not a pro, but I shoot 100 megapixels. Overkill?? To me, no. It's my choice. This topic is useless because it is not about "Do you need high resolution Photos?", but about personal choice & budget. Hell yeah, you can shoot 16 megapixel for landscape and print large, if you dont have the budget. Doesn't matter

[@z352kdaf8324]

Right! He should go back to 2003 digital 1 to 3 MP cameras.

[@robmcd]

The Canon R5 has a significantly faster read out than the R6.

[@Christellezphoto]

Fact!

[@BelvalkarArtStudio]

Nice colours

[@TaylorJacksonPhoto]

How many megapixels is the iPhone 3Gs? It's what I've been doing most of my client work with lately

[@Christellezphoto]

I think that requires a fraction or a decimal point

[@naga2015kk]

ricoh fan boys are foaming on the mouth at the title.

[@june_yah]

It's not lunch time. I had some leftovers for breakfast though.

[@radshoesbro]

Quick question that you might be able to help with. I do mainly concert photography and have been using the A7iii for years due to its low light performance. I’ve read that on the A7RV you can actually select to shoot at a lower MP. Have you used this lower MP mode to shoot low light and if so how does it compare to the A7 IV? I ask because I’m probably going to upgrade my body in 2025 and it would be between the A7RV and the A7V whenever it eventually drops.

[@Christellezphoto]

Yeah I don’t talk about the lowlight performance of the crop mode in my APS-C Crop video I mentioned, I probably should have! But it’s basically the same as the A7RV, which is solid. I don’t know that I can say it’s better or worse than the A7iii because I didn’t shoot that camera much, but I imagine the A7iii might be a little cleaner. Personally I would wait for the A7V for concert photography because I’m not sure you’d need the megapixels, but I think it’s going to have a ton of great features borrowed from the A7RV, plus better low light and rolling shutter. That’s my prediction, the Sony reps won’t tell me anything haha

[@Jnewtonwright]

I have an A7r4. This has been explained very well.

[@izustun9851]

I think 20-30mp is enough

[@A1ko_]

no but my clients do

[@Christellezphoto]

That is the right answer 👌🏽

[@phillippugh2161]

Long story short you paid for a s7rv when you could have saved money by buying the a7iv just saying don't get cought up in the marketing hype 24mp is plenty remembered we used to use film an still posted on billboard

[@Christellezphoto]

I went with the A7RV for the ability to jump between full frame and crop mode at the same MP count, the multi articulating screen, the better EVF, the updated Autofocus, 4k60p without the massive crop, the better ergonomics, the higher temp threshold AND because I was able to secure it at the same price as an A7IV. Hope that helps :)

[@phillippugh2161]

@Christellezphoto that's a big update from my old a7ii haha I'm actually looking at a used a9 mark 1 . Happy shooting. FYI the bigger battery and grip might be worth it alone