How many MEGAPIXELS is too many?

[@simon_dentremont]

What’s your favorite low MP/big pixel camera? I have a friend with the 21 MP Nikon D5 and the files are gorgeous.

[@ahmedmaish1485]

I First Used a 12.1 MP Camera (Nikon d5000) Now it's with a Family Member. Currently I'm Using a 24.1 MP Camera (Canon Eos 1500d).

[@MaciejPawlaczyk]

I recently switched from a Canon 40d, which is my first camera. It was 10MP and I had a lot of fun working with it. Some time ago I bought a Canon 90D which has 32MP and I also bought a Tamron 150-600mm G2, I am very happy with it.

[@dw.in.michigan]

I shoot 24mp Nikon D600 and 24MP Nikon D5300 (astro-modified with L-Enhance filter). Since one is modified and the other one not, I haven't done any comparisons to determine how the higher pixel pitch of my full frame might give me a better image than the lower pixel pitch of my crop body, but I doubt I'll see much practical difference. I'm colorblind, so what my eyes might interpret as a difference in noise, might just be a color shift due to the filter, if I was to even try to compare the two.

[@michalkubecek]

To be honest, pixel count was never a parameter I would care about much. I really loved my Canon 7D I've been using for 11 years, back in the time it was a camera with very few compromises (except for the APS-C sensor, of course), just taking it in your hands felt quite different than the entry level 400D and the overall ergonomics was great. Now I upgraded to R6 Mark II, mostly expecting better low light performance and more precise and reliable autofocus (plus features like subject/eye detection and tracking), and it gave me exactly that and few more handy features. But I suspect I could be just as happy with any other today's camera of similar class once I would get familiar with it.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

I've been using a Sony a7siii for 2+ years now. I love the small file sizes for photo, and the high-quality video. Don't love the battery life, which is half that of my old a7iii, using the same type of battery.

[@kavau4144]

I want you to be my dad. I lost mine 5 years ago, but you remind me of him so much. I miss him. Thank you for being you and warming my heart.

[@simon_dentremont]

Too kind

[@stubones]

21mp was considered more than sufficient a decade ago. Nothing has changed. 99% of images are viewed on a monitor so mega megapixels is really overkill. Even cropping down to 4mp will still be more sufficient for online viewing. Very very few people make prints, let alone huge ones.

[@simon_dentremont]

I basically say same here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipnTgoqehMt-hZYsi=BK9OUksUdnfWYop9

[@LtDeadeye]

This is true but I’d sure hate to take that once in a lifetime photo that I can’t print giant due to lack of resolution.

[@fricki1997]

Not even a monitor - most takes place on smartphone screens nowadays

[@JACKnJESUS]

Yes...hobbyists needn't change cameras because of this video...though this content is quite accurate. If you are a professional and/or live by your prints...ignore at your own peril. Of course the same would go for contests...the photographer with the higher MP modern sensor goes into any contest...with an edge...a real edge.

[@leric4205]

@@LtDeadeye A une époque, je possédais un boitier Olympus micro quatre tiers de 16 millions de pixels , j'ai fais des agrandissements de 80X60 cm et je peux affirmer qu'on ne voit aucun pixel tout en ayant son nez sur la photo ;) At one time, I owned an Olympus micro four-thirds camera of 16 million pixels, I made enlargements of 80X60 cm and I can say that we do not see any pixel while having his nose on the photo ;)

[@ppBizU]

Recently you are really putting the cat among the pigeons. I like it, keep doing it!

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks, will do!

[@romansivers]

To be honest, for a hobbyist I struggle to see a *practical* need for a camera over 12MP. I’ve printed canvas prints from a *cropped* image of a 10MP camera, I printed human sized posters from a heavy crop of a 24MP camera (likely 1/5 of an original image remained) - they all turned out great. I have a 36MP camera, a few 24MP, a 16MP, a few 12MP, and a 10MP. Which camera is used the most? A D3 with its 12MP. I guess if your clients or stock agencies demand high MP then fine… But my view that in practical everyday use a good glass is far, far more important that any megapixels. Cheers! As always, great video, Simon!

[@paularger2841]

I think you’re right about a good lens being worth more than a high pixel count. I have an old 6.1 MP Pentax. I have 6 lenses but only really use the 3 primes I have - all Pentax M series. They render much nicer images than the zooms I have.

[@omegaman1409]

I have two Nikon D700s 12mp is just fine. It is more dependent on the glass quality. The only caviar is the cropping but with the right framing it is not a deal breaker.

[@SteveHorne]

Found you by accident, but I watch every episode now, just to hear you say "My name is Simon d'Entremont"

[@PizzlesTechTime]

I do find from 20 to 40 megapixels a big difference. The detail and ability to crop my images has doubled. Although I'm not making prints or cropping that much.

[@TechnoBabble]

Technically doubling your pixel count only increases your ability to crop, and keep the same resolution as the lower pixel count camera, by ~40%

[@PizzlesTechTime]

@@TechnoBabble Yes I understood that from the video but my mind is backwards lol. It was the increase in resolution that makes the biggest difference most likely. I went from micro 4/3 6K sensor to full frame 8K sensor.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

That makes no sense at all! If you double the number of pixels and it increases your ability to crop without a reduction in resolution it means the overall resoultion of the sensor has increased.

[@PizzlesTechTime]

@@chrisantoniou4366 I commented this at the beginning of the video before learning lol. Simon liked my comment so I leave it

[@emadaram9640]

in a video, Simon explains and proves that the difference between MP rates is not an issue.

[@neilcousineau4956]

Big smile on my face. I shoot with a 20mp camera and I have never had an issue with noise in my “printed” photos. Even my wall mounted 24x36 photo came out great. And biggest benefit my gear cost 50% less and is probably 50% lighter than full frame. Again another great video.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

There's no free lunch. There are small, light, cheap FF lenses, and they perform the same as small, light, cheap Olympus and Fujinon lenses.

[@xcruell]

I got a 30,3mp camera and i never had any problems either. It's all about the editing and especially looking (zooming) into the details to see the pixels, instead of looking at a 6000x4000 picture on your 1080/1440p screen xd.

[@johnsheehy4192]

@@aliendroneservices6621 Yes, it is really all about the glass, as far as noise, DOF, and diffraction are concerned. You do not get the vaunted "FF low light sensitivity" with a small-pupil lens. You simply have the option to have lenses with larger pupils when you have larger sensors, and want to shoot at wide angles, because they don't exist for smaller sensors. The lowest theoretical f-number for glass and air is f/0.5. The lowest we actually see is f/0.7, and if such a lens is reasonable sharp wide open, it probably costs as much as a Porsche. f/0.9 is where we start to see somewhat affordable lenses, and it gets much easier by f/1.2 or f/1.4. For narrower angles of view, there are no disadvantages to smaller sensors, per se. The Nikon P1000, for example, with its 5.57x crop sensor has a lens that is 539/8 at max zoom, which has a bigger pupil than than some popular zooms used on FF cameras, like the Canon RF600/11, or the Canon RF00-400/5.6-8. The P1000 has a 67mm pupil, the 600/11 has a 55mm pupil, and the 100-400, a 50mm pupil. Of course, if one person with a Canon R6 and the RF100-400 was shooting the same small, distant subject as someone right next to them with a P1000, with the same shutter speed, and both shoot wide open, the P1000 will have less noise, and more background blur. It might not seem that way, if the results are viewed at 100%, but that is not how you should compare the same subject with two different pixel counts. If you normalize them to be presented at the same subject size, then the P1000 should be better in every way, assuming focus and stability. The P1000 will likely have no visible trace of aliasing at all, while the R6 will have clear color aliasing in the raw data, even if converters mute it. Zoom the P1000 out to the wide end, though, and now it can't compete with any FF, unless the FF was stopping a lens way down for increased DOF at the same angle of view, because it is equivalent to 24/16. It's really about subject size, distance to subject vs distance to background, and pupil size (during exposure), that determines the foundational visible imaging parameters of a normalized subject. ISOs, sensor sizes, and f-numbers have no direct, absolute meaning without a well-defined context.

[@TheSerialHobbyistGirl]

Here you are conflating pixel count and sensor size. Once you go from full frame to a cropped sense the image quality changes in favor in the full frame camera, even if the pixel count is the same or higher. And I say this as a micro four thirds user. The Canon R5 and the R6 are both full frame cameras.

[@realyopikechannel]

sensor size ≠ megapixel count.

[@sharvo6]

Saw your honorable mention for the 2023 Canadian Wildlife photography of the Year, congratulations!

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks!

[@alanatwood7995]

I love photographers who stir the pot. It gets you to think about a subject creatively. Im really only starting the journey and when I did finally took the "big plunge " I got a 12 mp Canon. By today's standards it's not a 45 mp monster. What I discovered after getting a Nikon D7100 is my favorite camera is the one in my hand. I dispensed with all the mp iso shutter speed dynamic range blah blah blah and started focusing on learning from each trip into the woods and work on just composition. Being an old film guy I understood the arguments for each but it occurred to me the wisdom of a fellow photographer was true. It doesn't really matter what camera I use as long as I learn from every frame I shoot. In the end I learned to work on my weakest point. I'm still learning and I'm not sure my shots are National Geographic quality but I am improving. It's just a very slow process and some days painful. Great videos here!!! Thank you.

[@SP-ll8nv]

Having experience in semiconductor technology , you are spot on in your explanation especially when you make the very important point of the comparing sensors of the same generation. Most of the explanations I have heard on KZbin are absolutely wrong in this regard as they disregard the simple fact that older generations of semiconductors were produced using older techniques which produced less sensitive devices with higher noise thresholds. Keep up the good work!

[@simon_dentremont]

Love getting feedback from people in the industry!

[@dog4mike]

Your last comment about just going out and getting some photos is probably the best bit of advice one could give. A few years ago I sold all my large full-frame gear and went with an APSC setup. They all said I was mad! I had been a working photographer but the pandemic killed that off. So I took it as the chance to focus on personal projects, which demanded lighter gear and more flexibility. I knew there would be quality compromises, and... there were, a little. But what I gained was a lighter backpack and a lot more money in my pocket to get out there. The net gain was more photos, more practice, more ways to create. Ultimately, I found new genres and interests, for which the smaller camera is far superior. So glad I didn't follow all the "bigger is better" voices!

[@dedclownsRfunny]

In my short experience as an amateur photographer, it seems to me that so many FF gear users (of any brand) tend to get lazy 🤷‍♀️

[@nathanas64]

This is the best channel on photography. The explanations are clear and the presentation is pleasant and entertaining !

[@jasongold6751]

A miracle! Truth! I use small sensor cameras since 2001, as I began in Digital. I made 20x30cm prints from my Pentax Optio 3,5 mp.. I could go slightly bigger. As my small cameras improved, so did the look! With new technology we don't need those crazy high numbers. I don't know anyone making large prints except in galleries! Big is not better! Big is boring! Your images are so beautiful. Stunning! I love small cameras, my age79, my health, heart but I try a walk every day and snap! I was atop pro, but now I am a kid again, but slow! Merci Bien! Bravo.

[@workhousecoffee]

Man you explain things so clearly and simply. Honestly I would never show you my photo is they horrific but I think my understanding is higher thanks to your posts

[@neurologistFACP]

Brilliant, Simon! I have been watching your videos over the past year and I believe they are great in terms of simplicity, flow of information, language, and above all, your approach respects its audience. I started doing photography in 1985/86 using Nikon F301. I find your way of delivering the information is very viewer-friendly. By the way, I'm a neurologist! Wish you all the very best from Iraq!

[@thomaswentworth6433]

Since watching Simon's programmes on ISO I have now put ISO in the hands of my camera. I'm not so afraid of ensuring my ISO isnas lownas possible anymore as I have become way more aware of how to create the correct exposure for whatever scene I'm shooting. These 2 programmes were one of the biggest eye-openers yet and I have vwatched a hell of a lot of different photographers on YT and nonone has ever explained ISO like Simon. 👏👏🙏

[@carlomaule]

Hi Simon as with any video, I can only congratulate you for all the explanations. Sometimes I find myself explaining the same things to those who compare the smartphone to the real camera, actually demonstrating that they don't know anything about it! Difference in sensor size and megapixel size make the difference! 50'000 mpx smartphone will never be comparable to an 18 mpx of a real camera

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks very kindly!

[@NotAnotherChannel_Channel]

Great description as always, Simon. You hit the nail on the head. I’ve always viewed these sensor types this way: - lower megapixel for higher readout speeds for video, sports, and wildlife - higher megapixel for higher resolution for cropping, landscape, and portraiture Every camera/sensor combo was engineered for a range of end-uses in mind. Doesn’t mean they can’t be used interchangeably, it just means their design will deliver the peak performance when used to their relative strengths. There’s not one that is superior to another. I try to keep using them with these use cases in mind and I’ve never been happier.

[@uwetrenkner9716]

Totally agreed. I use my Fuji x-h2s with 24MPix if it comes to speed for ballet dancer shots. And the x-t5 with 40MPix for day by day shots. Know the strength of your tools.

[@FART-REPELLENT]

I have known many people who say 'higher resolution for portraits'; I disagree because a head & shoulder portrait shot on a higher resolution camera would result in skin blemishes becoming very visible, thus necessitating the need for lots of post shoot editing. Whereas a portrait shot on a lower resolution camera won't have the above problem. Landscape and Macro Photography are where high resolution is required.

[@petermcginty3636]

I use an OM-5 with 20m and i love it. To me stabilisation is very important and Olympus/OM System stabilisation is very good. The OM-5 is lightweight and it has enough features for my use. The range of lenses is more than enough for me. When people look at your photos in a photobook, they may ask about what camera you use, not not about megapixels.

[@davidtaranzaphotography3324]

And those who understand, would rarely ask about what camera you use. If the photos are good, the camera doesn't matter. Would you ask a chef in a restaurant what knife or frying pan does he use?

[@wateaman]

I like the ability to crop with a high pixel count camera. Most bird photographers crop their images, sometimes extensively. Not unusual for 30 meg photo to end up being under 1 or 2 megs before sharing on a birding Facebook forum. Birds of prey often like privacy and won't allow a photographer to get in close. Stopped using a Canon 5D Mk2 and use a Sony A7R3 for this reason. Saving for a Sony A7R5.

[@Hulkracer]

The Knowledge of what all the settings and how to use it perfectly is always helpful, especially for someone new to photography like me

[@Wurstkiste]

For a beginner or ambitious hobby photographer, this is more of an academic challenge, even if your explanations are correct! The subject of the lens (glass) is more important than the question of sensor size or megapixels in current cameras. Many base their budget on megapixels or sensor size and then buy a cheap lens. Mistake! That has to fit. And if it fits, 20~24 megapixels are enough for everything. Unless you want to count blood cells. Greetings from Bavaria

[@simon_dentremont]

Agree! Good glass is a better investment

[@alanm.6096]

This quote from a camera reviewer pretty well sums up some of the keywords: sometimes you have to cut through the hype... "The crucial caveat here is that although the optical variations between our test cameras were very easy to spot in the critical environment (with fixed shooting parameters) of our studio, they are all but unnoticeable in 'real-world' images shot at a range of focal lengths and subject distances" In the end, expensive cameras have something in common with cheaper cameras: they are both capable of making mediocre compositions.

[@shawndonnelly862]

One of jobs where I work is to photograph tiny images from our old black and white publications like yearbooks from the early 1900’s. I restore them as best I can, then enlarge them for printing. For that I use a 50mp 5dsr. It really works well for enlarging. For everything else I use my 23mp R3. 23 mp is more than enough for almost anything else.

[@stuartcarden1371]

Really good video! I've recently started using a Canon 5D (mk1) I'm amazed at the pictures it can produce. Yes, it doesn't have the conveniences of modern cameras and for many people 12mp won't be enough, but when you boil it all down the 5D is simply an excellent camera; even after 18 years.

[@msa4548]

I rented a Canon R, most people are still saying that it's too old and outdated technology. The pictures I got from it were much better than I had hoped for. With the price drop on it I'll probably be buying one soon.

[@michalkubecek]

It's certainly a good option for someone who has to care about the price. The availability can be a problem, though, the shops around here do not seem to offer Canon R any more. But you can still get a (new) RP for half the price of R8 which is really interesting. Or look for a used one which may be even cheaper.

[@johnmcdevitt4750]

Simon, I appreciate your thoughtful approach in addressing comments to no end and I'm thoroughly enjoying this video format. Your channel consistently has new and useful information you can't find elsewhere and your videos have been instrumental to my journey in photography. Thank you for another great entry.

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@stevetqp9152]

Interesting video, Simon! Though I would agree with you...IF the typical photographer is not making large prints and only posting to social media, a "low" megapixel camera is all one needs. However, if the user is more advanced, does frequent cropping, makes high image detail a priority, and prints very large, then the advantages of a higher megapixel are clear. Since I print 30" x 40" regularly, I went from a 16MP APS-C system to a 45 MP FF system, and haven't looked back. Image sharpness and resolution vastly improved (and the lower megapixel images were still good...they just couldn't quite compete with the combination of a larger sensor and more megapixels...especially in very large prints. Thanks again!

[@TheJ_G]

Once again, this channel has some of the most direct and useful knowledge towards improving work with cameras. Every time I stop by to watch another video I’m amazed at how clear, accurate, and informative you are with this stuff in a world that is bloated with a lot of useless or misguided information.

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad to help!

[@arifkizilay]

Yes, I will be looking forward to that video; thank you.

[@vzshadow1]

Simon, this year I sold my Nikon D780 and I bought two cameras. A Nikon Z8, an absolutely fantastic camera for almost any purpose. The other was a 15 year-old Nikon D700 full frame 12 megapixel beauty with a relatively low shutter count for $364. I got the latter to test whether a 12 megapixel camera is capable of fantastic images. I find that for pretty much anything but wildlife it is marvelous, as long as your aren't cropping too much.

[@johnrpittenger]

Wow thank you for saying more megapixels is better! I get so tired of everyone saying lower is better. In the future when everyone has 8k or 12k monitors even video will be better with higher megapixels.

[@varminta9899]

As an Nikon/Canon shooter this video brings back so many memories. I had the D800 and the 5dmk3. The debates on social media was out of hand. The canon shooters yelling about how bad the iso performance will be. And the nikon shooters said basically what you're saying. Back then Canon had problems with DR making them fall behind Sony sensors. Today is different, the Canon sensors has caught up and some more. Great video! I know a great deal about photography. And I'm very impressed by the way you explain. It's very pedagogical

[@miheerporadiya]

This is the same reason smartphones were stuck on 12 mp for quite some time but now we're seeing upto 108 mp sensors cause processing power has improved significantly to read and stack multiple exposures...

[@stevenbamford5245]

108 mp on a sensor 1cm across is just a marketing gimmick, phone images are completely computational.

[@KevinNordstrom]

It's not a true 108 megapixels. That's impossible for the size of a Smart phone sensor. Like others have said, it's a big marketing ploy.

[@EmilWall]

Great summary! I don't think what you're saying is controversial at all, it's just facts. :) The main problem with high megapixel sensors (with regards to image quality) is when people don't have the proper post-processing skills so they crop too much and are ignorant when it comes to noise reduction.

[@dumodude]

Well done, Simon. I bought my Sony A7III instead of the A7IIIR for several of the reasons you cover, but the 2 primary drivers were 1) I rarely print larger than 8X10 for viewing at about 18" and 20 megapixels is more than enough resolution for that, and 2) I crop minimally. I don't do landscapes frequently, but when I do my preference is certainly glass over cropping. I have the perception (perhaps content for a future video -- you're welcome!) that image quality is better using the appropriate telephoto lens on a smaller sensor than it is for a lower focal length lens on a larger sensor that's then cropped to the same image to match the first.

[@goreallyspeed4819]

I'm sure the cost difference was a big driver also 😄

[@dw.in.michigan]

I've known about and understood the advantage of higher pixel pitch with lower megapixel cameras, for low light, or specifically, astrophotography (I mention the distinction because Tony Northrup makes a compelling case that lower megapixel doesn't affect low light images, but his premise lacks certain specifics that you delineate, chiefly low light vs astro - single vs multiple). What I've never heard, though, even from someone like Nico Carver, is how lower megapixel also helps with less overheating of the sensor. That helps to complete the equation for me, since astrophotography often involves multiple long exposures shot in succession. Perhaps Nico Carver or Alyn Wallace have talked about that part of the equation, but not in the videos I've seen. But what you said about advantages gained with newer technology is also correct. Whereas I love the images I get from my 11-year-old, 24MP Nikon D600, I wouldn't hesitate to switch to one of the 45MP Nikon Z series cameras, if the price was right. The newer sensor technology alone balances the scales quite a bit. Great video. Thank you.

[@denisturcott5131]

Since I own two old Canon cameras (7D, 7D II) i have to shoot the same subject with the same lighting under exposed to over exposed to see just how well my camera will give me a real time working range. Knowing both cameras limitations, to me, is more important than buying up to more modern cameras. Knowing the power of each of these cameras lets me know how to take advantage of them. Great video and clear explanations! Thank you!

[@davidscullbonz]

Thank you for this video. I needed this fine reminder of why I often leave my K-1 at home and shoot with my 17-year-old 10MP K-10D. Gotta love Pentax!

[@Jeo-What]

Thank you again for providing valuable "Facts & Truths" and not the "Religions & Believes" on the photography equipment. These information really reeducates me and helps me to make more correct choices when purchasing photography equipment even though I used to sell photography equipment and singing the same faults religious songs to customers learned form faults information provided by many manufactures, photographers and reviewers. Great work!

[@garrywatters1140]

I hedged my bets and bought an r6 and an r5. Love the performance of both cameras.and use them for different scenarios.

[@prolificdrummer2001]

Thank you Sir. Have been watching your channel for a lil less then a year and you have been a huge positive impact to my photography as a whole. I love how you break down more complex stuff into understandable bite size pieces of valuable info.

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@johnbradshaw5900]

Another excellent video! Marketing people have been very successful in creating a 'more is better' culture. Clearly a certain resolution is necessary but even my 17MP XE2 is perfectly adequate and allows for some cropping. My XT5 is 40MP, it is an excellent sensor and does allow much more aggressive cropping but I really don't need 40MP and it's not why I bought it. That said, high MP sensors often come with bodies built to higher build quality, more esoteric feature sets etc.

[@pafaccount4454]

Another great thing to consider is pixel shift. This keeps the size low and fast, and then you can use pixel shift for stationary objects you want big prints of.

[@wilfs1196]

Thanks, Simon. Learning more with every video !

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@Apticx]

I bought my first camera yesterday and your videos really helped me a lot to decide what i want, what to look for and how to actually utilize what i got. Thanks for always creating helpful content.

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad I could help!

[@invader_viv]

I just bought a T7 last month with 24.1 MP, but prior i still liked using my mom's 20 year old Rebel XT with 10MP, and you're uploading at 5am, perfect for my work day lol

[@jyoungtricks]

I haven't quite figured it out yet, some photographers on KZbin I just can't watch, they are fine but they just don't grab my attention... But you are very watchable! Appreciate your videos

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks for sharing

[@thenodiggardener]

Exceptionally timely video for me, since I'm wanting to upgrade my equipment. Currently have a 7D, and GoPro 11. I need something in between that does both jobs, and has much better battery life than the latter!

[@XGNPerformance]

You arted those jawdropping photos! They gave me goosebumps! Truly wonderful works!

[@martinpettinger]

Hi Simon... another great video thank you ... I am shooting my 24mega pixel Canon R3 .... loving the colour ... the file sizes and the sheer speed ! If your subject is to far away no amount of cropping or mega pixel will get you a fabulous image ... but field craft, a camouflage suit and knowing your target species will get you closer and great results . Look forward to more great videos 👍

[@barnazadori9227]

I'm so glad that your videos are past the very beginners knowledge and this video isn't about "Why higher megapixels aren't really better" which as of now, everybody should know already. True content for ppl with higher knowledge in photography.

[@MartinB0]

Yes, I was really amazed with high-ISO performance of my A7R IVa. 60+ Mp sensor, ISO 12000 and pretty smooth images.

[@sneakingelephant]

This video was amazing. So much knowledge dropped in a single video

[@jessejayphotography]

I was surprised how far in-depth you went. Which is good. High end professional cinema cameras use lower megapixels mostly for the readout speed and pixel well performance. They are essentially taking “pictures” at 24, 30, 60 FPS. Many have two sets of gain circuits for each pixel in an attempt to increase dynamic range and lower noise.

[@peterpage597]

I remember a discussion on dpReview many years ago when I got my Canon 350D in which people argued that 8 megapixels was about as high a megapixel count as we'd ever get because after that the pixels got too small to perform reliably. :) Love my 45 mpx R5!

[@RickProkosch]

I think your videos on iso were correct; I’ve recently stumbled onto your conclusions in my hobby shooting, no need to be afraid of higher iso to get a shot.

[@gspdamota]

I switched from a Canon M50 apsc 24.4mp to a Nikon D800 36.8mp fullframe and the difference is astonishing, i would never go back to the M50, the images are at least 10x sharper, i love zooming into the image to see the details.

[@bencushwa8902]

This was a wonderful explainer. If all other factors are truly equal, a sensor with larger photosites will generally have better SNR, DNR, etc. because of their increased well depth. But those "other factors" involve things like signal processing, sensor architecture and readout type, etc. And a large part of why higher megapixel cameras are so much more expensive is because camera designers pour lots of effort into making the "other factors" *not* equal. So, in practice, cameras from the same designer and the same generation will usually have pretty similar photographic performance regardless of resolution, with certain exceptions like you mentioned. The bottom line: a camera is so much more than just its sensor.

[@Icelandscapes]

I have various cameras made by Fuji, but I do so often reach for the 16MP XPro-1. It produces sharp and clear images and lovely colors, but most of all, a character that the newer cameras seem to lack. :)

[@KNZ5]

I like to present my photos through slideshows, where I zoom in and out on the images. High-resolution sensors offer a significant advantage in this aspect. The small benefit of low-resolution sensors on image quality doesn't worth the loss in resolution. Noise reduction algorithms work fantastic nowadays. Considering that a high-resolution sensor allows for greater zooming capabilities with the same lens due to the better cropping abilities, the cost difference between low-resolution and high-resolution sensors isn't even that big. I'm new to photography and currently using a 24MP full-frame camera. Somehow I believe that a 45MP camera would have been a better choice, and I'm planning to upgrade soon.

[@d53101]

I used a Canon 3Ti (18 mp) with a Sigma 18 to 250 lens for several years after 2011. This combination served me well all that time. The Sigma lens is sharp and reliable. In 2014 I took the best airshow pictures with it I’ve ever taken at the Waterloo Airshow. I upgraded to Canon 80D in 2020 not so much for improved picture quality, but for better features for wildlife photography. I still have and use the my 3Ti and Sigma lens now from time to time.

[@vincentmulder70]

My Nikon D70s had 6MP, I really liked it. Then I got a second hand D90 with 12MP when the D70s suddenly died. I never really needed more megapixels. My latest D610 has 26MP. And I am sorry, I cant see the difference... my kid has a d3100...26mp as well... just fine... for good shots, it equals the quality of the D610 (for my usage). I don't like the large number of MB's for the raw files. What I do like is using auto ISO, learned from you. That made a huge difference in getting the shots. :)

[@mladenpantic3488]

Absolutely one of the best, if not best youtube channel about photography and in general. Very pleasant to watch and very useful. I could watch your videos for whole day, very professional. Well done, you're doing great job here, keep doing it. I'm new to photography and I learn a lot from you. THANKS! You have best regards and very good wishes from an aircraft mechanic based across Europe coming from Belgrade, Serbia!

[@andrewdoeshair]

When I was mindlessly upgrading cameras because canon told me I should, I owned a ~30mp EOS R and was about to buy the R5, then I borrowed an R5 and decided after two casual afternoons that ~45mp is very costly (in terms of storage) for someone like me who shoots 99.9% of my stuff for social media. These days I almost exclusively shoot with the ~12mp Canon 5D classic and I couldn’t be happier. In fact as I’ve browsed around for other cameras that might benefit my workflow I tend to look for the lowest resolution option. I’ve got this weird itch to replace my R6 (which I use for recording haircut videos and sometimes shooting cars on a race track) with an old Canon cinema camera and an old 1D series camera, not just because I’m finding that I like the character of older canon stuff, but also because I’m finding a lot of value in working with smaller files. Low light and cropping haven’t been important. Point being, there are some cases where a person might prefer low resolution cameras for reasons other than noise 😋

[@PaulMarshall]

Clear and straightforward as well as topical. Thanks!

[@Shutterbugvienna]

I think to some degree the noise benefit of low megapixel cameras is not a "compare side by side" at a certain ISO value better. I think it behaves more like there is a certain signal to noise ratio we deem acceptable on the pixel level, but when that gets under a certain threshold, the image falls appart for us visibly. And by physics alone that threshold should be about a stop later if the pixel area is twice as big, so e.g. 24MP vs 48MP, given that all the other technologies like BSI and what not are all equal. I have not tested that myself yet tho... Great Video, they are always very informative and straight to the point

[@RedmilesShark]

I upgraded my camera for the resolution, but also the features it has. WiFi, Bluetooth, focus bracketing, higher shooting speed and the faster filming and resolution. I still use the old one, especially with the one and only plastic fantastic. Also for lens whacking. I rather risk dirt in my old body. Plus I noticed that I crop my images often. It helps to go to 32.5MP instead of 18.2MP for that purpose. 7D mk1 and 90D.

[@ChrisThe1]

The fact that most people compare at 100% instead of the same magnification has been bothering me for years. Try downresing the higher to the lower's resolution. It will be cleaner. Great video!

[@simon_dentremont]

Great point!

[@allaroundgifted]

Ok... can I say I just love your intro. The music and pictures, I find myself singing "... you'll be just fine."😊 Love the videos. Also, I've learned a lot as a newbie.

[@simon_dentremont]

Thank you so much!!

[@KibaSnowpaw]

This is a great topic, and I appreciate how you broke down the debate around megapixels (MP). I mostly agree with your points, but I’d like to add some nuance to the discussion based on my own experience. The Role of Megapixels Megapixels do matter in certain situations, but they are far from the end-all-be-all in photography. For instance, I’ve been using my Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED lens for 12 years. It worked great with my older Nikon D5100, but when I upgraded to the D7500, the limitations of the lens became glaringly obvious. The higher MP sensor on the D7500 highlights the lens's weaknesses, such as slow autofocus, poor focus accuracy, and subpar glass quality compared to modern lenses. Meanwhile, the D5100’s lower MP density helped mask these issues. This proves that megapixels are only as good as the lens they work with. However, in scenarios like cropping or large-scale printing, megapixels absolutely make a difference. I recall shooting a buzzard in flight and cropping down to the bird itself-on a 24MP sensor, the result was a blurry, pixelated mess. If I had a 100MP sensor, even after significant cropping, I could have retained much more sharpness and detail. So, while MP isn’t everything, it can be crucial for maximizing the potential of your gear in the right context. High MP Cameras and Their Limitations I agree with your assessment that high-MP cameras can close the gap with lower-MP models in terms of noise by applying noise reduction, while still preserving more detail. But that also depends on the quality of the lens and sensor. Your comparison of the Canon R5 and R6 is a perfect example: the R5's higher MP gives it flexibility for cropping and detail, but with careful processing, you can still match or exceed the R6’s noise performance. Where I think people misunderstand MP is in casual photography. For someone sharing their shots on social media or viewing them on small screens, the difference between 20MP and 100MP is negligible because platforms like Facebook heavily compress images anyway. But if you’re serious about producing prints, creating albums, or analyzing details on a large monitor, megapixels give you more options. Skills and Experience Trump Specs I love that you emphasize skill over specs because that’s what photography is really about. I've taken some great photos with my old Galaxy S2 smartphone that still stand out even by today’s standards. The fundamentals-composition, lighting, timing-are far more important than whether you shoot with 12MP or 100MP. High-MP cameras, better lenses, and advanced features are just tools to help refine or enhance your craft, but they won’t make up for a lack of experience or poor technique. Megapixels are a double-edged sword. They’re fantastic for specific scenarios like cropping, printing, or detail-heavy shots but can also expose the limitations of your gear if your lenses or technique aren’t up to par. Like you said, a newer generation or larger sensor will give you better image quality overall than simply chasing megapixel counts. Ultimately, the best camera is the one you know how to use effectively. Thanks for addressing such a hot topic with facts and examples. It’s refreshing to see a balanced perspective instead of the usual “MP doesn’t matter” or “higher MP is always better” extremes. Great video!

[@smaakjeks]

Also worth noting is that nobody ever views any image at the pixel level. What matters is the print as presented. In such a case, it doesn't matter what size the pixels are when it comes to noise. What matters is the total light gathered (which is the same on all sensors of the same size, assuming similar tech).

[@shaun53355]

Well explained, my images improve with the light.

[@odysseusreturns9133]

I was caught up in the argument involving CDC sensors versus CMOS CDC was, I was told, better for colour reproduction despite having only 10 MPX on the Nikon D3000. Now replaced with a D7000 With a 16MPX CMOS sensor and it is superior in every way. Both roughly the same age.

[@richiewitkowski7142]

Color dynamics should be some of peoples last factors to really think about In my opinion, a dull looking image is better still than not having a good image at all in terms of lens performance, focus, etc. Plus you can make many pictures look amazing in monochrome or black and white which doesnt need color dynamics at all

[@eddielopez1323]

I love my OM D camera for everything and better will be coming out in the future.

[@onyourmarkphoto]

I have an old Nikon D3 12 MP camera. I also have a Nikon D810. I haven't used my Nikon D3 in a long time. I'll have to shoot some tests after watching this. I'm blown away at the battery life difference. The D810 goes forever compared to my D3. Now I'll have to shoot some image comparisons.

[@thomasphillips5850]

Great video Simon, I have always thought thermally the better. I had the original canon rebel it was only 6 MP. Yet I got some pretty outstanding Raw files with that camera. I really think the more pixels the better was nothing more than sales hype. Thanks again Simon great video.

[@randyschwager2515]

Excellent info! The challenge is being able to afford All of those megapixels!

[@buyaport]

Thanks a lot for the convincing demonstration. -- Of course many factors go into the equation of image quality. Judging a camera by the magapixel count alone would be like judging a car by the number of its cylinders. Very important are the lenses because they "decide" what the sensor "sees". Higher MP cameras need lenses with higer resolution to show their potential fully.

[@ClientsMusic]

I decided on an A7RII over the A7SII for this exact reason - one can simply move the 43MP A7RII image size to perform the same or better as the 12MP A7SII, resulting in better low light performance and more detail.

[@harrison00xXx]

It only gets tricky if you would compare the A7SIII vs the A7RII, but the prices differ a bit. For me, the lowest way i enter the Sony world would be a A7SIII, A6700, A7RV or the hopefully soon coming A7C II, depending on the needs, but i guess some day Sony will have to come out with a A7S IV or so?! Its time, Sony give us 4k240, tack sharp 1080p480 or normal 1080p960, fast photo burst rates of 30-45fps and probably CF express B since the A version is too slow and expensive. I stick to Canon as long nobody brings out new sh*t, im feeling good with the EF-glass selection adapted to the RF system, especially the 2nd hand prices.

[@brysimm404]

As a video pro, I’ve always been led to believe that higher MPs equals better image quality. It’s proved true as I moved from LUMIX GH5 to S1H at least. And I assumed that’s why increased MPs in smart phone cameras is always promoted as an “upgrade”.

[@bjornarnold3013]

I fully agree on the sensor technology. If one has a specific application in mind (like low-light or astrophotography) it makes sense to study the noise behavior and then one could be surprised about the pixel size (the smaller but "newer" pixels might perform better than the larger ones). Maybe an addition: if one has got a high MP camera, one can still down sample (especially binning, but there are also other methods) the image if one doesn't need the resolution but wants to reduce noise as a first step before using de-noising tools.

[@SimonWallwork]

I replaced my D700 with a Z 7. (that's 12Mp up to 46Mp). The Z 7 seems to see more than my eye could and pics are very detailed, but so much so that they look a bit gritty. The D700 files were lovely and kinda natural. Cropping is is another story though.

[@jimjames4172]

Regarding the point at around the 4:50 mark, one thing that's important to note is that the A7S III is actually a 48MP sensor under the hood with a quad-bayer CFA, binned 2x2. So in these comparisons regarding pixel size, it should be treated as having a 48MP sensor that is downsampled 2x in each dimension.

[@echoauxgen]

Thanks for mentioning the A7s, A7sii and A7siii. I started with the A7s in '14 and noise SW was not good even at the time C1. So I went A7III which sensor had dual ISO- 640 then 12800 both less noise at and above the same for A7Siii when it came out. Also ISO Invariance basically you can capture say at 640 getting a darker image and in post just increasing exposure even by +5 you get less noise and better color in shadows. The Sony sensor in the A7iii is in some Nikon cameras. The one thing many did in the past was stacking due to bad post SW but is a waste of time. In the past years many suggested not using in camera NR for it took time away from a second capture, this mainly was for those doing time lapse, the problem was you get hot (red) and dead (white) pixels. In the beginning years Lr some how would get rid of them but the issue of star loss and Lr stopped it and another reason to do stacking. Also the lenses were only f/4 so you could do a 30s + capture without star elongation. But with wider 2.8, 1.8 and 1.4 lenses they require faster SS and add the camera models sensor for pixel height and distance between maybe even faster meaning even the A7V at 61MPs yes the same results as a A7SIII but a faster SS to rid star elongation and lens comas. PhotoPills spot stars is where you can find the camera/lens combo SS. instead of stacking something I did in '15 was do bracketing but NR is disabled and hot and dead pixels all over but with today's HDR SW rids the image of them. Lastly avoid all the extra work in post and just use camera NR, if you use a 14mm f/1.8 lens on the A7Siii you can do the 16.16s or faster SS adjusting ISO higher for a faster SS meaning say a 10s SS you get a camera NR time of 10s and doing a MW ARC pano with a pano rig with a stepper base every capture when NR is on you click to the next image and capture another meaning a 200 degree pano is done in less than 90s. Even done over a moving surf on a beach the surf will blind as a whole and be super bright day like with stars and colors of trees on the shoreline will be bright green the ocean nice and blue and a sky of baby blue as well as the yin and yang colors in Pegasus magenta and a lighter blue as well as the darker way from side to side with glowing stars on the sides as well a bright white galactic center, Yes you will have to lower exposure to make it look real for no one can see it like that with the eye. I did a lot of Milky Ways with the A7RM2 at the Grand Canyon and used Aperture mode due to even down in the canyon was lit by by hotel lights and done with bracketing getting detail deep down in the canyon as well as a dark sky full of stars. Just saying do use NR whenever possible to save as much time and play in post. One more thing the sony cameras now do a dark image when you turn off the camera ( a slight pause before shutdown getting rid of hot and dead pixels by remapping the pixels, great add and check you camera no matter the maker to see if they also do it also!

[@quincylee2276]

Very good video, I really enjoy your explanations which are both highly informative and technical yet simple. Being more of a landscape hobbyist, a full-frame 24MP camera with pixel-shift is far more suitable to me than a high-resolution camera, as it gives me the option of getting a high-resolution landscape image while giving me decent resolution for other uses.

[@jameshoy380]

Beyond what Simon points out; the only time find megapixel specifications critical is if I want to make large prints. A higher megapixel sensor will facilitate making larger prints at full resolution (300DPI). The higher the sensor resolution, the bigger the print you can make at full resolution. That said you have to take viewing distance into consideration. A small print a viewer may nose up too you’ll want a full print resolution. A billboard sized image printed at 72DPI isn’t going to present pixelation when you are looking at it from 100s of feet away. They are there but you won’t be able to perceive them so you can make do with a lower resolution sensor. If you are just exhibiting your images online, 150dpi is fine and you can even go 72DPI for thumbnails. No real need for high MP sensors in these cases; at least in terms of resolution.

[@abdallahg7506]

thank you very much , i am waiting for christmas sales to buy my camera , all your videos were really helpful to me

[@simon_dentremont]

Best of luck!

[@andyx6766]

Great detailed breakdown of the information, with strong cause/effect demonstrations

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@marciosantos1942]

Great discussion Simon, an interesting example are the sensors like S23 Ultra that makes pixel binning. It can shoot on 200MP or 12MP. The same sensor, but I found that at 200MP the images gives less Dynamic range blowing out the highlights much faster than using 12MP. In my opinion, for difficult light situations the 12MP is much better than the full 200MP resolution.

[@simon_dentremont]

Yes, while in most cameras having high megapixel counts like 40 or 60 MP doesn’t have a disadvantage, there ‘s evidence that mega-megapixel cameras like 200 MP phones are a step backwards.

[@richardtom6987]

Another great video. Your style of delivery is clear and concise. Keep up the great work!

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks, will do!

[@petervandieren]

Shooting indoor sports at minimal 1/800 (I would like to go faster) with f/2.8 on ISO 6400, low light performance is important to me. Looking at upgrading my 5DIV I doubt between the R6 and R5. I was leaning towards the R6 because of the stories of it being better with low light situations. But now you've made me thinking again.

[@simon_dentremont]

When I shoot milky ways at iso 3200, I grab either the R5 or R6, which ever is closest…makes close to no difference in the end (but the R5 has a teeny tiny edge I think).

[@michalkubecek]

According to tests I've seen, R6 Mark II should perform a bit better in low light than either of the two; not because of pixel count but because of two more years of research and development. As long as it's not only about low light performance, R6 (whether the original or Mark II) feels a bit more like camera designed for action sports. Unless you can (and want to) afford an R3, that is. :-)

[@sofjanmustopoh7232]

Stacking work in doubling for each increase of signal to noise ratio. So 2 is double of 1 frame . 4 frame is needed to double 2 frame signal noise ratio . 8 is needed for next doubling . Then 16 , 32 , 64 . At 64 frame stacking in order to increase to the next level of signal to noise ratio . You need 128 frames . Hence many people found 8-16 frame or even 32 frame is the best return .

[@FlatWaterFilms]

I'm liking 45mp (R5) for both stills and video. I'm a high noon shooter. Most images are adjusted (16x9) from the 3:2 sensor and or cropped. Video mode is normally 4k HQ. Looking forward to the adjustable ND filter adapter (EF-RF mount) to get those blurry background videos. Fell back into the ISO 100 trap the other day using A/V and auto ISO. Used too large aperture and too slow shutter speed for some shaded limestone cliff shots with surrounding trees and foliage. The shallow depth of field kept some areas out of focus and too blurry for my tastes. Shooting in A/V is not always your friend. f/2.8, ISO 100 shutter 1/80'ish at stationary objects is not always the best choice. So much to learn.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Indeed, Ansel Adams shot landscapes at f/64.

[@michalkubecek]

@@aliendroneservices6621 That may be a bit misleading, I'm afraid, as I seriously doubt he was shooting f/64 on a 35mm film. From what I found, his preferred format was 8x10" which would make f/64 correspond to something between f/8 and f/10 on a fullframe camera from depth of field point of view (assuming the same distance and field of view).

[@angelobucciarelli8020]

Thanks again Simon. I always enjoy your explanations as they are clear and concise. I would like to learn more about the pros and cons of the various camera sensors like back illuminated, stacked, etc

[@simon_dentremont]

Noted!

[@larrychicco1062]

Funny cos I started with 3, then 6, jumped to 10. All were big expensive leaps at the time. You did see a big difference back then. Now I'm shooting 20 and no real need to go higher, because its 20 plus all the other tech like noise reduction, IBIS, faster AF stacked. I think people forget how far we've come and how many good shots we used to get back with much less pixels.

[@DrClumber]

Simon, subscribed when you first started, you've already got 240k! Clearly you're doing something very well, congrats! On this topic: I have an A7RV (61mp) and an A7 (which it replaced) with 24mp. I love the A7RV, it is a brilliant camera and much more capable than the grandaddy A7, but!!! If you don't have the right thing in front of you, it makes no difference whatsoever. People are way too fixated on the technical variables.

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks for being an early supporter!

[@davidcoomber9353]

Hey Simon, just starting with photography. (Recently Retired) Been watching your videos and found them very instructive and you put it across in a way that a novice can understand. Thank you for posting them. I look forward to experimenting with my camera and hope that I can get some good pictures. Kind regards. David. UK 😎

[@simon_dentremont]

Welcome aboard!