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 ;)

[@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.

[@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.

[@ppBizU]

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

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks, will do!

[@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.

[@SteveHorne]

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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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 🤷‍♀️

[@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. 👏👏🙏

[@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

[@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.

[@sharvo6]

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

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks!

[@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.

[@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!

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@nathanas64]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@shmvon]

As an event photographer, file size matters a lot as it determines storage space and workflow speed. Ultimately, clients will receive 4MB jpgs, not 40MB TIFF files, and often you shoot in dim light, meaning zooming in much or printing large isn't a good idea anyway. Also think about it this way: probably 50-70% of your shots are garbage. Some you will delete right away, but some you keep just in case the client want more pictures of that particular moment or person. Often, they'll just stay there and eat up space.

[@krazygyal]

I shoot concert photography. I recently upgraded from 18 to 26 MP... I was shooting RAW+JPEG, the very first time I used my new camera and I ran out of storage!!! Luckily, I had an empty micro SD card in my audio recorder.

[@lionheart4424]

Would you say that a 20-ish MP Full Frame camera is ideal for events? I just had my very first event shooting experience with two Sony bodies (apsc) and in a cloudy evening and with variable lighting I kinda pushed the cameras. They are old cameras (a6000 amd a5000) but I am wondering if for events is better a FF when night comes or stick to a modern apsc.

[@realyopikechannel]

@@lionheart4424 full frame will always have better low light performance, bigger sensor = more light. i rock a sony a7r3, but i would recommend the regular a7 or even the a7s. 80mb files are massive and become even bigger png's. also if youre the type of person whos considering an a7r youre not the type of person whos willing to sacrifice quality so you can crop an image, so dont delude yourself into thinking that a 43mp sensor allows you to do 2x optical zoom and make it the equivalent to a 20mp sensor. so go with the regular a7, which model you can afford but id recommend at least getting the a7III because it has better battery life than the first two

[@lionheart4424]

@@realyopikechannel thanks a lot for the recommendations! I am moving away from Sony APS-C bodies but might consider the a7 line.

[@photobeast]

​@@lionheart4424I use the R5 for events and get the most out of every image!! Concerts and Weddings constantly. Low light is nothing anymore. Also when you're done if you convert your raw into jpeg. It gets colorized and the noise goes away immediately and then you have the raw files to put on your computer and to make beautiful edits for the client later on

[@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!

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 😄

[@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 😋

[@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!

[@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.

[@wilfs1196]

Thanks, Simon. Learning more with every video !

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@h.n.4060]

I'm looking at this as an astrophotographer (not just photos of the milky-way, but of nebula and galaxies), where we have to be more subdued with our use of noise reduction, but a few things: 1) The generation-to-generation uplift between dynamic range of cameras is a lot smaller than people think, if it exists at all. People tend to have recency bias, "the newest thing has to be significantly better". Does it? Compare the Dynamic Range of the a7s1 to the a7s3 on photons to photons, and you'll see that the a7s1 actually has higher DR than the a7s3 , and that the a7s2 is basically the same to the a7s1. The same story happens with the Nikon Z6. The Z6I and II both have better DR and lower Read Noise than the newer Z6III. The major difference between newer and older cameras may be the quantum efficiency (the ratio of photons it detects versus total photons to hit a detector), but even here things get a bit shaky, as the change between generations still tends to be quite small, if, again, it exists at all. And even if there are improvements, it isn't the full story. Like with read noise, the bigger thing that impacts it actually the temperature of the camera (higher temperature = higher noise), the lenses being used, filters used, the bayer filters in the camera itself (which cuts the amount of light any one pixel can see by 66%), the temperature of the camera, etc.). The big changes between generations is more often software changes (like auto-focus and menus), button layouts, or more efficient high resolution video recording modes, recording limits, not hardware one. 2) Bigger pixels do contribute to better signal to noise, biggly. A common "trick" in astrophotography is to do something called "binning", basically telling the camera to group square arrays of pixels so they act and read out as a single pixel. This increases SNR greatly, but obviously at a cost of resolution. The KZbin channel Deep Sky Detail goes in-depth on this in a video series on SNR. Any my understanding is that this is already what the A7S line is doing. I believe it's using the same or similar sensor fiybd in the a7R cameras, and then bins them so it goes down from 40~ mp to 12. There is also a way to recover image resolution from a low megapixel camera using a process called drizzle, and this has the opposite effect, actually reducing the SNR of the image. 3) A big advantage with smaller pixel sizes means that crappy lenses work better... because you simply don't have the resolution to notice the defects in the lens. This also means smaller file sizes. This is important in astrophotography because we don't take just one picture, but hundreds, which are then combined to create a brighter final image than is possible with just a single exposure. 4) Something I don't see people talk about is the quantum mechanical aspects of this. Light is a quantum mechanical wave until it hits a detector. Detectors have a very high chance of simply not measuring the light that hit it. What this adds up to is a slight, but noticeable effect in very dark areas. Light can sort of go wherever it wants until it hits a photocell because it's a wave up until the very last moment. Normally there is a fourier transform going on... basically classical wave mechanics says that waves will add constructively and destructively, so your light SHOULD only end up at one point on an imaging plane... but it's a QM wave, so there is a nonzero chance of light going spots other than the predicted one. Chances of it going to one end of the sensor to the other is effectively impossible, but nearer to the predicted spot? It will be more likely to miss than not. And when you make your pixels very tiny (increasing the chances of catching light going to where it's not suppose to be), with pixels that are naturally going to reject light 66% of the time at a minimum thanks to the bayer filter, in addition to the 50%~25% that the sensor simply missed, this causes an effect where smaller pixels don't actually get an increase image resolution over a smaller mega pixel camera. You end up with a darker image that's also somewhat blurrier. Then add in the effect of noise, read noise, etc, when you try to stretch the image you will be stretching that noise too, leading to a much uglier image. 5) The question to all of this is "how much does it matter to you"? In astrophotography all of these things are true, and are things to consider, but there is a massive difference between imaging something that releases photons in the range of single digits per second, and average night photography, or taking pictures of a book with a bright light in the foreground. It all comes down to what you are trying to do, and why, and then making it work for you. If you are worried about your SNR, you can get a sensor with a smaller megapixel count, or you can get a bigger lens. Maybe that works for you, or maybe it's too big to be workable, but these are all things to check before worrying about what a sensor is doing until it's obvious that it's what is holding you back.

[@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.

[@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!

[@arifkizilay]

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

[@markusbolliger1527]

I am a mFT guy (OM SYSTEM: OM-1 with some PRO lenses) and I have no problems with noise. If you expose correctly your images - to the right as far as possible - you get clean images up to 3200 ISO and even more, depending the RAW- converter you use. Therefore noise is not an argument for full frame. By the way: Image qualitiy depends more on the optical performance of the glass you use, than for the sensor size.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@michalsiegel6717]

Love my Lumix S5II for photography. No low pass filter to get even better resolution (I know videographers hate it due do moiré). And if I need great dynamic range I do the highres photo which is now also possible handheld. Sure, not for motion, but for landscape it is really great feature.

[@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

[@Behindstage]

Photography isn’t about the gear. It’s about the story. A photo that means the most to me was taken on a Sony cybershot from 2001…2mp! I not suggesting that 2mp is enough,I’m suggesting it’s a meaningful image to me. Go outside and enjoy the craft,don’t get bogged down with numbers.

[@saraventura1333]

So agree friend I have a Nikon d3200 and it is an absolute beast

[@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

[@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!

[@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 .

[@background0001]

Hey Simon, I'm a nerd on camera models and at 4:58 you posted a photo of a Sony A7s ii not a Sony A7s iii. No hate or anything just wanted to point that out, I love your work and have a great day!

[@simon_dentremont]

Right!

[@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.

[@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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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).

[@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. :)

[@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.

[@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. :)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@XGNPerformance]

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

[@scillyautomatic]

In video, I am less concerned about line skipping than I am about upscaling the "low megapixel" image. What's important is your final output scale. Rarely will I output an image of 1080 or 720 so cameras with that native image will have to be upscaled to a 4K frame. Therefore, I always avoid the lower res camera.

[@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!

[@rredding]

Summation of multiple pictures of the same scene results in better signal to noise ratios. This method is used often to improve quality of measurements. How it works: signal to noise ratio increases by the square root of the number of measurements. So: by taking 4 pictures, the ratio increases by a factor of 2. 100 pictures: a factor of 10.

[@simon_dentremont]

I use this in my astrophotography

[@richardberke4539]

My digital camera journey over 21 years included upgrading to bigger sensors and they happened to also have more megapixels. Canon S45 1/1.8 4 Mp. Canon G15 1/1.7 12 Mp. Sony A6000 APS-C 24 Mp as my first interchangeable lens camera. I thought about full frame but chose APS-C knowing that lenses would be smaller and less expensive than full frame. Even with zoom lenses achieving 3-4x optical magnification I still find that I crop almost all of my shots pretty tight. I can't usually get closer to my subject to not need to crop. I think that my images suffer from tiny camera shake (even at shutter speed 1/1250). The combination of zooming in and then tight crop reveals the impact. I'm always 'battling' blur in post processing.

[@PaulMarshall]

Clear and straightforward as well as topical. Thanks!

[@Groovvy81]

Also iIrc, with higher megapixels sensor, you can start to see the effect diffraction sooner (f8 instead of f11 for instance) since the pixels are closer together.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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 👍

[@vicentvanmole]

Thanks for such clear information

[@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!

[@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!!

[@adamfoulke8094]

I went from an Olympus m4/3 camera to a Sony a7r IV, and probably the biggest single thing that improved my photos, beyond it being a full frame sensor, is the newer technology in the camera rather than the megpixel bump. Better lenses I got with change probably helped too.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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).

[@TonyElen]

I recently replaced my Sony A350 with 14MP with a Canon R6MII with 24MP. I don't know if the improvement is due to a more recent body or the number of pixels, but the improvement is huge.

[@simon_dentremont]

As I mention in the video, you got a larger sensor and newer tech, the two things that make the biggest difference.

[@garrywatters1140]

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

[@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!

[@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”.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@davidmcculloch8490]

File size in post production is certainly a consideration. Do you need to buy a new computer with a larger RAM? processing will also be considerably slower with a large file, as explained in the video. Personally, my largest camera is at 24 mps and I'm happy with the results.

[@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.

[@peterwilson7532]

Having used film for years, I realized once sensors got to 16-18 megapixels they were equivalent to 100 ISO film technology. In APS-C anything from 16-24 is perfect. Full-frame anything from about 24-36 is great. Wildlife would always benefit from more pixels, even 100 Mp. So most of us can put more towards a good quality lens than worry about 36 Mp plus.

[@HR-wd6cw]

I wouldn't necessarily say better or worse image quality, but generally (and this has changed over the past 5-10 years) lower-res bodies generally can handle higher ISOs better than their high-megapixel counterparts, but the gap is closing. It used to be that many 16-24MP FF cameras had about a 2-stop advantage in some cases, over their 30-40MP siblings, but that has probably closed down to more of a 0.5-1 stop gap in reality, since sensors have improved overall (in most formats, not just FF). In fact many APSC cameras today (with their 20-32MP sensors) can do just as good as 4-5 year old FF cameras of similar pixel densities. So I wouldn't say necessarily that this holds true anymore that lower MP cameras offer better IQ. There are a number of factors (one being that many low-res FF cameras, like the 20-24MP ones, tend to have AA filters, which can degrade sharpness slightly, and many high-MP cameras like the 36+ MP cameras generally don't. There are a few low-res models that don't have AA Filter,s but most from Sony and Nikon do). But today, with today's tech, I would have no problem shooting with either a modern 24MP or 45MP camera as they all are very good, both FF and APSC and it's going to come down to lenses and you as the photographer, more than the camera and the sensor these days.

[@sneakingelephant]

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

[@kaos88888888]

Yes higher mpx has better detail when noise reduction is applied in post, but i'm a fuji shooter, most film simulation already have grain effects added on top, while noise is different, i also try to not have noise WHILE i shoot, as i shoot jpeg almost exclusively. This can seems like an edge case but a lot of fuji users shoot like this

[@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!