Spending money of top quality lenses is much more beneficial than chasing more megapixals.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Agree
@georgechen1124
Жыл бұрын
Yep. That's the best way to spend your money. Lens are more important.
@garycampbell6245
Жыл бұрын
Sounds like the pixel snob woman filled her boots with top quality lenses too if she spent 50k. Potentially a cracking second hand buy for someone at a later date 😉📷
@georgechen1124
Жыл бұрын
@@garycampbell6245 If someone rob me with gun, only wanted my camera body ... I would say, chill bro, that's the deal.
@semperfi-1918
5 ай бұрын
I will say there is a minimum for certain Sizes. But yeah... my K-50 i got for 100.00 with some good cheap lenses. Has 16 megapixels and does an excellent job.
@infinitephotons6346
Жыл бұрын
The way a camera handles is quite underrated (and based on individual preference). Having a camera that has the right buttons where you want them paired with a lens that's able to make the right adjustments is going to be so helpful.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I agree
@richardowen4558
Жыл бұрын
Back a couple of decades ago, I was doing a commercial shoot for a local real estate developer in Panama City Beach, FL. I was shooting with a pair of 4.1MP Nikon D2H bodies, one with a Tokina 12-24mm f4 and the other with a Tokina 80-200mm f2.8. Both lenses were part of Tokina's Pro series and I loved them. Anyway, the marketing firm for the developer took one of those 4.1MP images, used about half of it, blew it up to roughly SIX FEET X TWELVE FEET and used it on a billboard. Nikon's first full frame, the D3, had just recently hit the streets and I was drooling over it. BUT when I saw how the billboard turned out I kept my D2H bodies and continue to use them both commercially and for my newspaper work. I shot with them over ten years and only sold them when I retired from active shooting for pay and shifted to smaller, easier to carry mirrorless cameras. My current setup is a Fuji X-Pro2 with the XF 35mm f2 WR lens for a weather resistant setup.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Nice! This is good insight, thanks for leaving a comment!
@vismktg
Жыл бұрын
You are absolutely right about the fact that megapixels don't turn you into a better photographer. You can perform very well with a lower-end camera, even a phone, even a pin-hole camera. What matters is the emotion you are conveying through your picture, not your camera's technical specs. That said, more mega pixels isn't always useless. It happened to me that I was shooting seals from a boat and we couldn't get any closer to a baby seal. Not to disturb him for one. I only had my 24-70 mm glass and the seal ended up being a tiny dot in the middle of my photo. Having a higher-grade camera made it possible for me to zoom into the photo reduce the number of pixels dramatically and my baby seal was popping out of my picture quite nicely. As a conclusion, you are right, my smaller picture was quite alright and no one could tell the difference if I didn't tell them. But at the same time you are wrong, for having this possibility made my day and this smaller picture is indeed one of my favourites. Lastly, I'd add to that, that what matters most is the quality of your lens, far more than the size of your sensor. So, focus on lens quality. For studio work I invested in the iconic Nikon 85 mm f/1.4 and it works absolute wonders and beats hands down all of the other glass I own, even the best ones. As I bought it second hand, I didn't even have to spend too much money on it. And as many people are throwing their DSLRs away at the moment for the sake of zillion-MP cameras, now is the right time to buy a second-hand DSLR (like the Nikon D850 for instance), they are amazing cameras and are now cheaper.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
👍
@briandelaney8122
Жыл бұрын
I agree entirely. I'm a semi-professional shooter and started in photography way back in the 80s. I have Nikon and Olympus which I use for different purposes. The Nikon's I currently have are the D850 and the D700 of the two I am more likely to pick up the 12mp D700. why? Because it feels good in the hand and has excellent button placement and ergonomics plus awesome picture quality. I've never yet shown anyone a photo and they've said 'Oh but it's only 12 megapixels.' it just doesn't happen. The other overlooked thing about printing out your photos is that the larger you print them, the further back you stand to see them, so in many ways the resolution is irrelevant. I've taken photos on my 16MP Olympus cameras that have been blown up to billboard size. They still look good, because of the distance they're viewed from. It should also be noted that the vast majority of Pro shooters don't use anything above about 24MP, because of file sizes and diminishing price vs quality returns. Yes a 100MP camera has good resolution, but if you are viewing it online, in a magazine, on a billboard in an exhibition, etc. There's no point. You aren't going to notice a difference between that and a good 12 or 24MP camera. On the whole ( and with very few exceptions) high megapixel cameras are a distraction and a marketing ploy. Things like color rendition, ergonomics, lens compatibility, shadow noise, etc, etc. are much more important. The only people who obsess about MP count are either uninformed or just like to 'Flex' over other misinformed shooters.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Agree with what you’re saying
@garycampbell6245
Жыл бұрын
She is probably a labels lady. If only Gucci made camera's she was heard to say 🙂
@blutey
Жыл бұрын
You can spend a lot of money on camera gear to learn you don't have to, to get good results.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
🤣
@romac9999
Жыл бұрын
When I moved from shooting weddings and portraits from my Blad to digital my camera was 6 megapixels (the same as other shooters) and we had no issues. IMO it's Glass, Glass, Glass.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Seems to be the consensus
@caskraker
Жыл бұрын
The big prints story is untrue too. You don’t watch a large photo from close by. The bigger the print, the bigger the viewing distance. And big crops are for bad photographers. So everything over 10Mp is OK. And remember that doubling the Mp only gives 1.4x at either side.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair points!
@Noojtxeeg
Жыл бұрын
Remember everyone, 4k is about 8 MP, and also that most people are consuming media through a cell phone these days which is about the size of a few inches. Not saying that 8MP is all that everyone needs, But I am saying that you get massively diminishing returns beyond 20-24MP
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair
@georgechen1124
Жыл бұрын
16mp Fujifilm X-T1 is my all-time favorite. Resolution of 16mp is a little above 4k. If you need 8k resolution, go for 4mp gears((X-H2, X-T5)) for 6 times the price(but is it worthy?).
@DrNick8002
Жыл бұрын
Definitely true....I bought Z9 but my photos still not impressive. However, I feel satisfied with my gear....just for hobby to release stress while watching birds
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair enough!
@mr.skeletonman375
Жыл бұрын
I'm agree with your advice, high megapixels through the only we can get crop advantage in our photo.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
👍
@Frontdesk99
Жыл бұрын
The Canon R6 (not the mark 2, the first R6) has the same sensor as the former Canon flagship 1DX-III , the camera that was used at the Olympics by MANY pro photographers. It has 20 MP. It produces excellent images. I've done wedding shoots with a crop sensor Fuji X-H1 and created $600 albums, 14" x 14" with it. Excellent quality. Even with full-page 'blow-ups' or even spreads. Also: don't forget that less MP === BETTER performance in low light. So go ahead, make that 120 MP sensor. I'm not interested. 24 MP is what I currently use and it is MORE than enough.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Appreciate the insight!
@radiozelaza
Жыл бұрын
Less MP no longer means better lowlight performance. More MP will always give you more detail in lowlight, and overall better picture quality on prints. The rule would only apply to video with line skipping
@Frontdesk99
Жыл бұрын
@@radiozelaza Absolute bogus. Get your facts on DPReview, for instance. Or DXOMark. A smaller pixel on the sensor is physically incapable of getting the light a larger pixel (lower MP's) can. Dynamic range on a high MP sensor in low light is downright sh*t compared to a 20 MP sensor. Simple, measurable facts.
@radiozelaza
Жыл бұрын
@@Frontdesk99 watch Tony Northrup's recent video about that. He compares pixel to pixel high ISO images from A7s3 and A7R4 and the higher megapixel sensor gives cleaner and more detailed images in lowlight. Simple OBSERVABLE facts
@memcrew1
Жыл бұрын
@@radiozelaza I wouldn’t take Tony Northrop too seriously. He’s not a physicist and doesn’t understand all the elements involved(AD conversions etc)
@siriusgd4753
Жыл бұрын
I just bought a brand new Nikon D500. They are not making them new anymore and they are becoming harder to find brand new domestic. It has incredible features and a moderate price point. It's a great camera if you aren't rich. It's only a 5 megapixel increase from my old D5100. But the feature set is quite an upgrade.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Nice!
@adrianadrian255
Жыл бұрын
People keep mentioning wildlife - which is definitely a class of photography that benefits from being able to crop, but nowadays people who shoot for publications or stock are also benefitting from the ability to crop. A photographer shooting for a magazine for instance, needs to leave large margins around their subject, since in layout, the picture is required to have copy on top of it. Unless they know exactly how the picture is going to be used, they need margins. an advertiser or editor might want to put several lines of text on top of the photo. So, say it's a model on a beach or a car in a field. An advertiser may want to put copy across the sky or the sand/ grass in the foreground, so leave third of your photo free at the top and a third at the bottom. Typically magazines for covers, will put any copy down the right side of the photo if they want it to the side. - But not if it's on the left page of a magazine, so leave a third of your photo empty for that. So imagine your sensor divided into thirds in vertical and horizontal directions. You are left with nine rectangles, and your subject will be more or less confined to one. 12 megapixels divided by 9 is going to give your actual subject a 1.3 megapixel area of the sensor. So it may be fine if printed whole without copy - it all just be a badly framed photo. But if you want to isolate the actual subject, you are going to have a pretty rough looking picture
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Interesting
@blutey
Жыл бұрын
The other thing to consider is, if you're mainly uploading your content to KZitem, after it's finished processing your video it's often hard to tell apart what camera it came from due to the heavy compression it undergoes.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair point!
@Dennis94913
Жыл бұрын
absolutely, instagram also compresses photos especially grainy ones.
@eddichan8379
Жыл бұрын
Well said. Unfortunately too many people believe the more pixal the better image quality.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Yep
@TexpatOTG
Жыл бұрын
A lot of new creators overspend because of 'pressure' from influencers and reviewers. If you aren't getting complaints about video quality your equip is probably fine. People that have over-spent ate easy to spot ... watch for the "unboxing". Agree with you 100%. Cheers
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Cheers!
@namvet_13e
Жыл бұрын
Megapixel count is very, very important if you are a marketing professional because a numeric parameter that can be used to make the previous generation of expensive equipment you can promote for a client is the only easy way to promote sales to people with money. That is why smart phones are promoted on the basis of the pixel count of the camera function. Back in film camera days the numeric parameter was lens speed. That is why in the 1960's the most expensive lens you could seek was the f1.2 or f0.95 prime lens. At least you needed an f1.4 prime standard lens. You were really unfortunate if you had to shoot with a 1.8 prime. Later, when the lens speed race became stale, the most difficult and most expensive lens to offer was the wide angle. At one time a 35mm was considered a good wide angle lens. Then the advertising departments convinced people they needed a 28mm. Then a 24mm. For the clever photographer on a budget, his best wide angle is his smart phone. That is not promoted in advertising because any smart phone has a wider camera view than most camera zoom lens.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting, I didn’t know that
@Dennis94913
Жыл бұрын
~20 mpx is enough for most photgrapher, where higher megapixels count is in high end commercial photography where pixel level manipulations are done.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I see I see
@Jonathantuba
Жыл бұрын
More megapixels is very important for wildlife photographers. Most photos we take have to be cropped to produce the desired image, because wild birds and animals are difficult to get close. Therefore high megapixel camera means we have a lot more latitude. I shoot with the 50Mp Sony A1 and often I still end up with a relatively small final image.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
That makes sense
@chesslover8829
Жыл бұрын
Excellent input.
@brandondeleon9727
Жыл бұрын
High megapixels are for landscape and wild life enthusiasts. Buying lenses are your best investment when it comes to getting the most of our camera no matter how much megapixels it is. Old cameras like canon 1DX with a 14 megapixel sensor and a high quality lens will deliver great results.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Agreed
@AlexanderRay92
Жыл бұрын
The biggest reason I want more MP is for macro: Taking the photo farther away means more DOF, so I can potentially avoid trying to focus-stack by simply being farther away and cropping in.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Ah gotcha gothca!
@florentinoacosta6002
Жыл бұрын
I agree with you completely. the camera is only a tool. it is the person behind the camera that creates the image. so it doesn't matter how expensive your gears are it is still you that peek in the view finder that matters. My camera is only a Nikon D7200 and I'm just an amateur.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
👍
@georgechen1124
Жыл бұрын
X-T1(XF35mm f/1.4) + X100V for life. Bye bye my other full-frame 'Dumbbell' cameras.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Love me some fujilove
@jamesoliver6625
Жыл бұрын
The chart is misleading because what determines the fidelity of your print to the captured data is the rasterization frequency of the printer relative to the "at import reduction or enlargement" pixel frequency of the captured image. To that end, when we were scanning (in cmyk) an image that was to fill a full page (nominal 8.5x11) that was to print offset at 150 lpi, the scan was figured to render out at around 24 megs which in RGB works to around 18. That gave a pixel frequency of the "at size" image roughly twice the output to offset print frequency. anything less and you stood a chance of seeing the pixel edges depending on circumstances. However, her notion is misleading too. I always shoot to give me a 25-50 meg image in 14bit RAW so that when developed it comes out to ~50 megs RGB 8 bit. If I know I want to print it 16x20 or larger, I'll often shoot a mult pano to stitch together oversize and then crop. Images ofter break 100 megs but they're not really that hard to handle. Data will always be lost at the rasterization stage but you're giving the algorithm the most to work with at color accuracy and edge sharpness.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the insight, I’m nowhere near your level of technical understanding so was very interesting to read
@jamesoliver6625
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 Spent 33 years in commercial offset print prepress/color separation work and most graphic artists and photographers took a while to understand resolution wise that the percentage you imported the image into your page layout software and blew it up or reduced it directly effected it's effective resolution. A "safe" recommendation when folks started doing their own scans was to figure a quarter of a meg (RGB)per square inch in of final print and scan to whatever resolution gave you that big of a file. It's a little overkill but that maximizes the quality on a quality inkjet spraying 2400 dpi matrix on the print.
@mattia.astorino
Жыл бұрын
I agree that more mpx doesn't mean better quality generally speaking. But the term "quality" include many aspects. Ok for print the quality is almost the same, but more mpx allow for better crops, which can improve the overall quality. Also having a larger sensor with better dynamic range improves the quality of the image. The evaluation is based on what people put under the "quality" term.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Agreed, I think the consensus so far has been that the cropping/dynamic range differences are probably the biggest considerations for most
@SchardtCinematic
Жыл бұрын
I have had many Canon DSLRS since 2012. But my first was a Fujifilm MX-2900 Only 2.3mp. But the pics were really good. Just couldn't print over a 5x7. I gor a Canon T3i in 2012 and I was blown away by 18mp. I couldn't get over how far i could zoom up on detail. I hardly make prints anymore. For me the higher megapixels are for being able to zoom in on my photos and discover background details I couldn't see before. I currently have a Canon 90D and a Canon R7 as my work horses.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Nice!
@Walkercolt1
Жыл бұрын
And my 35mm film camera with the proper film makes 48 X72 inch enlargements in my own darkroom that are grainless when viewed from 365mm and it;s manual focus! I rarely push 36mm to such extremes, and go with a medium format or large format sheet film camera for photo-wallpaper. My 30 meg digital "limits-out" to my eye at about 20x30.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Interesting
@lancelotvt
Жыл бұрын
Just happened across this video by chance and thought I'd offer my experiences. I currently own several Nikon DSLR's including my D3100 (14MP), D7000 (16MP), D7100 (24MP), D700 (12MP), and a D800 (36MP). The biggest thing I've learned since doing photography these past 13 years is that Megapixels aren't everything. I have produced some stunning prints (including a 24"x36" waterfall taken with my 14MP D3100). I have many other stunning shots taken with all my other cameras and when people look at them the usual response I get is "you must have a VERY NICE camera". They are then shocked when I tell them it was taken on a camera that's 10 years (or more) old and likely half the Megapixels of their cell phone camera. High megapixel camera's have their place, but only for a small percentage of photographers who do specialized work where extreme detail is necessary in an extremely large print where it's going to be viewed at a close distance. One other perk of higher megapixel cameras is their ability to crop an image and maintain detail. In fact many wildlife photographers actually prefer crop sensor camera's for not only the narrower field of view offered by the crop factor, but they also tend to have finer detail overall which lends itself to additional cropping in post. Crop sensor cameras actually have a smaller and tighter pixel density vs a "Full Frame" sensor. This is also why Full Frame sensor cameras tend to have better low light performance due to the better light gathering of the larger pixels on the sensor.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the insight!
@matthouben4242
Жыл бұрын
The sensor is only a part of the equation. You can have a super duper sensor, but if the lens in front of it is crap, the pictures will look crappy. Good optics is way more important than a high megapixel count.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I've been learning this myself as I practice my photography!
@enian82
Жыл бұрын
Subscribed well done on this video.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Cheers!
@omegafire6253
Жыл бұрын
I managed to make a 112 megapixel photo using a 24megapixel crop sensor using a 600mm telephoto lens. The true potential is thinking outside the box and don't resort to what the camera only offers. I was still able to creat full frame photos with crop sensor. All this with photo stitching techniques. It's a hit or miss but more practice can get flawless photos.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Nice!
@tomhalbouty3653
Жыл бұрын
Although this video is mostly correct it, perhaps it doesn't address the value of more pixels when cropping wildlife photography where one often tosses out a lot of the image captured in the frame. I sent back my Canon R6 and replaced it with the R5 and the cropped image improvement was quite significant when editing bird photography. Perhaps the use cases for the photographer is where the value of more megapixels should be discussed. I've noticed that it is becoming popular to bash higher megapixel cameras. In my experience, newer premium lenses do have better resolving power, clarity and contrast when compared with many older lenses. I'm not sure when the chart you used in this video was produced but as resolution improves, so does our ability to see differences as we become accustomed to seeing it. Most of us noticed when television moved from 240 lines of resolution to 480 to 1080, etc.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Not a fan of bashing high mp cameras, but totally agree that there are tools for every job
@tonygarrett7214
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video. A balanced approach to the subject. I shoot with a 16 (APS-C) and 26 megapixel (full frame) cameras and at A3 print size it is not really possible to see a difference. I don’t crop my photos (that’s what zoom lenses are for). I ask friends if they can tell the difference between the two identical prints on the two different cameras and they can’t. For keen amateurs, 8 to 16 megapixels is fine. Thanks for your sensible approach to this topic.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment 🙏
@SuperMarioY
Жыл бұрын
Nevertheless, if I ever win that lottery Hasselblad 400MP is mine. Who cares about 2.4GB image size :-) I will worry about storage some other time.
@spudwas
Жыл бұрын
Great Rant!
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks 😄
@pjc3163
Жыл бұрын
I just picked up a Nikon D700 with a 12 megapixel sensor; it shoots so well, great colour rendition just don't crop your pictures excessively.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing!
@andynowy
Жыл бұрын
It depends on what kind of photography you do. For macro and wildlife, more is best! Meny times, you need to crop your image to the point where you're left with 10mp out of 60mp
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
This is what I’ve been gathering from many of these comments
@superzero4250
Жыл бұрын
20mp is my minimum threshold for professional image quality, and even that is more than necessary. I seem to recall Apple had their “Shot by iPhone” campaign, and they posted giant billboards all over major metropolitan cities around the world from 12mp cameras… Your “friend” more than likely wasted more money on camera’s that would have been better spent on lenses… 🤔
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
That's a good point... and from the street those billboards look preeemo.
@The_Essential_Light
Жыл бұрын
Higher megapixels is mostly beneficial for critical retouching and the ability to crop without losing too much quality.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Ya
@Stop-All-War
Жыл бұрын
Bought a zfc, aps-c camera recently & tiny ttartisans 35mm f1.4.. portability. 20mp & EVF Focus peaking, film simulations, 4k, etc etc.. Photography can be fun & spontaneous & lightweight. My full frame gear can wait for its turn to go outdoors.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Haha fair
@jaybleu6169
Жыл бұрын
Right on. I've tried all manner of full frame cameras, and keep coming back to my Zfc. My latest thing is adapting 1960s Nikkor lenses to it with the Zhongyi speedbooster. Feels so close to the old film days, but without the hassle of film.
@Stop-All-War
Жыл бұрын
@Jay Bleu The Zhongyi are compact & it seems, well priced. Loosing 1-stop Aperture is worth it on full frame lenses (old nikkor for example) to aps-c: z50 / zfc.
@Montekos86
Жыл бұрын
Which full frame you have? Just bought a zfc and loving it . I'm actually impressed how good and sharp( for low mgpixel apsc ) is!
@ChadWilson
Жыл бұрын
Do Medium photogs ever flex on 35mm for giving up sensor size? Do large format photogs flex over everyone for going small?
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Lol
@arthurlorenzocolombini9956
Жыл бұрын
cheers to that!
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
👍
@ianvaughan9028
Жыл бұрын
A 4K TV or monitor has a resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels which is about 8.3MP, that's all. Even photos from old 12MP cameras exceed the resolution of my 32 inch 4K monitor.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
That’s a good way of putting it!
@marvintpandroid2213
Жыл бұрын
Depends how big you print or how much you crop, 12mp is enough, 24mp is better, 36mp better still and after that it is really diminishing returns. Spend your money on the glass.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Better glass seems to be the consensus
@chesslover8829
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 Talk to Sally Mann. On her 8x10, she uses antiquated glass to make her images.
@meta4101
Жыл бұрын
The key to great photography is the photographer - end of story. Photographers have created great images with a cell phones, compact cameras, APS-C and, of course, full frame. Equipment only plays an important part if shooting/processing skills, creative vision and all the rest are all aligned and up to snuff. ( ps - the most important advantage of high megapixel density is an enhanced ability to crop in some situations, not the inherent resolution.)
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Ya that’s what I’ve been hearing full frame is great for cropping
@markkeohane9850
Жыл бұрын
MP = Marketing Ploy. On some, it works; often people who have all the gear but no idea. Like your friend. As for large prints, the bigger the print, the greater the viewing distance. My rule of thumb is viewing distance = 3x longest edge of the image. I understand 2MP is plenty for billboards because they're viewed from distance. "Would've been a better photo if the photographer had more megapixels", said no gallery observer ever. Some of the best photos ever were shot on film, decades ago. Does comparatively poor resolution make them inferior photos? (Rhetorical question.) Your friend needs to pack up her expensive gear, return it to the shop and tell them she's read the manuals but still doesn't get it.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Lol
@RonaldPlett
Жыл бұрын
I didn't come to watch the video. I just came to answer the question and yes I do need this much mega pixels
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Haha, love that you did!
@denizkendirci
Жыл бұрын
i'm still using my nikon d90, a lot more than my fujifilm x-t3. because it's a lot more robust so i don't worry about carrying and throwing it around. fun fact about megapixels = google "4k black wallpaper" and the result images that are 3840x2160 (4k) pitch black pictures have the same amount of pixels with those 4k detailed landscape or cityscape wallpapers and photos you have seen. that doesn't mean they have the same detail though. because every pixel in those are black. megapixel is not equal to amount of deatail, megapixel is equal to "the capacity" of amount of detail. light is the thing that fills up that capacity with detail. with poor enough lighting a 640x480 image and a 4k image will the same poor quality. and it's the same logic in video shooting with the concept of megapixel, a very low bitrate 4k video is much more horrible than a high bitrate 720p video. megapixel is the "upper limit" of details you can have with the right conditions, but it's not the amount of detail you get. that's why as far as quality goes, better lighting (in photography) and better bitrate (in videography) is much more important. you don't believe me, then record a 4k video with 200 mbit/s bitrate with your camera then upload it to youtube as 4k. then watch the original one and the youtube one in a big screen. they are both 4k, but one of them has a much poorer quality than the other. they have the same megapixels but they don't have the same bitrate (data per second) anymore.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
True
@mwales2112
Жыл бұрын
As a Leica user with a 10 y/o M240 camera I don't NEED any of the features that the new offerings have. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO is all I need...
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair enough!
@adrianvanleeuwen
Жыл бұрын
I have compared my professional wedding photos taken from my Nikon D700 with 24-70mm F2.8 at 12MP and ones taken from the D750 with 24-120mm F4 at 24MP with pro lenses, although the image quality can be very good in closeup portraits at 12MP especially in studio, the difference in my opinion is still there at 24MP, for increased hair detail, clothing detail, facial details especially in group photos of 10 people. I see improved detail in facial / clothing / hair clarity of group people, or even solo fashion models on my 27 inch monitor. Based on a single pixel line of width or height of pixel resolution comparison it is about 30 percent more resolution on height or width (despite double the total MP). That said I still use the 12MP D700 for closeup portraits in studio like headshots, and the 24MP D750 for weddings and large group portraits, fashion photos, and closeup product photography where high definition texture (like closeup fabric detail) matters to me or my client. Does 12MP or 24MP cameras (or even 45MP) make a difference to great photos? All are capable, just depends on the end use of the image. Some landscapers love 45MP if they print very big!
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the insight!
@jbr84tx
Жыл бұрын
She was just trying to justify her spending all that money. She wants to think it was necessary and worth it.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair point
@Spock105
Жыл бұрын
I have a D850 and some F1.4 lenses . And honesty , I rarely use it and rather go to my X Pro2 . Because even when I print on A3+ , you won't see the difference . I have even printed with my 10mp Olympus XZ 1 with very small sensor or D700 and you won't see it . You will , yes , when you start to crop heavy . So for wildlife , astro or macro , yes FF will be better . And even for wildlife most use an APS-C or you set the D850 to DX. But if streetphotography is your thing , the smaller the more pics you will make and better ones because that big DSLR will scare the shit out of many persons on your way. Bottomline , in general you don't need high MP . Years ago billboards were also made on basis of low mp cameras . The mp war is like the watt receiver war in the 70's. They want to make believe you , you need them , and next you'll need a better desktop for those huge files , and same for those cellphones with 50 or even 108mp cameras .....sell sell sell . So this year .....I will sell ....all my FF stuff and switch to either Fuji or even m4/3 , no more need to run around with 20kg of stuff.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I think the xpro series cameras are pretty cool!
@Spock105
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 hope they upgrade the xpro4 to 64 iso , stabilised sensor, 40mp
@stvnkramer8726
Жыл бұрын
Same here. Still loving the Sony A9 with 24mpx and possibly worst dynamic range full frame Sony
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
True
@barryduff9839
Жыл бұрын
I shot a picture of my favorite watering hole. It was a rainy day and I used a tripod the camera was a Pentax k5 16mp's aps-c. The lens I used was the kit lens 18-135mm. Lens and camera is weather proof. The owner of the bar loved the shot. It spent almost 6 years as the mural on the wall behind the stage. It looked great and it looked like the bands where playing outside. Just thought I would share I still use the camera even though I now have a Pentax K1mii full frame.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
That’s amazing, thanks for sharing!
@EddieOrr
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video. A lot of people are getting caught up and always looking for the newest gear and forgetting about the joys of photography!
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Yup, that’s what I feel
@robmcd
Жыл бұрын
Marcus Pix has laser eyes and he says there is no point in anymore than 24 megapixels. Nick Page went from a 61 megapixel Sony to a 45 megapixel canon and hasn’t noticed any degradation in quality.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Interesting!
@robmcd
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 canon forced me to buy an XH2S .. all I wanted was a 28,35,50mm F2 L lens. So Fuji more or less made them.
@Lofote
Жыл бұрын
Yes, yes, you are right about the whole discussion, except one thing where you both seem to think wrong about what a word mean: "doesn't make you a pro"... What is a Pro? Pro comes from Profession, which means you make your main money from it. Pro has nothing to do with good or bad or experienced or not... it just means you make money with photography. I know pro photographers who learned the exact setting and light setup for product photography they do. They know nothing about aperture or shutter speed, yet alone anything else, but they make their main money with that job. So photography is their profession, and that makes them a pro. It's strange how that word is misunderstood worldwide and know many think it means someone or experienced is good in something. By the way the right word for THAT meaning is "expert". :) For the megapixel discussion I used an α7S for 4,5 years for many jobs and tasks, many shootings for weddings, models etc. And printed many of them for larger books, and never ever there was once the situation where someone incl. myself said "it is a bit too few". And that camera has 12 MP. So I completely agree with you here :)... As long as you don't have to crop much away 12 MP is more than enough already. So anything 20+ is plenty :).
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I think you’re taking my use of the word “pro” and hyper over analyzing things lol
@joestrahl6980
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 I disagree sharply. A person who has a job and earns money in a particular area has a profession. To be considered "professional" is the way we act while on the job, our relations with colleagues and customers, etc and the tools and knowledge we bring to the task at hand. Expert photographers know their equipment and tricks of the trade well and some of them also have that as their profession. This use of the word "professional" in photography is about as bad as being obsessed over megapixels when *most* photographers do not always need more than 16-20 or so, the idea of "full frame" when it should be called digital small format, and that "cropped sensors" are somehow 'inferior' to "full frame".....what is a so-called full frame sensor if anything compared to digital medium format camera like the fujifilm gfx series...a cropped sensor! There are a lot of misconceptions in photography and if you are going to try to "expose" one misconception it is important to deal with additional ones in a consistent manor.... and just like your friend needs to see things differently with regard to mexapixels.....
@nicerides9224
Жыл бұрын
I have 24mp with a nikon d3500 and it produces decent quality images even with the kit lenses, especially the 70-300 VR. Even better quality with some primes I bought. Occasionally it would be nice to have more mp doing bird or macro shots for cropping but that would mean a hell of a lot more cost and weight to get that extra detail. We're lucky today to have such good specs available even in entry level cameras.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Very true!
@jtokaji
Жыл бұрын
Some of my best photos were taken with a 4.1MP Nikon D2H and a 50mm 1.8 lens. And I have been through the gammut. Just bought an X-T5 and using it at 20MP setting to keep files sizes down until Adobe starts supporting HEIF.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
How are you liking the xt5?
@jtokaji
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 it's pretty nice. The lack of HEIF support is frustrating though. I like to use SOO images, for my purposes. But the fact that it supports it, is promising. Although I don't think the images at this point are that much better than JPGs. I don't want to shoot 50MB RAW files or 20MB JPGs...
@Imagezone61
Жыл бұрын
I agree with not chasing megapixels. Some of my best liked and most sold photos were with a Canon 20D, and my Sony 7.2 mp point and shoot, which, btw, had an amazing ability for macro shots. The artist makes the image, not the tools.
@Montekos86
Жыл бұрын
Did u see great difference from the previous fuji models if you had any ?
@jtokaji
Жыл бұрын
@@Montekos86 there is a difference but not linear (not twice as good). Auto WB seems to be better indoors. The addition of subject tracking is nice and works reasonably well. I’m most concerned about the longevity of the IBIS mechanism. My 10 year old X-T1 is still going strong. Not sure this would stay in calibration for that long. Also sometimes I wonder if the sensor settles down enough when I take the shot to not cause any softness. I had issues with OIS working against me before.
@ickebins6948
Жыл бұрын
YES!
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Yes!
@Ortopedija1989
Жыл бұрын
it depense on what you need a powerful camera for. A mobile poje camera is good enough for posting a small photos on social networks. But try to print it out in 30x40. That is why i still shoot with 50years old film camera medium format. it is cheaper.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Cool!
@d.r.martin6301
Жыл бұрын
I would enjoy seeing some discussion of how images from a crop sensor might be competitive with full frame sensors by means of upscaling apps like Gigapixel AI. Or is that just not a thing?
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I’m not super familiar with that, but would definitely be open to trying something like that
@ItsPinecone_911
Жыл бұрын
You're correct. I own a A7R III (42.2mp) and my wife owns a Sony A6100 (ASP-C 24.2mp) and unless your at like 400x zoom you wont notice the different between the two photos. This is also why I have not upgraded to the A7R IV which has 61mp. If I do upgrade my camera itll either me the lower mp camera the A9 II or the 50mp Sony A1. The one main reason would be for the faster fps and autofocus. Other than that my A7R III is way more than I ever really need.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Interesting, thanks for the insight!
@ItsPinecone_911
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 you're welcome. Just remember, the thing that shows the most difference is the quality of len you use. Most can spot a differencr betwee cheap and good lens that was used. Even if they dont know anything about photogrpahy they can tell something is off when you use a cheap lens sometimes.
@nerucheung
Жыл бұрын
Same goes for the "best/better" video specs. I was thinking about getting the X-H2 for photo and filming simple vlogs, and someone told me to get the X-H2s because it has better video specs like better rolling shutter, 4k 120p and open gate. But how often am I going to use these functions 🤷♂️
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I have the X-H2S and love it :)... even though I don't use all the specs lol
@rslager4
Жыл бұрын
I upgraded from the rebel xt I had from 2006 to the Canon 7d just a week ago. Love it so far. Bug step up for me.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
7D is a great camera, I used to have a 60D back in the day, 7D was the big daddy version at the time lol
@weisserth
Жыл бұрын
Hey there, Your rant video brings up some good points, but you also missed some important points - in your favor. Your chart is nice, but practically meaningless, because the "drop-off in quality" will only be noticed at equal viewing distances, e.g. a viewer will always stand at an equal distance from prints in all sizes. That's not the case in reality. The larger the print, the larger the viewing distance. When Apple introduced their first iPhone targeting photography, they advertised it with oversized billboard prints of photos taken with the iPhone, using 8MP JPG files. The prints were probably 2 meters tall or taller. Nobody noticed any drop-off in quality because the viewing distance for that format is typically large. I printed 30 by 40 inches from a 12MP Micro Four Thirds file. The print is flawless, you can even step up close to it and you wouldn't be able to see any defects. How did I achieve that? AI based enlargement algorithms and careful post-processing with modern processing software. Files from 10 years ago can now easily be upscaled for larger prints without a noticeable loss in quality thanks to improvements in technology. And then there is the blatant misconception that megapixels equal resolution. Take Fuji's new 40MP APSC sensors for example. Those do not resolve more fine detail than your 26MP sensor, same settings, same lens, same motive. A bunch of people have proven this by now in controlled conditions. So you won't get better prints from the new 40MP sensor. And sensors work differently, for example a sensor with and without a lowpass/anti-alias filter will have different resolution even if their MP count is identical. One-layered color sensors like CMOS use algorithms like Bayer and Xtrans to interpolate color information where the sensor didn't really catch color information, because each pixel only captures one color. Sigma's Foveon sensors have three layers and capture all colors at all layers. My Sigma DP2 Merrill with it's nominal 15MP will handily out-resolve any camera with less than 40MP and it will probably keep up with modern 40MP sensors in detail rendition and more importantly color rendition because it captures color at three layers. The fact is, there are no bad cameras anymore. Any camera with 12MP to 24MP produces excellent output for prints of all practical sizes, even beyond 30 by 40 inches. The good news here is that it's people flush with money falling for the marketing cool-aid of manufacturers that will keep these manufacturers financially afloat. If everyone made financially rational decisions about their gear purchases, more than half of the manufacturers would have gone bust already.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Haha thanks for the perspective!
@TheRealMarxz
Жыл бұрын
we all know someone like that - have a couple of friends I've known for near on 20 years who are like that, always the latest and greatest, upgrading almost every model/version release then changing brands every few years (often to change back to a previous brand, having to buy replacement lenses and accessories). I often get ribbed by them for using my 20MP G9 or GX9 MFT cameras or my 30MP Canon (which is, horror of horrors, a DSLR - shameful I know, right?) and even worse those are "soooooo low megapixesl", dude, mate, buddy, your A7iv is not even a full 3 MP more than my Canon!!! I also have a few old MFT cameras of between 10 and 16 MP mostly purchased used for chicken feed (we are literally talking paying $50 to $100 for body+ lenses) So I've never, ever, replaced a camera due to a pressing need "to upgrade to the next/latest model" and often happily gone "backwards" to "old" gear to get what I want But here's the thing - my first non point and shot digital camera back 2002 was the 1999 Canon D60 - yes D60 not 60D - which had 6 megapixels. I have A3+ (13" x 19") prints from that camera that are excellent at normal viewing distances, !spoiler alert! most of those prints are from tight _CROPPED_ images as little as ~3.5 MP.... And on social media no-one can tell which pictures are taken with my 10MP GF1 or GF3 over the 16MP G3 or GX7, or even over the 20MP GX9 and G9, on Instagram, Facebook and even on Flickr (unless you look at the EXIF data) you literally can not tell the 10MP camera from the 20MP camera. 5 of my favourite travel images where taken with the 10MP GF3 with its 14mm kit lens and at least 2 of those I've been told - and I paraphrase "you should shoot the 5Div more often 'cause that shot's awesome, you couldn't get a shot that good on your little old MFT camera" .... and yet if I had pulled out the 5D with its big zoom lens rather than GF3 (which with the 14mm pancake is smaller than a smart phone) I wouldn't have got the candid street shots that those two shots are.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Great comment!
@agylub
Жыл бұрын
Unless you PRINT large 6mp is plenty. Let’s face it 99% of images end up on the web so what’s the point
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Yep
@GilbertCarosinPhotography
Жыл бұрын
even with higher resolution/mpx a bad picture is still a bad picture
High MP cameras are for folks who buy...really good lenses...really good. It's for folks who work in low light...landscapes...wildlife. If you don't have a plethora of very good glass...don't bother. If you do...go for it...nothing can touch it...not even close.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair points!
@Montekos86
Жыл бұрын
Not low light tho. Not beneficial to have more megapixels
@JACKnJESUS
Жыл бұрын
@@Montekos86 It still is. Higher MP can overcome noise to sharpness better than low MP sensors today. The high MP comes out of the gate grainier...but in PP...which both need (we are talking about high iso here obviously)...the high MP will in the end yield more sharpness after correction. Did not used to be that way...but MP isn't a static term.
@gamingwithstand6886
Жыл бұрын
My Panasonic Lumix GH2 starts at ISO 160.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
So does my fujifilm x-h2s :)
@danielson_9211
Жыл бұрын
Ok too many things to cover here, but let's start with megapixels, do you need more that depends on what you are doing, wildlife is an easy yes for the cropping factor. You can get great photos from a 12mp or you can get great photos from a 60mp, the more mp the more leeway you have for editing. Times are changing I've been thru film then dslr to mirrorless, and it's getting easier and easier to get into photography budget wise which is great. The old arguments still remain mp how much, apc or full frame or medium format. Best camera is the one you love to use, there will always be more mp 10fps 40fps. Best thing to do is practice practice practice perfect your craft.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Agreed!
@pfmusic1636
Жыл бұрын
Hmm interesting, short answer: yes!
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Lol
@kylecampbell7141
Жыл бұрын
It looks like 60mp is the new high end and 40 is the new standard. If you are shooting with less than 40 are you really even taking pictures. I am just trolling of coarse. Just picked up the x-t4 and I am super psyched. This was a good video with the graph.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment, from what I’ve heard X-T4 is solid!
@bobby350z
Жыл бұрын
Way back I had 5dc, really nice but I can tell comparing it and GFX100s I can see a huge differences. No I am not a pro. If I was a pro, I would care less but as unless my clients needed extra large prints, and noticed the difference, what's the need. It is a business decision. For hobbyist, like me, I have to please only myself. So like you said, if you can afford, so be it. I will say, if you get a chance, print GFX100s or GFX50s at even 20x30 and you will be very happy.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing, makes sense!
@memcrew1
Жыл бұрын
Medium format to FF will be a difference in tonal rendering and dynamic range.
@danevarkevisser4670
Жыл бұрын
You can print as large as you want even with smaller sensor cameras. The question you need to ask is what distance will you view the print noting that larger images will generally be viewed from a greater distance. Take a bill board for instance. It is not intended to be viewed close up. Taking this into account you are unlikely to distinguish between an image taken on a 100 megapixel camera and one made on 10 megapixel camera unless you view the image unnaturally close to study the fine detail - in other words, you start pixel peeping. The resolution of modern camera's and lenses has gone way past what we can see with our naked eye, so the then main reason you might want more megapixels is if your type of photography requires you to crop your images hard. For most photography that shouldn't be necessary.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Interesting, thanks for sharing the wisdom!
@LiamFyfe
Жыл бұрын
It’s nonsense, i shoot professionally (make my living from) 5 days a week and i still use a Nikon d5, i make big prints all the stuff that people say you cant. I have some beautiful lenses and you can always upscale your images with topaz if needed. There is not a nikon made today with better af or mid/high iso noise performance… yes i was loaned a z9 to try and coax me into an ‘upgrade’ but for me it was definitely not an upgrade! Just go out and shoot, you will get better pictures
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Agreed! Go out and shoot!
@atuane7003
Жыл бұрын
Agreed on megapixels, but full frame does have a clear advantage. And isn't that expensive. For around 400 euro you can buy a A7S or A7R full frame camera . The great thing about full frame system cameras is the use of vintage lenses. Having said that I also shoot with micro four thirds. Depending on the sort of photography. The cheaper and more basic the camera is, the better photos I shoot. Manual focus, manual aperture, take time for s photo.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Full frame glass is $$$ though
@jaybleu6169
Жыл бұрын
I don't know how clear the difference is. I've done a LOT of side by side shooting with full frame and APSC cameras, and the result has been that I keep selling my full frame cameras because I just like the APSC cameras better (Fujis and the Nikon Zfc), and at least printing up to 24x36, the difference just isn't that big. Even the differences I could see in straight from the camera JPEGs could be evened out with a few tweaks of the RAW file in Lightroom. The quality of the lens makes a lot bigger difference than the sensor, in my experience.
@arthurmarshall6825
Жыл бұрын
@@jaybleu6169 Full frame advantages are in that they have much better low light performance than APSC and it is much harder for APSC to blur the background. Also many camera companies are just putting their best tech only in full frames. Actual image quality is based on so much more than just full frame vs APSC.
@hoanglong-nv6wv
Жыл бұрын
I haven’t seen that mpx/ print size for so long. May be 10-15 years. When I struggle choosing my first “camera”, 1,3mpx or 2mp Nokia phones 😂😂😂
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Lol
@mihugong3153
Жыл бұрын
You can print very, very large even with 20ish megapixels. Significantly more than that usually only really becomes visible if you want to crop a lot, and in some special usecases like landscape. And lets not forget about new AI upscaling tools that will push green and blue images from your chart deeply into purple.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Interesting
@KimHojbergJensen
Жыл бұрын
I still use Nikon D80, D700 and Canon 5D 🤔
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
If they still get the job done!
@me-nah3343
Жыл бұрын
I “downgraded” from full frame to Fuji xt-1 in 2013. I then went down to xt30. For street photography, people appreciate the discretion.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I hear the XT30 is a great camera
@RBADigital
Жыл бұрын
Good 6mp and PhotoZoomPro will get you by. 24x36 inch prints, no problem.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
👍
@davidwarwick7968
Жыл бұрын
Totally agree!!
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Appreciate the comment Dave!
@mozadak
Жыл бұрын
I saw something like "more megapixels cause more noise". So yeah, what will the MP fanboys say for that?
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
No clue!
@chesterjohnson4504
Жыл бұрын
Long time Nikon shooter. Traded all to get into ML Canon. Well all is good but gosh. My D700, D810 and the used D4s I used was really good enough. The R5 focusing is nice and a few good bells and whistles but the final image on my Nikons were just as good. I bought back my D810 and a good used D4s. Will be buying back a D700 one day. I do not print large prints. Make photo books and calendars for gifts and a few prints. Most images end up on Flickr. However when I do shoot birds or wildlife the higher MP's are nice for cropping.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
I find this so interesting, you're one of many people who've told me they've "switched" back to tried and true systems that they've come to love using.
@catherinegrimes2308
Жыл бұрын
Nearly five years ago, I bought a Fujifilm X-E3 camera with a 24MP sensor, initially for astrophotography but am now using it for holidays and wildlife photography. I was planning on upgrading to the X-S10, but on hearing about the new cameras having a 40MP sensors, I am waiting to see what the successor will be like. From reading the reviews, it appears that the 40MP sensor is not worse than the 26MP sensor and it does have the advantage of being able to crop further and this would be useful when photographing wildlife. The newer camera should have better autofocusing, other improvements and should be around the same price. However, I will wait until it comes out before making a decision.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Good ideas!
@jaystilo8387
Жыл бұрын
i disagree. Going from a 24mp camera to a 45mp was like switching from HD to 4k.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
A lot of people would argue you can’t tell the difference between HD and 4K lol but I hear you!
@marinrealestatephotography
Жыл бұрын
Definitely having a camera that you ENJOY using (and that you DON'T feel you have to leave it at the hotel due to fear of it being stolen) is going to make your photography better. However, there ARE some benefits to more megapixels and larger sensor sizes. Otherwise, EVERYONE would be shooting ONLY with m43 gear all the time.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
True
@jean-mauricecormier9180
Жыл бұрын
Where did you get that reference chart? I would like to share with my camera club.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Got it from here: photographyicon.com/enlarge/
@joestrahl6980
Жыл бұрын
Where is the source of the chart you showed the one of megapixels vs print size?
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Got it from here: photographyicon.com/enlarge/
@Ramman1995
Жыл бұрын
Got into the hobby with an a6000 and two years later I have no need to upgrade
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Great camera!
@anta40
Жыл бұрын
I rarely prints, let alone make huugeee gallery-level fine art prints (e.g anything bigger than 2x3m, typically done with big medium format cameras). So, anything greater than 24MP is useless to me.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Fair enough
@nevvanclarke9225
Жыл бұрын
BULL SHIZEN I own 5 cameras from 12 megapixels to 46.5. They have a role each depending on what I want to shoot. Ill dumb this down. Landscape fro big prints 2 meters by 1 meter megapixels help. Bird photography and cropping - Yup it helps. OK where is less megapixels helpful - portraits - you font wat to have to edit hair off someones face on their chin if they are a beautiful woman or editing cracked teeth and so on. I think 24 megapixels is better not 45. Architecture - yes more helps. Family photos and social gatherings 15-20 is perfect.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
👍
@carlmcneill1139
Жыл бұрын
Cameras, lenses and other gear are tools. Pick the right tool for the job. Every camera I've owned has had a 24 MP sensor. My next one may have 45 MP. I'll have to upgrade some stuff on my pc for that first. Another advantage of high MP is being able to crop in if your lens doesn't have enough reach. That's about it.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Appreciate the comment!
@6042833
Жыл бұрын
More mega pixels is not always better. You need to marry your camera with your lenses. It is about combination between camera and Good quality lens. 26 mega pixel is more than enough for 99% of photographers.
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Agreed!
@luisvergani2693
Жыл бұрын
A fair way to see how many megapixels are "necessary" would be to compare the digital image with, say, the same picture taken with a Leica + Summicron on Ektachrome...
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Good call!
@chesslover8829
Жыл бұрын
Maybe I can speak to that. Using a tripod-mounted 35mm camera with Zeiss glass and Kodachrome 25, I kept my enlargements on Cibachrome to just 7x10 inches in order to preserve image quality.
@mortenthorpe
Жыл бұрын
i have several Fujis, full frame nikons, and my GFX50R… the only major difference i experience, is for big prints, where the main difference is from the small cropped sensor to the gfx… in other words - full frame sensor cameras are fine, but having smaller and larger sensor cameras - full frame cameras are a waste of money…
@ISO160
Жыл бұрын
Interesting! Can you tell a difference in those large prints easily?
@mortenthorpe
Жыл бұрын
@@ISO160 ok full details on differences then - The direct difference is noticeable mainly at unrealistically close ranges - e.g. pixel peeping a print for differences- The real main difference is the amazing dynamic range that the GFX has - for editing the RAW shots to the final versions for use/print- shadow recovery is amazingly good on the GFX
@Montekos86
Жыл бұрын
@@mortenthorpe do you big difference in colors ? I have an apsc and the only reason thinking to go on bigger sensor is not sharpness or cropping etc . I'm only thinking about the color range-dynamic range. Even tho I'm not sure if I would have the budget for medium format . So wondering apsc to ff
@mortenthorpe
Жыл бұрын
@@Montekos86 you willnot experience a dynamic range difference between modern aps c and ff of any importance - they pretty much enable equal range of shadow recovery
@Montekos86
Жыл бұрын
@@mortenthorpe thank you very much , saved me from a headache . Cause I just bought my zfc , and still thinking if I should go for the z6 for ff . I love the zfc tho and I think pushes me to shoot more
@alfoutdoors9660
Жыл бұрын
The A7III has 24mp, so going by her own logic, your camera with 26mp is better than hers!
Пікірлер: 345