I have been on a journey, comparing different megapixels for quite a while now. For example, using 33 megapixels, using Gigapixel AI to make it larger (which doesn’t add detail) but increases resolution for you to see more detail.

It seems that with sharp glass, I do not notice much more detail with 61 MP camera, but I notice more resolution. I do notice some more detail. You can zoom in about 1.4x more than 33 MP. It seems like the lenses have more to do with the actual detail than the megapixels and the megapixels may help but they have to do with resolution.

I started this journey years ago. I remember downgrading from a 36 MP camera to a 20 MP camera and at the time because it was a different brand I had a lens that wasn’t super sharp. I felt I made a huge mistake. But then as I got sharp glass, I started noticing I was seeing the same detail, I just couldn’t zoom in as much.

Now with Adobe Super Resolution and Gigapixel AI, I am able to make them the same size and see if there is truly more detail. Honestly, if there is, it’s hard for me to see when using sharp glass.

I’d rather use the 61 MP because I dont always want to use software (which can cause artifacts sometimes,) to crop. I’ve read that 61 MP gives you detail about like 16 MP x 2.

What I notice though is, for example, going from 24 MP to 33 MP, seems like a large jump in detail and resolution. Although the gap there is smaller. But going from 33 MP to 61 MP, the jump doesn’t seem to be as large although it’s about double the megapixels.

Also, the benefit of 61 MP resolution, you want it to be sharp 1:1 if you want to crop any. Some here told me to improve my technique and I did and it definitely did help.

I don’t know why this interest me so much but it does. Because I see people claim they went from say 36 MP to 61 MP and are, “blown away,” by the extra detail. I do not find that to be the case. For a while I thought something was wrong with my camera. On my last test I thought it was even my IBIS.

I went to Sony’s website and looked at Sony A7RIV and A7RV images they took at full resolution 100% zoomed in (and more) and my camera definitely looks as detailed as what they show on their website. So I wonder if people are being hyperbolic.

There is definitely more resolution, which allows you to get a crop you couldn’t get with 33 MP unless you used software, there is def an advantage to printing. And there IS, (let me be clear,) more detail. But I guess I have yet to see the detail be so much more that it blew me away.

This makes me wonder, why do you notice such a huge difference going from 24 MP to 33 MP? I definitely in that situation notice a big difference. And that isn’t that many more MP.

I am strictly talking full frame here. I have seen medium format images that were at 100 MP for example and there was definitely a lot more detail. But it makes me wonder if with full frame, is it not as big of a deal?

One thing is for certain. The lens definitely makes the biggest difference.

​

  • RefuseAmazing3422@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    What I notice though is, for example, going from 24 MP to 33 MP, seems like a large jump in detail and resolution. Although the gap there is smaller. But going from 33 MP to 61 MP, the jump doesn’t seem to be as large although it’s about double the megapixels.

    There are diminishing returns.

    First when increasing MP you need to print larger to see a difference. Nobody is going to be tell on an 8x10 print, but maybe on a 24x36.

    Second when you increase MP the individual pixels get smaller and hence noisier. So the quality and detail goes down and you don’t get as much improvement as the pixel numbers alone suggest

  • Party-Belt-3624@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I shoot architecture with a Hasselblad X2D. That’s 100 megapixels of medium format goodness. I noticed a difference when I switched from the Hasselblad X1DII at 50 meg.

    One thing you’ll notice is more megapixels generally equals more drive space. Those files can get big fast! Something to consider.

  • RedHuey@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Of course higher MP (and better lens) will look sharper than lower MP (and lesser lens). Are we supposed to be surprised or care about this explanation?

    Really though, if the sharpness of a photo, or how many MP your camera has is of utmost importance, your pictures are probably suffering from just being boring. Spend the brain power you are using up thinking about how your camera may or may not be competitive, to develop skill, style, and ability. All are far more important. Far more.

  • cheanerman@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    My journey has been the opposite. When first starting out I was convinced a higher MP DSLR = better photos. Over the years, I have come to realize that a bunch of my favorite photos have come from my phone, “base” scans from film, and the Fuji X100 series of cameras (of which I’ve owned the original, S, and V). I used to be super spec driven and care a lot about low-light performance, FPS, and lens sharpness tests. Nowadays with life getting busier, I am just happy when I have time to shoot landscapes or get an opportunity to document my friends and family doing something fun. Honestly, 12-16MP sounds quite ideal for me needs at this point.

  • EdwardWayne@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I have a D700 (12mp) that I bought just after it was released. I still use this camera and I have made many large prints (up to 24”x36”). They all look great.

    My current camera is 40mp and affords me the ability to crop heavily and pay a premium for storage space.

    If I made 18”x24” prints of the same shot from both cameras, it’s likely no one would be able to tell the difference.