Enter the ePHOTOzine Christmas Prize Draw extravaganza!

How many megapixels is enough for you?


joshwa Plus
9 905 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2016 2:35PM
Several companies over the years have declared that 12 or 16 megapixels is enough... and then gone on to release 24 or 20 megapixel cameras at a later date.

With the release of the 20 megapixel Canon EOS 1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 - we're wondering if this is enough megapixels for you? Or would you prefer 50, or 100 ?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

TanyaH Plus
16 1.3k 395 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2016 3:25PM
What I've currently got (21.1) is more than enough for me. I always thought it was more to do with the sensor anyway and how it records the pixels, rather than the pixel count itself? I suppose more pixels would enable larger prints to be made, without a huge loss of quality, but it's still just as easy to take a cr*p photo with 100 megapixels as it is with 12 Smile
Cymrucwtch 4 55 Wales
3 Feb 2016 3:28PM
Depends what the end use is.

For most people 24 might be enough. Others may need 36 or more.

Me personally, I have cameras that will do 10, 16 and 24 and enjoy using all of them. I dont need more than 24 at the moment Smile
GazzaG2003 16 365 England
3 Feb 2016 3:50PM
IMHO
Canon 30D 8mp (always used this for macro) great camera
Canon 40D 10mp (general wildlife) great camera
Canon 7D 18mp (was never really happy with either macro or general wildlife)
Canon 5D mk III (great camera for both macro and general wildlife)
DaveRyder Plus
5 3.6k 1 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2016 4:22PM
I've an Olympus Stylus 1 (12MP) and an E-410 (10MP).
Happy with both.
Give the screen resolution of my Laptop and my eyesight it's just a numbers game after that.

Mind - If I was to get a Ford Mustang I'd what a 5.0l not a 2.3l (so I can see the parallel..)
petebfrance 7 2.8k France
3 Feb 2016 4:40PM
I have 12 and 16mp cameras. For the most part they are both sufficient for my use.
However, I would be happy to have a lot more for occasional use (mostly bird photography) to allow for 'extreme' cropping. That would, of course, require 'good quality at pixel-level.'
pablophotographer 8 1.3k 354
3 Feb 2016 6:11PM
6x6 +0 megapixels
You do the maths.
It's been ages since I have shot with it, the 12 frames roll is still in the fridge.

DouglasMorley 9 30 1 Canada
3 Feb 2016 6:34PM
It's curious that as time goes on photographers tend to adapt to the increasing technical capabilities of photography hardware. Re. pixel counts we all, or nearly all, 'go with the flow' What would happen should there be a calamitious failure and we were all forced to go back to film?

Would our world end? Certainly not. Those wanting high quality would use medium or large format cameras, the rest would be eventually content with 35mm.

I believe that nearly all the world's most famous photographs were shot on film - either medium format or 35mm.

The need for more pixels is, in reality, a fallacy foisted on us by camera manufacturers and the media.

I'm given to understand that 16mp is equivalent to 100 ISO film, by the way
lemmy 12 2.8k United Kingdom
3 Feb 2016 6:40PM
I only shoot for editorial or web use and the biggest print I would want is 16 inches so 16Mp is plenty.

Cameras aimed at professionals rarely have high pixel counts anyway.
3 Feb 2016 6:57PM
Whatever comes with a camera is plenty. I choose not by numbers, but by camera's ability to make images good enough for me. Noticed lately that often coincides with higher pixel count - but some oldies in my camera collection still find their practical use.
Carabosse 16 41.3k 270 England
3 Feb 2016 7:04PM
My current 20Mp (on MFT sensor) is fine.

I can remember the heady days of 11Mp on full-frame sensors....... that was state of the art for pro DSLRs around the time I joined EPZ.
Dave_Canon 13 1.6k United Kingdom
3 Feb 2016 7:11PM
I produce A3 prints and I calculated that 14-15 M Pixels should be enough BUT I often like to crop images so need a little more in practice. My Full Frame 21M Pixel Canon is ideal for me. What I would like is a larger dynamic range 11 stops is not enough.

Dave
DouglasMorley 9 30 1 Canada
3 Feb 2016 7:51PM
Is it not true that in the days of, say up to 12mp we would all be most cautious when framing a shot, knowing that cropping to half frame, for instance, was fraught with potential loss of quality?
36 or 50mp has taken care of that but, does it not make us possibly lazy photographers, as will all large image cameras.

Also I believe that, for those who print up images, the human eye is incapable of discerning pixels, and the print incapable of showing them on even the very largest of blow ups even from many of the smallest original files - from say 6mp. I know that on screen this is not true, nevertheless......?!
Spencer1966 7 85 1 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2016 8:29PM
I have cameras with 10' 16 and 22 megapixels- the later of which I do often change to shoot at 10 anyway. Whether it's because I am tight and dispise filling up hard drives but find I don't need to shoot above 10 on most occasions. When I shoot weddings and provide an image only package I provide all images at 12mp size. I do also agree with other comments that the huge MP makes you shoot loose knowing you can crop. Some of my best images I have printed at A2 from a 1D mk3 framed right in camera. Why would I want more MP's than this I ask?
lobsterboy Plus
15 14.9k 13 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2016 8:52PM
My 50 megapixels is enough for me Wink Having recently moved from 20, I cant say that it makes much difference to how I shoot or how I process stuff.



Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.