12MP, if not cropping, Enough for Most Average Photography Needs?

[SRV1981]

I came across this video and felt that for an average consumer, not cropping or printing small photos, this could be a feasible option for photography.  Any thoughts on this?

 and this: 

 

 

[hyalinejim]

Absolutely 12MP may well be enough depending on what you want it for. I even did a project during lockdown where I sent 6MP cameras to people and asked them to take self portraits which I then cropped and THAT was enough resolution for Instagram.

We have all this resolution and then we end up looking at pics not too much bigger than a postage stamp!

[IronFilm]

Yes, the megapixel wars in photography ceased to be relevant for 97% of us many many years ago. 

[MrSMW]

Didn’t watch but yes. Easily.

I recently upgraded from 24 to 47mp cameras for my stills work because purely for myself, I like max quality, plus ability to crop hard (partly because I shoot shorter focal length primes).

But could easily go back to a camera that ‘only’ shoots 12mp for client wedding work.

[SRV1981]

Good to hear!!! Would MP make a difference in high shutter speed sports photography if not cropping in? 

[hyalinejim]

1 minute ago, SRV1981 said:

Would MP make a difference in high shutter speed sports photography if not cropping in?

I can't see how it would in an of itself. However, a camera with lower MP is more likely to be older so might have a slower burst rate than a newer camera does.

[webrunner5]

You can't make a blanket statement about MP. If you are shooting wildlife you need all the MP you can get. If you are shooting for social media you need very little MP. There is no one camera that does it all.

Ergo you are not going to buy a Smartphone to shoot wildlife, and not going to buy a 100mp Fuji MF to shoot social media stuff. And 12mp is really not enough for photography in this day and age.

[IronFilm]

46 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

I can't see how it would in an of itself. However, a camera with lower MP is more likely to be older so might have a slower burst rate than a newer camera does.

A camera with a lower megapixel count might also be intentionally designed to be a high speed sports camera, such as a Nikon D500 or D5. 

 

[webrunner5]

Or have larger pixels for light gathering such as the Sony A7s series.

[SRV1981]

9 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Or have larger pixels for light gathering such as the Sony A7s series.

This was my thought - if you’re 70/30 in favor of video - the benefits of a7s low light and dual iso options can be great if you only need photos for personal travel etc and not corporate work. I think it makes Ana regiment for a7s > a7 for hybrid considering most are non professional and don’t need much cropping. 

[webrunner5]

Yeah, I had a A7s and a A7s mk II. I liked them a lot. The ability to be able to shoot in low light, night scenes opening up opportunities that other cameras can't accomplish. It adds a whole new area your abilities, you are not just limited to daylight stuff.

The original A7s color output is a bit wonky compared to today, but it does have a unique character to it. I li ked it. And now with the Enhance thingy in Lightroom, Photoshop you can make smaller 12mp files pretty huge. Even BM Resolve has an enhance thing for video in it that works well also. And the original A7s camera is just tiny for a FF camera with a small lens on it.

I had an original A7r and it was damn near impossible to get a sharp image without using a tripod. But also was a neat camera.

[tupp]

Our own @Mattias Burling recently showed what one can do with a 6.3 megapixel, 19-year-old Canon 300D:

 

Gunpowder!

[PannySVHS]

I love the output from my 16MP Gx85. If it had 12MP with anything else staying the same I would still love it. Most mft lenses dont resolve more than 12MP. A lot of affordable FF lenses dont resolve more in their center crop. The Oly Pl1 is one sharp 12 MP cam due to its lack of an Oplf filter. Can be had for 30 bucks i bet.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

A camera with a lower megapixel count might also be intentionally designed to be a high speed sports camera, such as a Nikon D500 or D5. 

 

Yep and Sony's A7siii I reckon could be pretty good in this regard...but it's a bit more video-orientated.

A lot of folks poo poo the Canon R6 for photography stating "it's only 20mp" but I could easily do all my work with that.

Whether I choose to is another matter and currently I choose not to, but that's my personal choice.

[androidlad]

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Or have larger pixels for light gathering such as the Sony A7s series.

Larger pixels don't gather more light.

FF sensors are the same size at 36mm x 24mm, they gather the same amount of light with the same aperture.

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, tupp said:

Gunpowder!

She is missed 😞

[Trek of Joy]

I own the a7sIII and in many cases its definitely more than enough. You just have to be a little more deliberate in some situations where a heavy crop leaves you with barely enough for IG. But the images look much better enlarged than my iPhone which is also 12mp. But my other camera is 33mp a7IV and my previous other cameras were the 36mp a7r and the a7rII/a7rIII at 42mp. When shooting landscapes/cityscapes and wildlife, there's a lot of flexibility with more mp. One of my favorite things to do is shoot sunrises and crop tight on the sun. I can usually get 2-3 good shots out of a single image.

With wildlife I'm almost always in crop mode - even with the 200-600 - and usually crop a bit more in post. So 12mp doesn't cut it there. But outside of that its mostly fine and I use my a7sIII all the time for stills - the low rolling shutter means I can pretty much always use electronic shutter which saves wear on the mechanical shutter. 

If you're printing - which everyone should do to showcase your images - a duck on the water won't show the difference between 12 & 42MP, but a city skyline shot will once you get larger than about 8x11" (A4) or so. Its really cool to see fine details in a large print that more mp reveals. People always talk about "normal viewing distances" but I always get my nose right up against an image and pixel peep details. Almost everyone I've seen looking at photos on a wall does the same, so the extra detail is really cool IMO. But for social/web its totally not needed.

Chris

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, androidlad said:

Larger pixels don't gather more light.

FF sensors are the same size at 36mm x 24mm, they gather the same amount of light with the same aperture.

https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7s-preview-a-low-resolution-marvel-for-low-light-video/#:~:text=With less pixels on the,more light than traditional cameras”.

I think you are thinking the photo side that the DPR  article stated not the video side. The A7s Does have less pixels that are bigger. Your math is all wrong. The less the MP count the bigger the pixels have to be to fill the space.

[androidlad]

20 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7s-preview-a-low-resolution-marvel-for-low-light-video/#:~:text=With less pixels on the,more light than traditional cameras”.

I think you are thinking the photo side that the DPR  article stated not the video side. The A7s Does have less pixels that are bigger. Your math is all wrong. The less the MP count the bigger the pixels have to be to fill the space.

Low pixel count cameras tend to be cleaner at high ISO because of the lower cumulative read noise. It has nothing to do with bigger pixels collecting more light.

However, with the latest sensor design, it's doesn't alway apply any more. A1 for example, despite having 50MP, is slightly better in low light when shooting video compared to A7S III.

[PannySVHS]

One thing is for sure to me. I mean no offense. I just don´t see a way to enjoy the first video you posted. 🙂 @SRV1981

Sorry, friends, these hyperhyper youtubers have an unpleasant way for the rest of humanity who are none of their 500.000 subscribers. Shreeeeek. This topic makes me want to use my Oly Peni E-PL1. Screen sucks for manual focussing, think it´s 322x240pix, auto focus, forget it for street photography. GF1 is way better in that regard, but the jpegs don´t compare at all.

Anyway, vintage gear still inspires to be used. This is what this forum is about to me, inspiration and some interesting choices regarding gear. Well, also about the companionship and fun we are all sharing. That´s no.1!:)

Lol, talking about old school and such, I used to love to read DXOmarks sensor tests and charts. 🙂 @webrunner5 A7S was a milestone. That colour palette would be just great for some beautiful BW video for sure.