To follow my previous article which stirred a healthy discussion about sharpness and whether that it's vital or not, it inspired to me to ask my fellow peers another question. Are the amount of megapixels on your camera crucial, or do other factors and features hold more value when purchasing a camera? Here are my thoughts.
Before I really dive in, I would like to make it clear that I do not consider myself a 'gear guy.' If you're looking to pick an argument on how this camera's ISO performance is better, or the dynamic range of this body outperforms the other, blah blah blah...I'm the wrong photographer for that. I'm a strong advocate that great light is paramount compared to quality of the gear; it does not matter if it's a smartphone or a Sony A7rii, it's all about the quality of light and the photographer behind that lens.
That being said, last year after a little back and forth I decided to upgrade to a camera with 36.3 megapixels (Nikon D810) from a camera with 24.3 megapixels. While 24.3 megapixels is a good amount, the upgraded body was still a considerable step up in that category. Even though my files eat up more memory, I am glad I made the decision, and here's an example why.
When More Megapixels Come In Handy
Referring back to the same shoot from my sharpness article, the flexibility of having more megapixels has definitely paid off. I had my model, Hannah, take a seat on a stairway. Now if you don't already know, stairs behind a subject can lead to issues if you're not perfectly level with the stairs. If your photo comes out crooked, sometimes it can not be fixed with a simple rotation adjustment in post. And you're like me, your OCD just cannot handle it!
Here's a shot that made the cut in RAW format at 25%:
As you can see while I love her expression, the photo is crooked, and the stairs are just distracting to any viewer. Let's fix using the rotate tool, shall we?
When rotating, I was more focused on the symmetry of her face opposed to the level of the stairs. This image is still not usable, so I needed to get more creative with the crop. This is where the advantage of having 36 million pixels came in handy and I'm glad I had the flexibility of using them.
Above is the final image. This photo is at about 50% view compared to the original file. As you can see, the image displays great detail even at a very close crop.
Let's take a quick look below at 100% just for kicks.
My overall take on when it comes to megapixels is simply it depends on what you're using your imagery for. Are you using it for print? Billboards? Web? It simply makes little sense to but a 50 megapixel camera if you're exclusively shooting for your Instagram account. For my situation, I'd say the amount megapixels is important since my images will be on print, catalogs, and various marketing mediums.
I also have the ability to crop my images to my liking in a multitude of ways, like the example below.
Three different crops using the same image effectively, both landscape and portrait. (Original crop is on the far left)
I'm able to deliver multiple crops, portrait or landscape, to clients which is very advantageous.
What Do You Think?
But I'll pass this question onto you. Does the amount of megapixels on your camera matter to you? Or are there other factors and features that you put ahead of megapixels when purchasing a camera? Share your thoughts below!
Going from my apsc 600d with 18mp to the full frame A7R with 36 is the best decision i've made, no need to do HDR anymore and the 30x40 print are looking gorgeous.
Megapixels can matter for the very reason you have explained. You have more "real estate" to play with to create the final image. However, the different question would be does it matter for quality. No!
As you have shown, cropping the image has no effect on the quality of it, you are just choosing a portion of it.
If you cut a 1 megapixal crop of the image, the quality has not changed.
For me megapixels basically determine the size I can print to, thats it.
The sensor is the quality aspect, so would you prefer a 6 mp full sensor or a 20 mp compact camera sensor the size of the nail on your little finger?
The final output size of this camera is around 15mp, yet I printed a 40x30" that stands up well to close viewing, there's more to a camera than MP :)
Good article thanks Nick. As a timelapse / hyperlapse photographer, megapixel count is somehow important for me but the lens selection is also very critical. Switching from a Canon 24-105 f4 to a Sigma Art 24mm or 35 f1.4 is like gaining 3 or 4 mpx on my 6D.
A dense sensor will be as good as the lens in front of it.
What doesn't seem to matter anymore is "getting it right in camera". I started shooting in the days of film, in the early 1980's. Even with large 4X5 negatives, which theoretically allowed tremendous cropping, no serious photographer would have ever considered doing what you did with that girl on the stairs. You would have taken your time, measured the light, previewed the shot in your mind, placed the camera accordingly and shot ONE frame. Nowadays I see young hotshots coming out of 1-hour sessions with hundreds of images, grouped in dozens of almost-identical frames, all of which need heavy cropping or lighting adjustments. Might as well send a monkey to do the shoot.
If PP were easier, I would agree..... more to learn in PP than there is in photography, sadly.
I agree with your comment about great light, and the same idea applies to sharpness. If the lens isn't good enough to put a sharp image on the sensor, then another 10 megapixels just means that the image's lack of sharpness will be captured in more detail. Every lens has a maximum resolution. I don't remember the textbook definition of resolution or even the definition from the college physics class that I took over 30 years ago. In simple terms, resolution is how close together two tiny objects can be and still be seen as two objects instead of one. In photographing birds, the most frequent example is "How small and close can two vanes of a feather be and still appear as separate vanes and not just one vane?" If one's glass can't resolve that difference, then all of the megapixels in the world won't show detail that the glass couldn't capture. With your model, the first question is how many subtle differences in shade, color, and texture can the lens capture? The second question is whether the digital image can "remember" everything that the lens captures.
In terms of making use of the images that one takes, I agree that the needed resolution depends on where the final product will appear. Every magazine is going to print to a different standard. Shooting more megapixels than the magazine is going to use doesn't make a better image. Cropping can lose some megapixels, but if the final image is still more than the magazine uses, then the extra megapixels don't make a better image. On the other hand, when the opportunity is there to present an image in every last bit of detail captured by the sensor, having those extra megapixels of data make an amazing image.
More pixels are important, but so is the sensor size. While I love my 5dMKIII, upgrading to an older Phase One back (p25) seem to produce better results.
Cropping is for farmers....LOL
Well i am currently shooting with a camera that has less than one third of your megapixels, and still making money shooting photos for ads for a rock gym (at 16 years old, by the way). I say this not to brag, but yup prove a point. They print out more than fine on all the normal sized posters I've seen. I want to upgrade to a body with 15 megapixels, and eventually one with 24. Past that, i just think it is unnecessary. Though, i would use one of those 50-100 megapixels medium format digital bodies though, they are simply awesome. That is primarily due to image quality and dynamic range though, not as much about the megapixels