Lax Jought Posted January 22 Share #41 Posted January 22 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 1/6/2024 at 9:50 PM, roydonian said: I can remember seeing an article in the UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' about 20 years ago stating that that 6 megapixels was all that most users would need. I heavily suspect that they proposed 6MP 20 yrs ago because the vast majority of people print the standard photo size for their standard photo albums. If that's the case, 6MP is plenty for those people in those times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Hi Lax Jought, Take a look here How many pixels do we really need?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted January 22 Share #42 Posted January 22 6 MP is still plenty nowadays for web use. 18x24 cm prints can get by with less than10 MP. 150 PPI is plenty for most users. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted January 22 Share #43 Posted January 22 (edited) So 16MP should be fine for everyday needs. Pixel area is probably important too. A 16MP FF sensor is likely to have more post-processing ‘photo plasticity’ than a 16MP 1” sensor. A Micro 4/3 sensor should be more than adequate for most serious photography, even the earlier 16MP devices. Edited January 22 by Steve Ricoh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted January 22 Share #44 Posted January 22 But there is no 16 MPix camera to buy any more in our days 😇 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted January 22 Share #45 Posted January 22 3 hours ago, M11 for me said: But there is no 16 MPix camera to buy any more in our days 😇 I’ll sell you one. 😉 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted January 28 Share #46 Posted January 28 On 1/22/2024 at 9:34 PM, jaapv said: 6 MP is still plenty nowadays for web use. 18x24 cm prints can get by with less than10 MP. 150 PPI is plenty for most users. Still is yes. I was just talking about why it was suggested as such back then. I would still happily shoot with my 10.1MP M8.2 today as one of my everyday-carrys if the sensor wasn't broken. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted January 28 Share #47 Posted January 28 Advertisement (gone after registration) 9 hours ago, Lax Jought said: Still is yes. I was just talking about why it was suggested as such back then. I would still happily shoot with my 10.1MP M8.2 today as one of my everyday-carrys if the sensor wasn't broken. I keep looking for a reason to replace my M8 but I am happy with the output. I don't see many photos here from newer cameras that i couldn't take with the M8 and now with the enhanced feature in Lightroom to increase the file size for printing, I don't see any reason to. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lax Jought Posted January 29 Share #48 Posted January 29 (edited) 12 hours ago, ironhorse said: I keep looking for a reason to replace my M8 but I am happy with the output. I don't see many photos here from newer cameras that i couldn't take with the M8 and now with the enhanced feature in Lightroom to increase the file size for printing, I don't see any reason to. Honestly, if my M8.2 with improved ISO performance, I'd be pretty happy with it today. I continued shooting pretty significant professional paid gigs with my M8.2 until maybe 2014. Edited January 29 by Lax Jought 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 14 Share #49 Posted February 14 (edited) Quote How many pixels do we really need? It depends on how you intend to use the image file. If all you are ever going to do is share images online, you don't need many megapixels - perhaps around 6mp as Jaapv stated above. For making large exhibit quality prints you need more. Using my M-P240, I have had exhibit quality images printed to 24x36 inch size at around 200ppi. I would suggest that if you intend to print at 24x36 inches or smaller, 24 megapixels are adequate. If the extrapolation holds up, a 100mp camera could make exhibit quality prints at 8x12 feet. Not sure where you would hang a print that size, though. Edited February 14 by Herr Barnack Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 19 Share #50 Posted February 19 On 2/14/2024 at 1:56 AM, Herr Barnack said: It depends on how you intend to use the image file. If all you are ever going to do is share images online, you don't need many megapixels - perhaps around 6mp as Jaapv stated above. For making large exhibit quality prints you need more. Using my M-P240, I have had exhibit quality images printed to 24x36 inch size at around 200ppi. I would suggest that if you intend to print at 24x36 inches or smaller, 24 megapixels are adequate. If the extrapolation holds up, a 100mp camera could make exhibit quality prints at 8x12 feet. Not sure where you would hang a print that size, though. Did nobody made large exhibition prints before 24mp was possible? If they did where are they now, deleted because they are 'inferior'? And anyway given viewing distance is an element in any exhibition there is the argument that you don't actually have to print as large as possible just because your camera says so. Haven't artists always worked within the canvas they have and the art is not diminished by it? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 19 Share #51 Posted February 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, 250swb said: Did nobody made large exhibition prints before 24mp was possible? If they did where are they now, deleted because they are 'inferior'? And anyway given viewing distance is an element in any exhibition there is the argument that you don't actually have to print as large as possible just because your camera says so. Haven't artists always worked within the canvas they have and the art is not diminished by it? You make some very good points. Cartier-Bresson had no megapixels, yet people pay a lot of money for prints of his images. A photograph has to have a "message" for lack of a better term. If there is no message when printed at 8x10 inches, there will be no message when it is printed at 4x6 feet. Or 8x12 feet. Visual yelling is an exercise in futility. Content reigns supreme; always has, always will. In the words of David Vestal, Quote “Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception.” Edited February 19 by Herr Barnack 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Brown Posted February 20 Share #52 Posted February 20 On 1/22/2024 at 5:52 PM, M11 for me said: But there is no 16 MPix camera to buy any more in our days 😇 There are mainstream full production Sonys with 12 Mpix to buy new (a t a premium price) - the A7SIII and FX3. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted February 22 Share #53 Posted February 22 On 1/6/2024 at 4:07 PM, anonymoose said: If you do, you should also be able to see a difference with 4x the capture resolution... You've hit on the crux of this argument, and indeed, the crux of ALL discussions of this topic. OF COURSE you can see the difference in the resolution between a 4mp capture and a 40mp capture. But is it important in viewing the image itself? Do you question, or indeed even care when you look at an image what sensor was used to produce it. If it's an image that captures your attention, I'd suggest that the issue is moot. Here's an image I made in 2007 with an Olympus E-1 5mp camera. Would this image, at this size, benefit from having been made with a 50mp sensor? I'd suggest that for most viewing it, it would not. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/383675-how-many-pixels-do-we-really-need/?do=findComment&comment=5051898'>More sharing options...
hepcat Posted February 22 Share #54 Posted February 22 On 2/19/2024 at 3:25 PM, 250swb said: Did nobody made large exhibition prints before 24mp was possible? If they did where are they now, deleted because they are 'inferior'? And anyway given viewing distance is an element in any exhibition there is the argument that you don't actually have to print as large as possible just because your camera says so. Haven't artists always worked within the canvas they have and the art is not diminished by it? By way of example, and just to make a point... I'll post one more here (just because I can. 😉) I have this image hanging in my living room above my piano in a 24x30" print. You can tell here that is a heavily-modified file, but in 24x30" at a normal viewing distance I've had many positive comments about this print over the years. I made the original image with a 10mp Olympus E3. Yes, people printed large before 24mp and the results are more than "adequate." Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/383675-how-many-pixels-do-we-really-need/?do=findComment&comment=5051939'>More sharing options...
AussieQ Posted April 7 Share #55 Posted April 7 (edited) I have photographed some commercial work with my Canon EOS 1dx, an 18MP sensor. The photo was used as advertising on a freight companies tarpaulins for their b-double semis. They looked great and the master copy sent to client was even cropped so it was probably 10MP. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited April 7 by AussieQ Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/383675-how-many-pixels-do-we-really-need/?do=findComment&comment=5167088'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.