Is 24mp the sweet spot of 36x24 format?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Al try hough there are many 47mp or 60mp digital cameras, the "down sized" 24mp version seem to be the most favorite across brand. 

Is 24mp the sweet see pot? If technology progress, would this trend remain?

Even the 64mp S3 does not win (much) over the S007. 

[Jean-Michel]

24 mpx is plenty. When I “went digital”, I started with a 12 mpx Canon 5d, then 21 mpx 5d2, first digital Leica was an 18  mpx M9, then 24 mpx M-P, and now an 47 mpx SL2. I can print any image made from any of those files in my sort of standard size of 12 by 18 inches, or 24 by 30 inches. Yes, there is more info in the 47 mpx files, but they of course take quite a bit more computing power to process. What I found is that the largest improvement is not so much due to larger files as the improvements in the image processors, Lightroom in my case. Reprocessed early files end up with that much better prints. In the end, the sweet spot is the one you have, no need to stress about too little or too much pixels.

[bobtodrick]

I tend to agree with.  It has also been said the 16mp is the sweet spot for cropped sensor cameras such as the Fuji.

To me the only reason to 'need' more is if you primarily view and greatly enlarge your images on a studio monitor.  Even the argument of the ability to crop is somewhat negated by having a selection of telephoto lenses at your disposal.

If you are viewing your photos in print medium, whether inkjet or in a publication you are limited by those current technologies.  Even with a 16x20 inkjet print...you will be hard pressed to definitively tell the difference between 24,40 or 60mp.  And many only ever show their images on Instagram...no point at all.

I'll make an automotive analogy (a customer of mine is actually doing this).  He is trading in his 2022 Corvette (550hp) for a 2025 because it has 1060hp.  In Canada the highest highway speed limit is 110km/hr.  I don't get it!!!!

[SrMi]

When choosing to shoot between my SL2-S and SL3, I'll always pick my SL3. More data is better. In my case, neither processing power nor storage is an issue.

[Stuart Richardson]

24mp is popular with many users because they have modest print requirements (or none) and it is cheaper and easier for manufacturers so it continues to thrive. But for image quality in prints, the higher megapixel sensors are a substantial improvement. 24mp has been common for a long time now, but personally, I wouldn’t bet on it still being the resolution of choice in ten years. 

[PeterBoyadjian]

Before yes due to 24 megapixels would perform better in higher isos. 

But the SL3 iso performance in my opinion is better than the SL2S. 

So ill take 61 

[bobtodrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

24mp is popular with many users because they have modest print requirements (or none) and it is cheaper and easier for manufacturers so it continues to thrive. But for image quality in prints, the higher megapixel sensors are a substantial improvement. 24mp has been common for a long time now, but personally, I wouldn’t bet on it still being the resolution of choice in ten years. 

Nope!  I recently had perused a book by a customer of mine...the most successful commercial  photographer in our city.  He produced a coffee table sized book of his recent three week solo motorcycle trip through the U.S.  A beautiful book with many two page spreads.  His camera...the latest iPhone (as he said with all his camping  gear he didn't have room for his Hasselblad with Phase back).  At 600dpi, which is high quality, most publications print media is 300 dpi...24-40-60mp...YOUR AREN'T GOING TO SEE  DIFFERENCE!

If you want to, and have the money to engage in the megapixel horsepower war so be it...but if you think it results in an image that people can see the difference...you are deluding yourself.

I often tell my customers, who think they need to move up to the new body with an extra 5mp to save their money, or spend it on better glass.

Edited December 10, 2024 by bobtodrick

[costa43]

I find that the sweet spot tends to change as technology evolves and costs come down but I’m a fan of 24mp as an everyday camera as it’s pretty good at most things and I guess that is what is meant by the term `sweet spot’. 

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

I tend to agree with.  It has also been said the 16mp is the sweet spot for cropped sensor cameras such as the Fuji.

To me the only reason to 'need' more is if you primarily view and greatly enlarge your images on a studio monitor.  Even the argument of the ability to crop is somewhat negated by having a selection of telephoto lenses at your disposal.

If you are viewing your photos in print medium, whether inkjet or in a publication you are limited by those current technologies.  Even with a 16x20 inkjet print...you will be hard pressed to definitively tell the difference between 24,40 or 60mp.  And many only ever show their images on Instagram...no point at all.

I'll make an automotive analogy (a customer of mine is actually doing this).  He is trading in his 2022 Corvette (550hp) for a 2025 because it has 1060hp.  In Canada the highest highway speed limit is 110km/hr.  I don't get it!!!!

 

[Ning Ning]

But power is nothing without control. 😉

[Leicaboy Norway]

4 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

I often tell my customers, who think they need to move up to the new body with an extra 5mp to save their money, or spend it on better glass.

I thought you were gonna tell them to use their phone camera instead?  

I too have the impression that 24 mpx is the sweet spot, btw. Especially in terms of low light performance.

[padam]

The only reason I got an SL2 is that it was the last heavily discounted piece in silver, and it may become rare at some point.
As an everyday all-round mirrorless photo-video camera for most people, 24MP is better.
Video is better, EVF experience is better, low-light AF is better, silent shooting is more useful, and it's not going to buffer nearly as much.
Only real downside is moire, but in most cases it's not going to show up.
Of course, other brands have a few higher megapixel cameras with more advanced sensors, where the penalty is less pronounced.
And medium format is getting more and more relevant against high resolution FF cameras (with 'compromised' non-stacked sensors).

While this does not apply to an M, main issue there is shutter shock, making it hard to utilise the full benefits.
Even an SL2 with its heft and powerful IBIS is not that forgiving handheld, if I look at 100% magnification.

Edited December 10, 2024 by padam

[Leicaboy Norway]

17 minutes ago, padam said:

While this does not apply to an M, main issue there is shutter shock, making it hard to utilise the full benefits.
Even an SL2 with its heft and powerful IBIS is not that forgiving handheld, if I look at 100% magnification.

Shutter shock? Can you shoot electronic shutter?

[padam]

7 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

Shutter shock? Can you shoot electronic shutter?

Of course, but then rolling shutter produces all sorts of artifacts. (That is why I pointed at stacked sensors, where this is more useful in practice.)
It would be hilarious if Leica's next ground breaking development would be electronic first curtain shutter, which would deal with this problem without the need for newer sensors (although it isn't perfect either, so the shutter mode could change over 1/1000 sec or something).

Edited December 10, 2024 by padam

[Jon Warwick]

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Is 24mp the sweet see pot?

 

Certainly not for me. I expect it depends on print size (I print very large, eg, commonly 45" wide off my 60mp M11 to get to 40x30 prints) and i prefer to eliminate as much moire and false colors as possible (60mp does a much better job there compared to 24mp).

I'd also acknowledge that "headline" megapixels isn't everything, however - for example, i was recently comparing an identical landscape scene taken with the M11 (with 50mm APO Lanthar lens) and my 100mp GFX, resized to 55" wide and printed at 300dpi on a Lambda printer, and i could not tell which camera took which print, despite very very close examination of the 2 images side-by-side, initially as a blind test. I can't explain why the M11 punches above its weight, despite the lower megapixels .... possibly the lens?, thinner cover glass over the sensor? ...., i really don't know. 

The M11 Monochrom punches even higher above its megapixels, in my testing of identical scenes again (of course all heavy tripod mounted, f5.6, self timer etc), the B&W sensor outresolved the 100mp medium format ...so again, I'd acknowledge that headline megapixels isn't the whole story, apparently.

Edited December 10, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

Nope!  I recently had perused a book by a customer of mine...the most successful commercial  photographer in our city.  He produced a coffee table sized book of his recent three week solo motorcycle trip through the U.S.  A beautiful book with many two page spreads.  His camera...the latest iPhone (as he said with all his camping  gear he didn't have room for his Hasselblad with Phase back).  At 600dpi, which is high quality, most publications print media is 300 dpi...24-40-60mp...YOUR AREN'T GOING TO SEE  DIFFERENCE!

If you want to, and have the money to engage in the megapixel horsepower war so be it...but if you think it results in an image that people can see the difference...you are deluding yourself.

I often tell my customers, who think they need to move up to the new body with an extra 5mp to save their money, or spend it on better glass.

A coffee table sized book is a modest print size requirement. 24mp shows it limitations when you start having exhibitions, particularly in venues with more space. Before people get bent out of shape, I am not saying you can't show large prints from 24mp, just that they will be better from higher resolution cameras. This is doubly true if you have to do anything to the file. If you have to crop your file to 4x5 or 1x1, the resolution lowers pretty quickly. I would also agree with you when you tell your customers looking to move up 5mp to save their money for better glass. But 24mp to 47mp is nearly double the resolution. 47mp to 60mp is more subtle. And by the way, I happily use the 24mp SL2S alongside my SL2, but I use it where it is most useful...for low light and video. The SL2 makes better prints outside of those conditions. It is not going to be clear until you get above 60x90cm or so though. If you don't get to those sizes much, then you probably will not notice. That is also completely fine, by the way! Many spectacular artists make only modest print sizes.

Edited December 10, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Dazzajl]

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Is 24mp the sweet spot?

Yes.

As a generalisation that holds pretty well in the majority of cases but every 'gain' in camera spec will have a balancing loss in another column and every image has it's own needs to choose for.

[LocalHero1953]

There are some eminent print photographers on this forum, not least @Stuart Richardson and @Jeff S. But I was reading comments by another eminent photographer, old enough to have started work in the 50s, that in the last decade he has seen the massive shift in popularity from prints for the wall to photobooks, for which the resolution needs are much reduced. I like making prints at home, mainly A3 or A2, but my walls, though more extensive than those of many people, are not extensive enough to print more than a limited number, and only occasionally. My bookshelves, however, contain many more accessible images in photobooks by myself (both handmade and Blurb) and by other photographers (some of the latter as limited editions with print quality overseen by the photographer). A photobook can also be used to control the sequence and style of delivery of the images to the viewer, and to supplement them with text. Personally I prefer this 'contextual' presentation that emphasises subject matter to looking at a single image, however wonderful its print quality.  And I suspect that any of the photobooks could have been produced from a camera with no more than 24mp.

Edited December 10, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[simon_hsn]

The sweet spot will always be what people buy.

The SL range covers the topic quite nicely in the current market environment:

• The SL(X) is optimized for photography but less advantageous for video due to factors like crop, heat, and processing speed. For photography, higher megapixels are preferable — the more, the better. Its current triple-resolution capability ensures versatility to cover a wide range of use cases effectively.
• The SL(X)-S caters more to video creators or users who value speed (sport photographers) and/or are satisfied with lower resolution, such as press photographers, social media content producers. It can generally be manufactured at a lower cost. In this context, 24 MP hits the sweet spot. At roughly 6K resolution, it offers ample room for cropping while delivering a clean 4K video output. Moreover, current processors can downsample 24 MP data to produce exceptional 4K quality, which is likely to remain the industry standard for a lot more years to come (physics of viewing distances). 

Other brands, such as Sony, Canon, and Nikon, adopt a similar approach in various forms. When cost is not a constraint, stacked BSI sensors emerge as a solution that enables both high resolution and excellent video performance, as seen in models like the Sony A1 and Nikon Z9.

Edited December 10, 2024 by simon_hsn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Einst_Stein]

If I make a snapshot of the discussion, MP beyond 24mp might be beneficial only if you want a large print. I figured something like 24x36 (inch) and you can shoot with low ISO. This is probably the only reason. 

And if more than 24mp is desired, larger format is a better choice than more MP.

In the future, if low light performance (per pixel) is improved,  the sweet spot might move up. But it is not now yet.