p.1 #1 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
Greetings!
Always read this "if you are a landscape shooter better go with higher MP" - especially in Z 6 v/s Z 7 comparison and also A7III/A7RIII. How much difference are we talking about here if the lens used is same on both the bodies? What do you folks here prefer?
p.1 #2 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
The choice depends on your desired output. If you want to make huge prints that will stand up to close inspection, them the high MP body is what you want. If your goal is to shoot for the web, instagram or small prints then the more modest resolution will be fine.
p.1 #3 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
If you're going to print 36 inches on the long end or larger or you want cropping freedom, then go higher megapixels.
Those are probably the two main reasons I can think of for someone wanting the larger MP sensor. The smaller MP bodies will probably perform better shooting nightscapes due to the larger pixel pitch.
p.1 #4 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
I would not be printing anytime soon. Images are mostly for web media. Other purpose that I had in mind was macros - but that probably is a question for macro forum.
Right now I am shooting D500 and earlier had D7200 (and more recently Z 6). I was pixel peeping pictures from all these cameras and it was hard to distinguish since pretty much all of them are same MP. The Z 6 has impressively low noise at all ISO but with little bit of sharpening and noise removal D500 keeps up with Z 6 in general in good light.
I never had higher than 24mp body and was curious if Z 7/RIII would have more details in it that even on web media you can see difference. My goal was to have a smaller (than D500) body as a companion to D500 which has 200-500 on it all the time, and use the second body with wide/normal FOV lens for pictures apart from telephoto FOV.
p.1 #6 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
I have an A7R and A7R2 and can't tell the difference between images using the same glass (36MP vs 42MP); however, looking back at images I had with the Nikon D7200 (24MP) I can tell a difference when I zoom in.
p.1 #7 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
Slowcaptain wrote:
Greetings!
Always read this "if you are a landscape shooter better go with higher MP" - especially in Z 6 v/s Z 7 comparison and also A7III/A7RIII. How much difference are we talking about here if the lens used is same on both the bodies? What do you folks here prefer?
There are other factors besides megapixel count that affect usable resolution of the images produced by these cameras. The quality/performance of the sensor system, itself, is also important. For example, see the recent comparative review of the Canon vs Sony models you mention. It's by the Slanted Lens people (Borrowlens). The review is on youtube at
"watch?v=_RUz99lNr8s"
p.1 #8 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
znikon5 wrote:
I have an A7R and A7R2 and can't tell the difference between images using the same glass (36MP vs 42MP); however, looking back at images I had with the Nikon D7200 (24MP) I can tell a difference when I zoom in.
That what I was wanting to know. Thanks!
jdc562 wrote:
The review is on youtube at "watch?v=_RUz99lNr8s"
p.1 #9 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
Slowcaptain wrote:
I would not be printing anytime soon. Images are mostly for web media.
Right now I am shooting D500 and earlier had D7200 (and more recently Z 6). I was pixel peeping pictures from all these cameras and it was hard to distinguish since pretty much all of them are same MP.
I never had higher than 24mp body and was curious if Z 7/RIII would have more details in it that even on web media you can see difference.
20-24MP would all look about the same. I compared a D7200 and D750 and got very similar detail, in fact due to no AA filter the D7200 even seems sharper. Later I compared these with D810 on the same subject and while there is a difference there isn't as much difference as you might expect.
Zooming into 36 or 46MP you can see the difference from 20-24MP but viewing on the web or even printing relatively small and I don't think you will see the difference. If you print 24MP to 20"x30" there will be a lot of detail upon close examination. You may or may not be able to tell the difference with higher MP. Printing less than 20"x30" I don't think there is any significant difference.
p.1 #10 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
I use both the 12mp A7S and 42mp A7R3. At 100% viewing in PS the R3 has more detail. It has 30 more mp, so it should. When resized to say 2000px wide images, they look about the same. In no case would you ever say the 12mp A7S looks bad. The worst you could say in the 42mp looks to have a bit more detail.
Now one distinct difference is high ISO. There the A7S looks better cause the pixels are bigger.
So end the end not sure it matters.
I find in the daytime the A7R3 is the main camera. At night it's the 7S.
p.1 #11 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
If you post on the web at roughly 600x900 that is equivalent to only about one half megapixels. Even 1000x1500 is only equivalent to 1.5 megapixels. You should do just fine with any decent cellphone. You certainly don't need any expensive camera and gear.
p.1 #12 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
More megapixels
- More cropping possibilities (great for wildlife, especially birds).
- Bigger possible prints.
Less megapixels
- Smaller files (less demanding on camera processor and on computer storage and processing.
- Better high ISO image quality (bigger pixels gather more light).
p.1 #13 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
If you crave more pixels then (if the situation allows) why not shoot a pano with a longer lens?
For sure it is prone to misalignment error, takes more time in the field, and longer to post process on my ageing computer!
I often take the shot I want with one focal length and then take a pano version with a longer focal length.
p.1 #14 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
Sooner or later you will have to crop and bigger file will make a better image.
More pixels means smaller pixels on same size (full frame) sensor, and at higher ISO (like for action or something moving) in theory you get more noise.
In landscapes you favor lower ISO most of the time, but things can always move in the wind.
I prefer A7R III 42mpx over 20mpx Canon/Nikon DSLR. I prefer A7R III over 36+mpx Canon/Nikon for camera user experience.
Casual shooter spending $thousands on a lot of gear? $1000 difference could go onto an expensive lens. And you will one day crop and wish for more pixels.
Amol Thorat wrote:
Greetings!
Always read this "if you are a landscape shooter better go with higher MP" - especially in Z 6 v/s Z 7 comparison and also A7III/A7RIII. How much difference are we talking about here if the lens used is same on both the bodies? What do you folks here prefer?
p.1 #15 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
xterra07 wrote:
Sooner or later you will have to crop and bigger file will make a better image.
More pixels means smaller pixels on same size (full frame) sensor, and at higher ISO (like for action or something moving) in theory you get more noise.
In landscapes you favor lower ISO most of the time, but things can always move in the wind.
I prefer A7R III 42mpx over 20mpx Canon/Nikon DSLR. I prefer A7R III over 36+mpx Canon/Nikon for camera user experience.
Casual shooter spending $thousands on a lot of gear? $1000 difference could go onto an expensive lens. And you will one day crop and wish for more pixels.
" And you will one day crop and wish for more pixels."
That's basically the reason for my current approach, using the hi-res mode on my Olympus EM1 Mk2 to crank out 80mp images. I just don't want to leave any extra quality on the table if I can at all help it. The downside is the extra weight of the tripod, but the plus side is that it's actually forcing me to think more about my shot, composition, etc rather than just taking a bunch of different shots from standing, kneeling, by a tree, over a rock, etc and figuring out which looks best when I get home. I'm about to start doing some large prints for my house, so hopefully the extra effort will pay off!
p.1 #16 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
DeltaSigma wrote:
If you crave more pixels then (if the situation allows) why not shoot a pano with a longer lens?
For sure it is prone to misalignment error, takes more time in the field, and longer to post process on my ageing computer!
I often take the shot I want with one focal length and then take a pano version with a longer focal length.
Good idea. Trying out panos now a days on my D500 with the same approach as you said .
I also have OM-D E-M5 II which creates 40mp~ files but haven't tried that mode yet. Till I get Z 7 or 7RIII, these would suffice.
p.1 #17 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
The Rat wrote:
That's basically the reason for my current approach, using the hi-res mode on my Olympus EM1 Mk2 to crank out 80mp images.
How do you like that mode? I have EM5 II which has something similar but haven't actually gotten a chance to try it out in real world and compare results.
p.1 #18 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
Amol Thorat wrote:
How do you like that mode? I have EM5 II which has something similar but haven't actually gotten a chance to try it out in real world and compare results.
For my specific application (landscapes with a wide angle lens) it's worked great for me with one exception: choppy water, or objects moving in the water like twigs or leaves. The shot combinations tend to make the water look a little strange upon close inspection, like you can see the motion blur. For lakes with relatively calm surfaces it looks fine, it's just rushing rivers and windy lake waves that give it pause.
Not a total dealbreaker to me since it's not immediately obvious. And it may not be a dealbreaker for you, I just normally go with faster shutter speeds as opposed to the long exposures to get the milky foggy flow look on the water. (I have not tried long exposures in conjunction with hi-res mode over water yet - might try next time I'm out just for experimentation's sake.)
I did a comparison between the hi-res mode and upsizing a normal mode shot via Topaz Gigapixel (thank goodness for free 30 day trials) and the hi-res mode definitely looks better. Less noise and more detail when looking at the same cropped area of a photo. I have some comparison shots uploaded at home that I can post if you're interested.
As a side note, I've seen some threads where people are saying you need to have a super stable heavy tripod, weighed down with zero wind in order to get good shots in hi-res mode. I haven't bothered with this, I just use a Gitzo 1127 with RRS BH-30 ball head, no strap hanging off the camera itself, and a remote switch. I click the clicker when the hi-res icon stops blinking and I've been pretty happy with my results. Maybe an ultrawide lens is more forgiving in this application, I'm not sure.
Not a total dealbreaker to me since it's not immediately obvious. And it may not be a dealbreaker for you, I just normally go with faster shutter speeds as opposed to the long exposures to get the milky foggy flow look on the water. (I have not tried long exposures in conjunction with hi-res mode over water yet - might try next time I'm out just for experimentation's sake.)
I did a comparison between the hi-res mode and upsizing a normal mode shot via Topaz Gigapixel (thank goodness for free 30 day trials) and the hi-res mode definitely looks better. Less noise and more detail when looking at the same cropped area of a photo. I have some comparison shots uploaded at home that I can post if you're interested.
As a side note, I've seen some threads where people are saying you need to have a super stable heavy tripod, weighed down with zero wind in order to get good shots in hi-res mode. I haven't bothered with this, I just use a Gitzo 1127 with RRS BH-30 ball head, no strap hanging off the camera itself, and a remote switch. I click the clicker when the hi-res icon stops blinking and I've been pretty happy with my results. Maybe an ultrawide lens is more forgiving in this application, I'm not sure....Show more →
The snow shot looks great! I was a little put off by few reviews which mentioned the high res shot is quite tricky to work and results aren't what you expect but looks like it is actually quite effective as compared to what reviewers will have you believe.
p.1 #20 · How much difference it makes between 24mp and 36 - 45mp if I am shooting same lens?
Amol Thorat wrote:
The snow shot looks great! I was a little put off by few reviews which mentioned the high res shot is quite tricky to work and results aren't what you expect but looks like it is actually quite effective as compared to what reviewers will have you believe.
Yeah, I would imagine it's a whole lot trickier with higher zoom lenses, since a tiny vibration there would end up equating to more movement within the frame. With my 7-14 and 12-40, I haven't had any stability/setup issues. That lake shot was just tripod legs extended on the ice of the lake, in the wind, with nothing but the hard rubber tripod feet. No ice spikes or anything.
The only times that I've had hi-res shots come out wonky is when I bump the camera/tripod by accident while hitting the remote release, or I click the remote release and pick up the tripod to move before it's done taking the shot. I'm still pretty new to it though, so it's also possible that there's something in the pixel peeping that I'm missing. Still, I've been enjoying it! Gonna pick up a 36x24" print today made from a hi-res shot, so I'll be able to see if the extra effort has been worth it.
.