Is the number of MP's not a good metric for choosing a camera?

Like others here on DPR I've been following the release of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III and my first thought was that newer meant it was going to have a MP count higher than 50MP. So I was surprised when it was released to see that it 'only' has a 20MP sensor. I've never been around one but the reviews are stellar.

Now my head is spinning and I'm questioning my assumption that higher MP's alone make a better camera?

What then is the combination of features, besides a higher MP that determine whether this or any other camera is technically superior?

My current 5D3 is 'only' has a 22MP sensor and based on the lower MP number was thinking of upgrading to something with 30MP or more. Now I'm doubting about whether I need to upgrade.

FYI, I prefer to shoot landscape and still life.

Yup MP is one of the factors. Like everything in life there is no one factor that determins everything. The 1DX are for action photography and full pro durability. It does its job great but would not be a great choice for say landscape. You shoot still life and landscape so a higher MP is preferred and you don't need very fast AF. The 5Dsr was the go to for that, however the R5 is probably a better choice now. I would expect a R5sr to follow in a while.

--
My photos are at https://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

Hey, I'd like 100 megapixels, but that's not the only factor. Many others must be considered before making an informed choice.

To take it to the extreme - I think there are phones with 100Mp+ cameras. Are those cameras better than anything Canon makes, even in pure IQ (never mind features) - of course not.

There is an awful lot more to a camera than Mp. I would argue that since almost every camera body (DSLR or mirrorless) hit 20Mp, the Mp has almost become a secondary consideration unless you have an application that specifically calls for super high resolution. Early in the race, the difference between 8Mp and 12Mp, or 12Mp and 18Mp was big and important, but not so much after that. I think Canon APS-C bodies sat on 24Mp for about 5 years - until the fairly recent launch of 90D / M6 ii.

The ability of the camera to expose correctly (and accurately), focus accurately and quickly, track moving subjects, frame rate, and a host of lessor features would be the differentiators for many (most ?) people choosing between a 20/24Mp and a 30/32/45Mp camera.

Colin

I like to look at the megapixel wars from a simplistic perspective: how much do you plan to blow up your images and/or how much do you plan to crop them? Unless you are planning to make poster sized (or billboard-sized) prints or crop to a small proportion of the image space, almost any camera made today will have enough MP for most users. If you are posting on line you probably only need 8MP or less. I've made great 13x19 prints with no degradation in quality which on one can tell were from 5MP or 8MP or 30.2MP files. I find megapixel to be more marketing claims than practical criteria for camera buying. I would much rather buy a camera with great low ISO capability and large dynamic range instead of more megapixels.

I shoot with a 20mp 1DX2 and 50mp 5dsr, megapixels are definitely not the most important thing.



Ive had the 5dsr for three years now and it’s a great camera but for the past year and a half been using the 1DX2 more and more, the files from it are amazing.



I shoot wildlife so my needs are a little different from yours but I’m covered for both lowlight fast moving to slow lots of light shooting.

For your needs I would say the 5D4 or the R if you want to go mirrorless would be the best option. With the release of the new R body’s the 5D4 price has gone down to a great deal and would be my recommendation.

30mp is plenty to do 20x30” prints, I’ve done them with 20mp and if you are just posting images online you’re covered for that also.

It depends.

For getting the most detail for 'large" prints, is one reason, but maintaining "more" resolution for cropping is, perhaps, more if not equal importance.

For example, if shooting a small object, like a bird, where the distance is such that the lens used can only capture the subject over a relatively small portion of the sensor, and you cropped the image in post to the same linear dimensions , the crop from a 45 MP sensor would obviously have far more resolution that that of a 20MP sensor.

CameraCarl said:

I like to look at the megapixel wars from a simplistic perspective: how much do you plan to blow up your images and/or how much do you plan to crop them? Unless you are planning to make poster sized (or billboard-sized) prints or crop to a small proportion of the image space, almost any camera made today will have enough MP for most users. If you are posting on line you probably only need 8MP or less. I've made great 13x19 prints with no degradation in quality which on one can tell were from 5MP or 8MP or 30.2MP files. I find megapixel to be more marketing claims than practical criteria for camera buying. I would much rather buy a camera with great low ISO capability and large dynamic range instead of more megapixels.

Click to expand...

The poster / billboard thing can be a bit of a false dichotomy depending on the usage case. You do not, generally, need to make a billboard sized print at 300dpi because most people view billboards from quite some distance away, so a *much* lower resolution is fine. Now, if you are doing billboard sized prints for exhibition in a gallery where people are going to walk right up to it, then yeah, the more MP the merrier, but a lot of the photographers doing those types of images are also using medium format and/or things like a GigaPan and stitching as well in my experience.

Getting back to the OP's question, I'd suggest that if all you are going to be doing is A3 or A2 prints for the wall, then 20-24MP (after cropping) is probably going to be more than enough if you have a quality image to start with. Any more is definitely nice to have as a comfort factor though, especially for A2, but not something I'd rate as important as things like clean high-ISO images, larger DR, higher FPS, or whatever other actual functionality applies to the things that you intend to shoot. Having a lot of spare MP and cropping heavily from something like a 100-400mm is generally cheaper than a 600mm/800mm super-tele though (recent f/11 RF-mount announcements aside), is definitely useful if you are a birder on a budget though, so YMMV.

Andy

Taking pictures and images is about capturing the light at a particular instant.

Your monitor only has 2MP (UHD) or 8MP (4k). How much more do you need? {Yes, there are applications that do require more resolution, what percentage of your shots fall into one of those categories?}

In the past, this very NG stated that Henri Cartier Bresson could take better pictures with a Brownie Instamatic than most of us with high end cameras, lenses, flashes, 10+ fps shutters! When you understand why, you will start to see why resolution is not the be-all and end-all of capturing pictures at the depression of a button.

Me, I find it perfectly easy to take properly exposed, properly focused, properly lit images that impress no one.

Blind Bill said:

Like others here on DPR I've been following the release of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III and my first thought was that newer meant it was going to have a MP count higher than 50MP. So I was surprised when it was released to see that it 'only' has a 20MP sensor. I've never been around one but the reviews are stellar.

Now my head is spinning and I'm questioning my assumption that higher MP's alone make a better camera?

What then is the combination of features, besides a higher MP that determine whether this or any other camera is technically superior?

My current 5D3 is 'only' has a 22MP sensor and based on the lower MP number was thinking of upgrading to something with 30MP or more. Now I'm doubting about whether I need to upgrade.

FYI, I prefer to shoot landscape and still life.

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to appreciate is that the photography market is more fragmented than you realise. It's not all about the same demands.

A 1DX III is a camera for working fast and delivering photos fast, as in sports and photojournalism photography. That's why it is so rugged. The size doesn't matter to the kind of person who works on a monopod and attaches the camera to a big lens rather than the other way around. A lot of megapixels would just slow the workflow down. Web sized images and National Geographic spreads are not that demanding of megapixels.

If you want to show your work gallery BIG and can take your time, you don't need a 1DX III. Get a 5DS or 5D IV, or even better, Fuji GFX.

If you don't know "why" you need to upgrade your camera- don't. Keep the money in your pocket or use it to live a little. I don't know, use your imagination

threw the lens said:

Blind Bill said:

Like others here on DPR I've been following the release of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III and my first thought was that newer meant it was going to have a MP count higher than 50MP. So I was surprised when it was released to see that it 'only' has a 20MP sensor. I've never been around one but the reviews are stellar.

Now my head is spinning and I'm questioning my assumption that higher MP's alone make a better camera?

What then is the combination of features, besides a higher MP that determine whether this or any other camera is technically superior?

My current 5D3 is 'only' has a 22MP sensor and based on the lower MP number was thinking of upgrading to something with 30MP or more. Now I'm doubting about whether I need to upgrade.

FYI, I prefer to shoot landscape and still life.

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to appreciate is that the photography market is more fragmented than you realise. It's not all about the same demands.

A 1DX III is a camera for working fast and delivering photos fast, as in sports and photojournalism photography. That's why it is so rugged. The size doesn't matter to the kind of person who works on a monopod and attaches the camera to a big lens rather than the other way around. A lot of megapixels would just slow the workflow down. Web sized images and National Geographic spreads are not that demanding of megapixels.

If you want to show your work gallery BIG and can take your time, you don't need a 1DX III. Get a 5DS or 5D IV, or even better, Fuji GFX.

If you don't know "why" you need to upgrade your camera- don't. Keep the money in your pocket or use it to live a little. I don't know, use your imagination

Click to expand...

The moment I quit asking is when I also quit learning. Your comments are appreciated and you've given great insight into what kind of camera the 1DX III is. In fact this whole thread has been enlightening.

I purchased a 5DS R when it first came out. I moved from a 1DS III at 21 Mg to 50 MG expecting a big difference. I was also shooting chromes with a Pentax 6x7II, but the slides were getting harder to process and Cibachrome printing was no longer available. I found that there was not much difference in my images even on A3+ prints if I printed the full frame. The big difference appeared when I cropped my images. The extra megapixels in the 5DS R permitted me to crop my images and not reduce the quality of the prints. I think this is the largest difference. I shoot most of my Landscapes with the 5DS R. Although I use my EOS R for some portraits and as a walking around camera. When I win the lottery I may move up to a Fuji 100mg medium format, or if I win big, a Phase One medium format.

Blind Bill said:

Like others here on DPR I've been following the release of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III and my first thought was that newer meant it was going to have a MP count higher than 50MP. So I was surprised when it was released to see that it 'only' has a 20MP sensor. I've never been around one but the reviews are stellar.

Now my head is spinning and I'm questioning my assumption that higher MP's alone make a better camera?

What then is the combination of features, besides a higher MP that determine whether this or any other camera is technically superior?

My current 5D3 is 'only' has a 22MP sensor and based on the lower MP number was thinking of upgrading to something with 30MP or more. Now I'm doubting about whether I need to upgrade.

FYI, I prefer to shoot landscape and still life.

Click to expand...

it really comes down to whether you like the final images or not! most features are not going to contribute to rich and better photo, they are just convenience. however, i just got a 5DsR, and this camera turned out to be above my expectation in just about every facet. its files are rich and full of resolution--but of course, you have to use good "L" lenses with it to see that high resolution. 5Ds/5DsR cameras can be found at really low prices online. i am having real fun time sitting on my porch, shooting birds, macro, insects, and local animals on daily bases and enjoying it in these lock-down times ;-)

Blind Bill said:

Like others here on DPR I've been following the release of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III and my first thought was that newer meant it was going to have a MP count higher than 50MP. So I was surprised when it was released to see that it 'only' has a 20MP sensor. I've never been around one but the reviews are stellar.

Now my head is spinning and I'm questioning my assumption that higher MP's alone make a better camera?

Click to expand...

The reason that specific model doesn't have a higher mp is because there had to be a compromise between the amount of data that can be pushed and the frame rate. the 1dx series has evolved to a action, sports camera. If you went with a lot more mp you would probably have lower frame rate unless the went into using the fastest memory with a controller able to deal with high read out, and an sensor that can push out the data quick enough. Then there's the mechanical component of the limitation of how fast a mechanical shutter will go.

Blind Bill said:

What then is the combination of features, besides a higher MP that determine whether this or any other camera is technically superior?

Click to expand...

Depends what features you need, what you plan to do with it, and how big do you want to print.

Blind Bill said:

My current 5D3 is 'only' has a 22MP sensor and based on the lower MP number was thinking of upgrading to something with 30MP or more. Now I'm doubting about whether I need to upgrade.

Click to expand...

You'll see a difference, but I don't think it's as much as you think. The thing with resolution is that since you are expanding both x and y you want a much larger number to notice a big enough difference. Certainly helps with cropping.

I would worry more about the quality of the sensor. Canon has definitely improved a bit from how much the dynamic range was lacking in their sensors. But it still made up by making pleasant files, even on the old stuff.

I think if you wanna see a large enough difference resolution wise you wanna hit at least 50 MP.

Blind Bill said:

FYI, I prefer to shoot landscape and still life.

Click to expand...

I like shooting that too.

If it was more practical I heard some of the sigma sensors make for amazing colors.

If I was buying into a new system and I had scratch to spare sometimes there's some good deals on the fuji medium format, few months ago they had like 1k off the 50R and $500 off the 50mm, you can still find deals on 2nd hand models.

I would be tempted to have gone back to the Canon R5 and R6 for the 5 axis ibis.

Few years ago I wanted to move up from the 30D, 8mp wasn't cutting it anymore. I was tempted to get a 6D, inoffensive camera, but for the money I found a good deal on a Pentax K1, and move over. I wanted more resolution, better sensor than the Canon, and the Ibis makes the walk ability more flexible. I didn't need the best auto focus for the shooting pace that I had, or frame rate so I got the best sensor that I could afford at the time and went from there.

The new Canons look lethal with their ability to make lenses and IBIS.

1Dx4me said:

Blind Bill said:

Like others here on DPR I've been following the release of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III and my first thought was that newer meant it was going to have a MP count higher than 50MP. So I was surprised when it was released to see that it 'only' has a 20MP sensor. I've never been around one but the reviews are stellar.

Now my head is spinning and I'm questioning my assumption that higher MP's alone make a better camera?

What then is the combination of features, besides a higher MP that determine whether this or any other camera is technically superior?

My current 5D3 is 'only' has a 22MP sensor and based on the lower MP number was thinking of upgrading to something with 30MP or more. Now I'm doubting about whether I need to upgrade.

FYI, I prefer to shoot landscape and still life.

Click to expand...

it really comes down to whether you like the final images or not! most features are not going to contribute to rich and better photo, they are just convenience. however, i just got a 5DsR, and this camera turned out to be above my expectation in just about every facet. its files are rich and full of resolution--but of course, you have to use good "L" lenses with it to see that high resolution. 5Ds/5DsR cameras can be found at really low prices online. i am having real fun time sitting on my porch, shooting birds, macro, insects, and local animals on daily bases and enjoying it in these lock-down times ;-)

Click to expand...

I second this, I've seen some crazy second hand prices on the 5DS/5DsR. I think it's as good as you can get resolution wise for the money. If resolution is the only metric.

I agree with pretty much what evwryone else has said, but I wanted to give a slightly different perspective. Many megapixels equates to being able to print larger and/or to crop. Look at it from another point of view: More MPs means that each pixel has to be smaller in order to fit more pixels into a given area of the sensor. Smaller pixels are able to absorb fewer photons, which means less light per pixel. Therefore, cameras with fewer pixels have bigger pixels, therefore, they have better low light performance. Look at how clean the Sony A7s files are at high ISO compared to A7R at pixel level. Also compare how much cleaner the high ISO files arenof R6 compared to R5.

So, as a general rule of thumb, higher MPs give you greater printing and cropping ability, while the lower MPs give you better low light performance.

As far as metrics, AF, ergonomics, ability to customize and thw number and type of accessories are also important consideration. And price is also a super important metric, not to be lighly dismissed.

There's always this.

http://largesense.com/

Low MP, giant pixels. lol.