Camera sensor mp ratings and less than super sharp lenses

Has anyone actually experimented with the differences seen when good, but less than super resolving lenses are used on different mp sensors? I sometimes think that if I don't need the extra mp for the intended use of the photos that the results from my 12mp nikon apsc sensor cameras can actually be better than when the same lens is used on my 24mp nikon sensor cameras.

To be a bit more specific, typical images shared with friends and family that will never be viewed by anyone on anything bigger or with more resolution than 15" laptop, and/or over the internet on photo sharing sites where images seldom exceed 3000 pixels on the long side.

Just wondering if anyone else thinks or has tested to determine if maybe x lens is not capable of resolving enough detail to satisfy the 24mp sensor but has plenty to satisfy the12mp sensor, to the extent that the 12mp sensor actually produces at least equal and maybe better images.

Don't really have a side to take in this matter, and don't know that it is even important, just one of the things I always wanted to ask, but was afraid to. But the older you get, the less you worry about being called stupid.

Bob A L said:

I sometimes think that if I don't need the extra mp for the intended use of the photos that the results from my 12mp nikon apsc sensor cameras can actually be better than when the same lens is used on my 24mp nikon sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

More a case of higher resolution makes it easier to see flaws, artifacts, and the like. There were always there at 12mp....but like diffraction...easier to spot at 24mp

Bob A L said:

Just wondering if anyone else thinks or has tested to determine if maybe x lens is not capable of resolving enough detail to satisfy the 24mp sensor but has plenty to satisfy the12mp sensor, to the extent that the 12mp sensor actually produces at least equal and maybe better images.

Click to expand...

Not an issue with the lens not resolving enough detail...an issue of 24mp making it easier to see camera shack, diffraction, artifacts and the like. The lens likely can still out resolve the sensor at 24mp

Bob A L said:

Don't really have a side to take in this matter, and don't know that it is even important, just one of the things I always wanted to ask, but was afraid to. But the older you get, the less you worry about being called stupid.

Click to expand...

One can always down-sample from 24 to 12 and get the same result had you shot with 12mp sensor to start with. You'll just be showing less detail

Bob A L said:

Has anyone actually experimented with the differences seen when good, but less than super resolving lenses are used on different mp sensors? I sometimes think that if I don't need the extra mp for the intended use of the photos that the results from my 12mp nikon apsc sensor cameras can actually be better than when the same lens is used on my 24mp nikon sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

Sharpness has a lot to do with accurate focus, good shutter speed and good light.


Jeremy was trying to scare me by posing as a monster in 2012

The sharpness of this image was as good as I could get. Taken with bounced flash, 10 mp D40x with Sigma 30mm F1.4, at F2.8 and ISO 100

Bob A L said:

Just wondering if anyone else thinks or has tested to determine if maybe x lens is not capable of resolving enough detail to satisfy the 24mp sensor but has plenty to satisfy the12mp sensor, to the extent that the 12mp sensor actually produces at least equal and maybe better images.

Click to expand...

Jeremy in 2020, taken with 24 mp D5600, with same lens Sigma 30mm F1.4, heavily cropped. This image is just as sharp despite no flash, ISO 250 and at 1/20 sec handheld and with no VR.

Bob A L said:

Don't really have a side to take in this matter, and don't know that it is even important, just one of the things I always wanted to ask, but was afraid to.

Click to expand...

I don't think you need to worry about the resolving power of the lens. From my experience, my Sigma 30mm F1.4 can resolve just as well on the 24 mp D5600 as on the 10 mp D40x.

Bob A L said:

But the older you get, the less you worry about being called stupid.

Click to expand...

That is because you are wiser.

I have tried lower end lenses with low and high res sensors, and there are still benefits. Basically with any lens, different parts of the lens will resolve different amounts of fine detail. For example, at f/8 the Nikon AF-P 18-55 will resolve enough to fully take advantage of a 24 megapixel sensor with no OLPF, but only in a tiny region of the center of the frame.

In terms of sensor tests, I used my Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 on my D5600, as well as a friend's D7000. Detail was great on both, though I didn't do any side by side shots, instead it was more of sharing the lens while I switched to a different lens.

As for sensor resolution, due to how modern color sensors work, with the use of a CFA, the color resolution is much lower than the luminance resolution, When the image is scaled down, modern resampling will preserve the color info far better, thus even with a super high end lens, a 24 megapixel sensor with the output supersampled down to 12 megapixels, than if you were to take a an image using a 12 megapixel sensor.

As for image viewing, display resolution doesn't have much of a connection with image resolution, since on a PC or smartphone, people can view an image 1:1 or zoom in to various arbitrary amounts. Ideally it is best to avoid scaling the resolution down, especially if you want an image to hold up as time goes on.

Image resampling on modern browsers, are designed to be fast and use very few resources, and thus it will not offer the highest quality results.
If you have a 4K display and look through images shared, especially the worse case scenarios where people who are scared of uploading a full res image and instead upload 1 megapixel images, they end up looking horrible on high res displays as they end up looking tiny and rely on the resampling to scale it up to be visibly large enough on the display, especially when someone is using something like a 27 inch 4K monitor at 100% display scaling (maximizes screen space while still being mouse friendly for clicking on items on the screen), while still looking good for games when run at half resolution (to balance quality and frame rate).

There's more than sharpness in the equation.

More megapixels generally mean a more recent body. This generally mean better dynamic range, and this is something that will be evident at whatever magnification you are seeing the photo.

Razor512 said:

As for image viewing, display resolution doesn't have much of a connection with image resolution, since on a PC or smartphone, people can view an image 1:1 or zoom in to various arbitrary amounts. Ideally it is best to avoid scaling the resolution down, especially if you want an image to hold up as time goes on.

Click to expand...

But my question did not concern with blowing an image up to 100% or any amount, only viewing entire photo at full screen at max, so only viewing at 6 mp or less. That is the only way I evaluate a photo, viewed at the largest size I will ever use it.

Bob A L said:

But my question did not concern with blowing an image up to 100% or any amount, only viewing entire photo at full screen at max, so only viewing at 6 mp or less. That is the only way I evaluate a photo, viewed at the largest size I will ever use it.

Click to expand...

You also wrote "....and/or over the internet on photo sharing sites where images seldom exceed 3000 pixels on the long side." So for your viewing it won't matter...in terms of resolution...but may to others who view it over the internet on photo sharing sites. Others IQ characteristic differences of the sensors, unrelated to resolution, might be noticeable

Less is definitely not more.

12 megapixels is about 4K. That's enough for... you guessed it: 4K TVs/monitors. It's also enough to print at at least 30x20 cm without compromise.

There are still some benefits of going to about 24 MPX (to compensate for the resolution lost through the bayer pattern), and 12 MPX sensors typically had an anti-aliasing filter that cost you some sharpness, while higher MPX sensors generally don't have that.

But apart from those considerations, people who've tested this report that a good lens on a mediocre sensor still provides somewhat better results than a mediocre lens on a mediocre sensor. A mediocre lens on a good sensor is also somewhat better than on a mediocre sensor. Of course a good lens on a good sensor will beat the other combinations.

But good enough is definitely good enough. I generally resize my photos to 2000 - 2500 pixels wide/high to publish on the web as that's more than enough for a web browser window that takes up half the width of a 4K monitor. And still quite reasonable in full screen.

iljitsch said:

But good enough is definitely good enough. I generally resize my photos to 2000 - 2500 pixels wide/high to publish on the web as that's more than enough for a web browser window that takes up half the width of a 4K monitor. And still quite reasonable in full screen.

Click to expand...

Almost all my images are resized and optimised for 2400 pixels on the long side.

Me too. A further development for me on this same lines is that I just ran across a used D3300 that I could pick up pretty reasonable and thinking of it for a keep in the car camera so I would have the 24mp to work with for cropping purposes. Don't need 24mp for normal stuff though. But then today got to playing around with my D90 and have about decided that the 12mp images from it can be resized up to 24mp and survive perfectly well like basically undistinguishable from the 24mp photos from my D5500 when using the same lens and comparing the results. And the D90 has so many better features than the D3300.

Bob A L said:

And the D90 has so many better features than the D3300.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'd sooner have a D90 than a D3300. Actually, I do have a D90 - but I modified it for infrared (which it does superbly).

I also looked at MPB used site and see that they have D90's for really super prices, way lower than D3300's. I may just order another D90.

I wish they would just open up the firmware to community development. They can still keep all patented algorithms as binary blobs similarly to how router makers protect their intellectual property while allowing for open source community development of 3rd party firmware.

If they could do the same for these cameras, there would be major improvements in terms of usability and modernizing the cameras. For example with the pre-Arm SOCs, people found ways to get those nikon cameras to accept 3rd party firmware mods. They were able to make improvements such as unlimited record time, and higher bit rates, eg., pushing things from 20mbps to 100mbps+.

Razor512 said:

If they could do the same for these cameras, there would be major improvements in terms of usability and modernizing the cameras.

Click to expand...

I bet Nikon (or any other camera manufacturer) would rather have you buying a new body than upgrading an old one.

Better if it's mirrorless, so you'll need new lenses.