I think you can get much more from a great body with good lenses than great lenses with an OK body. Especially if the lenses are FF and the body is crop. I got stunning IQ out of my A7R2 with unmentionable glass, but just OK IQ from my old NEX C3 with Zeiss glass.
Of course there are differences, and we will all have different prices we're willing to pay for them. And you can tell the difference between enough pixels to give a good (acceptable) result and twice as many. But a long term budget will put most of the money into lenses first, as its the bodies that will improve most over the next ten years.
I think the type of shooting you should be consistent with your choices of camera and lens. For stationary subjects like landscape 24MP is plenty good. For extreme action shooting it is not good. Action shooting requires cropping or luck. The body is important for dynamic range enabling shadow pulling. Cropping requires extra pixels which pushes the MP and glass quality requirement even further. That is MHO. Good glass is always sweet but if the subject is very small in the frame and requires cropping then even Good glass may not enough. I suspect 24MP for you is what you will want.
Really? 16-19 feet? That seems like a long way away to sit from your TV. Here's what I found online for how far away you should be from various different sizes of TV: "So, for example, if you have a 65 inch TV, the viewing distance at which the eye can actually process the details of 4k content is about 4 feet. However, any distance between 4 and about 8.5 feet will be enough to appreciate the difference between 4k and 1080p on a 65 inch TV". If that is to be believed, there's no point in having a 4K TV, if you're going to be viewing it from 16 feet away.Around 5-6 meters.… and how far away you are when you view it. This applies to prints too.Exactly! I have a 65inch OLED TV. And no, I don't need 150 megapixels to enjoy viewing photos and videos on it
I have a 4K TV and can show 2K and 4K video. My chair is 8 feet away at from the 65" screen. I can see the difference between 2K and 4K. I rarely care which it is because the story is more important.Really? 16-19 feet? That seems like a long way away to sit from your TV. Here's what I found online for how far away you should be from various different sizes of TV: "So, for example, if you have a 65 inch TV, the viewing distance at which the eye can actually process the details of 4k content is about 4 feet. However, any distance between 4 and about 8.5 feet will be enough to appreciate the difference between 4k and 1080p on a 65 inch TV". If that is to be believed, there's no point in having a 4K TV, if you're going to be viewing it from 16 feet away.Around 5-6 meters.… and how far away you are when you view it. This applies to prints too.Exactly! I have a 65inch OLED TV. And no, I don't need 150 megapixels to enjoy viewing photos and videos on it
Yes, top end lenses are still sharper than the highest Mp sensors commonly available. Even at 50Mp, my 5DsR is the limiting factor when coupled to my EF600/4ii. It doesn't really catch up until I add a 2x teleconverter.
Good sports/action photography requires situational awareness, experience, planning, and knowledge of the sport & athletes. If you rely on luck and cropping, you won't get as many good photos, and you won't be using your tools (lens and sensor) to get the best from the moment.
I don't see it 'cause in cases I describe it does not exist. That actually is the thing
. ? I will give you a tolerance of 10Mpix error. OK?
I understand it perfectly well. One more time: the original comment to which I was replying was not about whether a 50 mpx camera produces better prints at certain sizes than a 24 mpx camera, it was a very general comment saying that a 50 mpx camera is not better that a 24 mpx camera. Period! That's all it said! It was a blanket statement!
Maybe you should ask "what is enough" on a philosophy forum.
Fully agree here. Good action photography is much more about skills and knowledge than luck and spraying & praying.
Oh.... It is not about faith. Whether any camera is good or not is not determined only by a Mpix count how you question implies. It is also very much about functionality, available settings, image quality, handling, customization, features etc. And it is very case / preferences /needs dependent. Is Canon 5DS better camera than R3? Is an appartment in the city center better than a village house? Is 2 seater sports car better than a family van?
You've gone off track again. The original comment to which I was replying was a blanket statement about 50 mpx vs. 24 mpx. It did not mention functionality, settings, image quality, etc. etc. etc. or prints!!! This is the third time I've said this and each time you try to reshape the discussion to suit your need. Third time is the last time. I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything with anyone who wants an honest discussion about something, but you seem to be much more interested in winning an argument than dealing with the topic at hand, which is the resolution of the camera, nothing else.
Downsampling the images to 2.7K is silly for several reasons.I don't see it 'cause in cases I describe it does not exist. That actually is the thing
Made this excersise many times already. Two prints, marked on the back side, then shuffled, then trying to distinguish.
Not a small money for me for R6 or R5 so I wanted to decide not based on thoughts or wishfull thinking.
But tell me my friend - your statement "If you dont see a difference in your use cases that's fine but that doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist" calls for the blind test. My user case is 2.7k graphic monitor. Are you brave enough to take validity test of your statement? I will share couple of 2.7k images and you will tell me from what resolution they came. Ok for you
You dont even have to go to top end glass to get more out of a high res sensor. Any decent modern lens will be pretty sharp stopped down, even in front of 40+ MPs. So if IQ is a priority (over speed for example) then spending on the body is where it's at IMO.
Right answer to the wrong question. For sports/action more Mp is not necessarily better. Twice as many Mp means half as many frames in a short timeframe, AOTE. So a lower resolution sensor could be better.
8 feet is pretty much exactly the recommended distance for a 65" TV. Our 55" TV is 9 feet away from our sofa. I've been trying to use these viewing distance recommendations as an excuse to buy a bigger TV (we're not going to be moving our sofa closer to the TV). So far, my wife isn't going for it.I have a 4K TV and can show 2K and 4K video. My chair is 8 feet away at from the 65" screen. I can see the difference between 2K and 4K. I rarely care which it is because the story is more important.Really? 16-19 feet? That seems like a long way away to sit from your TV. Here's what I found online for how far away you should be from various different sizes of TV: "So, for example, if you have a 65 inch TV, the viewing distance at which the eye can actually process the details of 4k content is about 4 feet. However, any distance between 4 and about 8.5 feet will be enough to appreciate the difference between 4k and 1080p on a 65 inch TV". If that is to be believed, there's no point in having a 4K TV, if you're going to be viewing it from 16 feet away.Around 5-6 meters.… and how far away you are when you view it. This applies to prints too.Exactly! I have a 65inch OLED TV. And no, I don't need 150 megapixels to enjoy viewing photos and videos on it
Add to that the fact that most sports shots will be displayed on screens from phones up to desktops, and high resolution shots are even less necessary. For many years, Sports Illustrated has been full of stunning shots taken on 8-20MP cameras.
