How many megapixels do you want in an M?

Canon may have a 28MP or a 32MP APS-C sensor coming so let's pose the question.  If everything else was constant (DR, ISO performance, detail, etc) how many megapixels do you want in an M camera?

24 is enough. Larger pixel count I'd prefer in a heavier body to balance heavier glass.

24 is enough. (18 would be nice, too. Because of larger pixels.)

I think i have some lenses being able to handle 32Mp. I might need shorter shutterspeeds with 32Mp, so IBIS will be even more important with such a high pixel density.

24 is fine. I would prefer improvements in the other areas rather than more megapixels.

HaroldC3 wrote:

Canon may have a 28MP or a 32MP APS-C sensor coming so let's pose the question. If everything else was constant (DR, ISO performance, detail, etc) how many megapixels do you want in an M camera?

If everything else is constant, why just 32mp?  Why not 60mp or 600mp?

noisephotographer wrote:

They should use a 40 or 48 megapixel sensor with optional pixel binning for 10 or 12 megapixel photos. It shouldn't be a Quad Bayer sensor as this could lead to demosaicing issues like Fuji's X-Trans sensor. And they need to offer a dng/CR3 file with consistent multi frame noise reduction. Of course they need to release sharp lenses.

Why 24 megapixels is not enough:

-In a few years smartphones will give you high quality photos/dng files with a (much) higher resolution than 12 megapixels.

-a high resolution is useful for tele, macro and landscape photography

-a high resolution + crop lets you use a wide angle lens as a normal lens (so it's like having more lenses), so for example the Ef-m 32mm f/1.4 could be "transformed" into a lens that is equivalent to an Ef-m 64mm f/2.8 macro lens (though it would be noisier than a real 64mm f/2.8 lens at base Iso).

That would be ideal but nobody seems to know how to make a sensor that allows binning.

I'm perfectly OK with the 24MP on the M5. it's the functional (photographic) side where this body is "underdeveloped" (or to put it bluntly: made for Powershot folks, not DSLR users) not the sensor. sensor is better than 90% of its users, especially those fighting reality with their DXO charts or whatever :-}

HaroldC3 wrote:

Canon may have a 28MP or a 32MP APS-C sensor coming so let's pose the question. If everything else was constant (DR, ISO performance, detail, etc) how many megapixels do you want in an M camera?

akustykmagmanetpl wrote:

I'm perfectly OK with the 24MP on the M5. it's the functional (photographic) side where this body is "underdeveloped" (or to put it bluntly: made for Powershot folks, not DSLR users) not the sensor. sensor is better than 90% of its users, especially those fighting reality with their DXO charts or whatever :-}

HaroldC3 wrote:

Canon may have a 28MP or a 32MP APS-C sensor coming so let's pose the question. If everything else was constant (DR, ISO performance, detail, etc) how many megapixels do you want in an M camera?

I much prefer much better low noise at much higher iso and secondarily much better tracking for such things as birds in flight.

Maybe I have to switch to a Sony A9 and get use to its terrible human interface.  If I want tracking and mirrorless the A9 is really the only game in town.

Bp

I think 24-28 is just fine. Denser sensors just produce larger files. without a huge gain anywhere else.

I would love to see the option of using DNG for raw files.

ByronP wrote:

akustykmagmanetpl wrote:

I'm perfectly OK with the 24MP on the M5. it's the functional (photographic) side where this body is "underdeveloped" (or to put it bluntly: made for Powershot folks, not DSLR users) not the sensor. sensor is better than 90% of its users, especially those fighting reality with their DXO charts or whatever :-}

HaroldC3 wrote:

Canon may have a 28MP or a 32MP APS-C sensor coming so let's pose the question. If everything else was constant (DR, ISO performance, detail, etc) how many megapixels do you want in an M camera?

I much prefer much better low noise at much higher iso and secondarily much better tracking for such things as birds in flight.

Maybe I have to switch to a Sony A9 and get use to its terrible human interface. If I want tracking and mirrorless the A9 is really the only game in town.

Bp

But then are you sure you're looking in the right place (Canon M and EFM lenses for the features of birding system)???

Lemming51 wrote:

HaroldC3 wrote:

Canon may have a 28MP or a 32MP APS-C sensor coming so let's pose the question. If everything else was constant (DR, ISO performance, detail, etc) how many megapixels do you want in an M camera?

If everything else is constant, why just 32mp? Why not 60mp or 600mp?

Because there are other factors which can't keep up with 60Mp.

- aperture large enough to avoid diffraction

- AF precise enough for the amount of detail AND the thin DOF of the large aperture needed to avoid diffraction

- signal2noise ratio needed for higher ISO's needed for higher shutter speeds needed to keep up with the high pixel density.

The ef-m 32mm f/1.4 would benefit from 32Mp compared to 24Mp. It might be the only ef-m lens, maybe the 22mm and 28mm would benefit a little.

600Mp is useless for sure.

I'm already contemplating a new build for my desktop.  That can be a real issue depending on the processing you do.  So I'll probably stick with 24 MP for the foreseeable future - even if I upgrade my computer.

24 MP actually offers more than I can print - 12x18 @ 300 ppi.  This is also part of my consideration because I print a lot.

One scenario for having a big benefit for higher megapixels is wildlife photographers who crop frequently. I would want as many megapixels as possible without compromising noise too much.