You don’t need a high-resolution camera… trust me.

Camera spec sheets can be confusing when considering a new camera purchase, especially megapixels. But is more actually better? In this video, we find the best image resolution that delivers the optimal image quality for modern photographers.

Check out MPB here and grab a used camera deal!

--------------

You might be interested in these:

Some of the above links are affiliate links, by purchasing via these links I receive a small commission.

--------------

0:00 - Megapixel Myths
1:28 - Popular Display Resolutions
3:09 - Low-Resolution Cameras
4:27 - Cropping Ability
5:23 - Lessons From Cropping
6:05 - Resolution vs Sensor Size

#imagequality

[GeorgeHolden]

**Correction 🤦🏼‍♂️

I made a mistake in my explanation at 3:09.

When detailing the cropping ability of 16MP and 12MP I used a crop factor of 2x and 1.5x respectively to get to the 8MP resolution - this is incorrect.

To achieve 8MP on the 16MP would only require a crop factor of 1.4x. On 12MP only a crop factor is 1.2x is required.

The reason for this is I had mistakenly calculated (4992x3328)/2 to achieve 8MP from 16MP. In fact this should be calculated with division preceding multiplication: (4992/1.4)X(3328/1.4).

Apologies for the mistake, it doesn't change the ability of an 8MP image - only the variable crop factors to get there! 😂

And a thank you to Bjørn Friese for emailing to notify me of the mistake!

[thedrunkweddingphotographer]

As film wedding photographer, it took years for me to realize that the average client probably has a 5-10 year old computer at home, more than likely it's a laptop at best, most have smart phones, primarily Androids. And the only people who care about resolution.... is us, photographers.

[Rich-yn]

Small compact cameras with outstanding image quality for everyday use are still the holy grail of photography.

[digitalsketchguy]

There is an obsession with gear & tech and easy to forget about the ART of...

[trym]

It is easy. High MP crop is really useful when using prime lens and you don't have the reach (or even maxed out zoom). If you have the zoomies to churn out, just use zoom to do the work. It's just choosing how lazy or restricted you want to be.

Because essence of doing crop with enough MP is legitimately backed up by birding or sports people

[theparkerstudio]

If you get a chance, check out Magnum Photographer Alex Majoli, who took a 5mp Olympus point and shoot and shot the presidential elections and the Iraq war for Newsweek -- those images won him several awards, including the award for international photographer of the year.

[rogermaioli]

This varies by genre though. Megapixels are essential when you are photographing small birds, for example; they won't let you get close, and in order to get appreciable detail you almost always must crop. Bird photographers generally find even 24 MP to be too little (which is why the Canon R3 never made it as a competitor for the Sony A1 or the Nikon X8 and X9 as a bird photography camera; the Canon gold standard for bird photography still is the R5, precisely because of its higher resolution). In addition, seeing pictures on a screen is one thing; printing them out is another game altogether, and megapixels make a huge difference.

[andym]

You’re right - I used to edit an image-lead fairly glossy / heavy paper magazine (you could buy in newsagents) and as long as the base image was good (I mean sharp, well exposed) we could usually get a double-page spread out of a 3mp image without any noticeable artefacts - and 6mp was never a problem.

[grumpyoldbikers]

George, you had me laugh out loud when describing the screen resolutions versus the actual megapixel size! I DIDN"T KNOW THAT!!! I have been reviewing old photos that I took on my Nikon Coolpix 990 back in the early 2000s. This camera cost me over a grand in January 2000 (just after launch) and was state-of-the-art at that time. It has a 3.3 Megapixel sensor and on my 33" LG or HP monitors (I run them side-by-side off my MacBook Pro) the pics are still stunning. I found your video by accident and I'm so glad I did as I am fed up with listening to 'photographers' telling me I need the latest squillion megapixels to get a good photograph. I cut my teeth on film, had my own darkroom at home and learned that photography is about 'SEEING' not about the number of megapixels you have. Well done for a great video... absolutely love it!

[tommicrazy]

It really depends what you do later, if all what matters is picture for social media then of course you don’t need extra detail of extra resolution, but on the other hand. after nice holiday you look back on some old photos, you like to check in the background for example name of restaurant or look closer at the flowers on the table then its amazing to have that big sensor and hi resolution. Its all about attention to detail

[CaptuRadiance]

I love people that go against the flow! you've got a new subscriber

[thierryhoornaert]

I agree with you for most types of photography. The output is the most important. If the output is instagram or the computer monitor I completelly agree. What about printing?
For portraits, landscapes, architecture, macro etc. there is no need for big resolutions.
What about wildlife photography? You can't be close most of the time, so you have to crop heavily sometimes. You still want/need to print 4000 by 6000 pixels at 240-300 dpi.
Then it becomes a budget choice between disk space and bigger lenses...

[tipi]

As an artist, all my life i've tried to make the most of the least possible, as a necessity at times, but always as a principle.

I've never seen anyone explain why I love shooting with my Lumix cameras, and why I've been so eager to get friends and partners into them, as much as you have in this video.

Well done, subscribed.

[HaraldEngels]

My digital camera journey started with a Canon Ixus (2 MB resolution). The image quality of my photos from that era is still a sort of OK (watched on a 27" 2K screen) and there are some photos which I really like despite the low resolution. The best camera is that what inspires and enables you to take great shots. Some years ago I purchased a Sony A7R III. Factually it did not inspire me the same way like my ancient A7. Consequently I sold it without any regret because I was/am using primarily vintage lenses so that many features of the A7R III did not translate into a real-life advantage for me.

[Βόρειο_Σέλας]

My Nikon D700 is 12M and it still happily shoots great pics. I have been in photography for 40 years or so and I was shooting 35mm before and never had issues in enlarging.
Unfortunately the marketing and social media hype in higher resolution has ruined photography in general.
If you are a good photographer and have a creative talent, you can shoot with a "pinhole" camera and get great images, so the idea of higher resolution is better, is a myth for general photography. But, if you want to do architectural photography or other photography that requires more res that is fine, that is why in the film days you had and still have medium and large format films.
Cheers

[kbarrett]

You can generate a fairly good-sized print from lower mega-pixel (6-12MP) cameras as well. Plus, AI optimization programs can easily boost resolution (through interpolation) by 200% that you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference when compared with native resolution. Very few people view A3 or A2 prints hanging on the wall up close.

[CompleteProducer]

this video is incredible and so motivating for me to shoot more with what i have instead of always trying to upgrade my gear. THANK YOU!!

[sclogse]

When you look at a well shot image from say, a Rollei 2 1/4 camera from 1960, you not only get amazing resolution, (let's say the film was Plus X, but back then you could probably get ASA 50 or even 25) the larger image can also give you more micro contrast and range of tones. It's very obvious when you look at the prints. This range of tones is really what I'm looking for when I think of higher resolution digital. Either the sensor offers it or it doesn't.

[julianhughes]

'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough' - Robert Capa

I'm using 16MP M43 Panasonics and the image quality is great. Years ago I used a Fujifilm Finepix F200 EXR (12 or 6 MP according to mode), a Canon Powershot S70 (7.1MP) and a Konica Minolta Dynax 7D (6.1MP) and before that a Canon Powershot G2 (4MP) . They were good too! I couldn't care less about megapixels for most purposes. Really, as you say, on screen it hardly matters. It's when you print that it matters more. What more moderns sensors give you is much better dynamic range and truly excellent low light performance. Older digital cameras produced some very horrible low light results.

[thewessexwanderer]

Loved this and your whole style of presenting. Thank you!