You NEED High MEGAPIXELS Cameras! Myth or Fact? Can AI Tech Change the Game?

8,24,30,45 how many MEGAPIXELS does one need take great images? In the old days, 8 megapixels was already a lot, now many people say 20 isn't enough! So how many megapixels do we actually need ? And why do I think that having high megapixel cameras can lead to taking more unique bird images?
Let's find out in this video!
What do you think is the right amount of megapixels for bird photography and photography in general?

Take SHARPER Images with ANY Camera!

Let me help YOU to take YOUR IMAGES to the NEXT LEVEL!
_____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS - Editing Your Bird Images To Perfection
_____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS & PERCHED BUNDLE - 25% off!
_____________________________________________
How to Attract Amazing Birds Ebook & Video Perched
_____________________________________________
Free Ebook - 5 Common Mistakes Almost Every Bird Photographer Makes And How To Avoid Them-
_____________________________________________
Instagram
_____________________________________________

This is the Equipment I recommend:
Canon EOS R5
Canon EOS R6
Sony Alpha 1
Canon RF 100-500 L IS
RF Extender 1.4x
RF Extender 2x
Sony FE 200-600
RF 800 F11
RF600 F11
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Canon 600 L IS III (I have v. II)
Canon EF 5.6/400 L
Canon 1.4x TC III
Canon 2x TC III
Canon 600 EX - RT
Wimberley Head II
Gitzo 5543LS (new version of my tripod)
Gitzo GT2545T Travel Tripod
Wimberley Flash Bracket
Wimberley M-6 Extension Post
Better Beamer (check for compatibility)
Flash Battery (Godox & Flashpoint is the same)
Power Cord
Y connector
Novoflex STA-SET
LensCoat LensHide
LensCoat Lens Hoodie
Canon 2.8/70-200 II
Canon 4/24-70
Canon 4/16-35 L IS
JBL Clip3 Speaker
Sandisk Extreme Pro CFexpress Card type B 512GB
Sandisk Extreme Pro
Panasonic Eneloop Pro
Minox 8x43
Canon LP-E6N
Manfrotto Mini Ballhead
FStop Gear Sukha Backpack

TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
0:40 High Mpix & Speed
1:36 Can YOU Pick What's What?
2:18 Size Matters
3:23 Why I love High Mpix
3:42 My High Mpix Adjusted Shooting Style
5:47 Side by Side Image Samples
8:30 High Mpix 500mm vs Low Mpix 600mm
9:56 Edited Images
10:20 Bring on AI Technology!
11:00 Can't crop too far and Upsize
11:09 Advantage High Mpix
11:19 Advantage Lower Mpix
12:22 Why I prefer High Mpix
12:46 So what's BEST??

[MyHumanWreckage]

One of the biggest advantages of shooting high MP is the ability to crop multiple images within the original frame with little or no noise.

[krane]

Its hard to argue with the "more is better, " especially on faster modern cameras. The only constant negative nowadays is cost, and whether you're going to use the higher pixies count enough to justify that cost. Thanks for the great video.

[frankanderson]

I wonder if people really enjoy their photography when they are so obsessed with megapixels and the such. In 5 years time when 45 mp will by small compared with the latest 80 or more that will be the norm, the same people will be saying how 45 megapixels isn't enough. It's a never ending unhappiness of what they have and a desire for more and more, fueled by camera manufactures and the internet/YouTube. There's a point when this is no longer about technological improvements.

[Duade]

Great video mate, a very interesting comparison, shows how capable the R6 is and what an upgrade the R5 was. Imagine what will come next. Cheers, Duade

[lindabeck]

That is a great and a very succinct wrap up on the virtues of high megapixels versus a lower value as per an R5 vs an R6 camera. But its a never ending highway, and for most, cost becomes a definite factor. Most of us would love for example to have a Ferrari but its just not realistic or feasible. Same here with cameras...if you're a professional then maybe you could even justify having both an R6 and an R5 for the occasion but for most I'm sure that something like an R6 more than fits the bill, does not need a computer upgrade, uses cheaper cards and so on. It is different when you're making a living from photography where quality really counts and you know how to and can make the best use of all of the features. Give it a few months though and the conversation may well be onto whether to choose an R3 or an R1, with the R5 and R6 then being relegated to the old technology bin. Technology will march on.

[frederickmcdonald]

I love my R6 and my 5D - mk 4 and do both landscape and animal photography. It gets me outside and I get for me what are great images! It is so much fun just to be out in nature and it’s not about pixel counts; it’s about being outside observing our world around me. A camera is just my excuse to get me out and I go out more than I ever did. I certainly like your perspective and you help me to get better photos and I appreciate that. Thank you. Be safe - enjoy life....

[oliverc]

I have two 61MP cameras and 2 30.1MP cameras. The difference really shows when I have to crop hard or when I'm photographing something like a rainbow bee-eater - you simply don't get feather detail on RBEs with relatively low pixel cameras. Yes, it's a never-ending quest for greater precision if you want or need it to be.

[lenf]

Thanks for your review. I noticed that all images from R5 coming out with more noise than R6 images, especially visible in the background. Also, why bigger file from R5 needed if you're not printing large prints, I think it's disadvantage for a lot obvious reasons(storage, processing etc.)

[IAmRch]

I agree that more megapixels offers a little more flexibility, but your issue with framing with a low megapixel camera is to use a zoom lens. To print big you can use gigapixel AI on your old images. I have seen 10 mp blown up to wall size. You cannot see the difference between a high resolution image and an 8mp image on youtube because you are watching in either 1080p or 4k. 1080p is 2mp image, 4k is an 8mp image, anything over that is lost in video. People don't generally pixel peep when browsing the internet. So, IMHO, high mp is nice to have but it is not needed for most applications. The real advancement is AF. Eye AF for birding is the single biggest advancement for birding photographers also high frame rate./dynamic range/high ISO performance, I would take these over high megapixels any day. This is why the R6 is such a great camera for the price. The R3 in my opinion is not a good deal and it is not good for most people. It is overpriced for what you get when you consider a Sony A1 is faster and around the same price and way more resolution thrown in for good measure, though not necessary. Another thing about high megapixels is you need top shelf sharp prime lenses to take advantage . So in conclusion, resolution should be at the bottom of your list when choosing a camera, fast eye AF, Dynamic Range, FPS, high ISO performance. (though with Noise reduction AI, high ISO performance is not as important as it use to be) are way more important than megapixels. Remember, you have to quadruple the number of megapixels to double resolution. To double the resolution of your old 10 mp camera, you have to jump to 40 mp camera. All those steps between did not get you much. But bird AI focus, fps, IS, Dynamic range/high ISO are much more important for the bird photographer especially BIF

[Hummingbirder]

Jan! That intro... my fave birdies, and my fave footage from you. Those babies makes my heart melt. I hope I get to see that species when I at last manage to get to Australia. I have started to check in my Australian bird fieldguide in earnest, and have amassed a few good birding-in-Australia YT videos in Favorites. One needs to be prepared with knowledge, and my knowledge of Australia isn't worth mentioning, as of yet. (Will continue watching the video now, even though getting a high megapixel-body isn't anywhere on my horizon)

[paulgibbings]

I really like my R6, but there are occasions when I can't get that close that I would appreciate the ability to have a larger image file and be able to crop more. There's also occasions when I'd prefer to have a 600mm F4 rather than my 150-600mm zoom, but most of the time I'm perfectly happy with my images and the £15k that I've saved. I'm sure if I was making my living out of bird photography, or I won the lottery I'd be thinking differently😊

[steentorner]

Another fine and useful video from my favourite YouTuber … ; - )
I have been using a 1DX Mark II for some years and bought a R5 six month ago. And I fully agree on your views about reducing the risk of clipping wings and action which has happened to me from time to time in the past. Now, I am able to have more space around my subjects and it is incredible how much more you can crop an image with the R5 than the 1DX and still maintain the high image quality.
Before buying the R5, I watched your video reviews and also noted your warning about the huge increase in file size. However, I did not pay much attention to this as I have a high-performance desktop computer. However, I am now preparing to travel abroad again on photo trips after the Covid-19 restrictions have almost lifted and realize that it is a costly issue. Just buying CFexpress cards and more portable SSD hard disks capacity have cost me about 1000 euro. But I have not regret buying the R5 at all. A few days ago, I went out photographing Red Deer as it is the rutting season and also used my 1DX Mark II – it felt like using an antique camera!
Best Steen

[anta]

My photography genre is a bit mix of everything: sometimes still life, sometimes street photography, sometimes landscape, sometimes architecture. Don't shoot wildlife and sport. I don't print much, and when I do, usually in 20" x 30". 24 MP or 36 MP is more than sufficient.

Yes, if I shoot commercial images... say for Vogue, or to make epic gallery-level prints (like 1m x 2m) which may be inspected from a short distance, totally will get a 50 MP or bigger camera. I don't do that, though. Of course bigger RAW files means need more powerful PC for editing/post processing. And also bigger storage.

Of course this is the good old classic "need" vs "want" problem. Do I need 50 MP? Nope. Do I want? Well...a used Fuji GFX50S can be easily found around $2000-ish. That's a pretty hard temptation :p

[sswildlifevideos]

Great vid Jan. I like the 40-50 range. Sometimes I like taking face portraits of birds and mammals and cameras like the R5 offer the flexibility that cameras like the R6 do not. You can upsize R6 files but I find for close ups upsizing can artifact/look weird. So I agree with you - I think the R5 is worth every penny for wildlife over the R6 :)

[thomassullivan]

Jan I'm with you, I can't go back now that I have 45mp on R5. The crop factor is great as you described. I like big prints, 20 x 30 is the smallest I print to. More data just seems to provide a better print. I want some big 4 x 6 ft prints and that's when I think the R5 will really shine. Got the 2TB CFExpress cards and didn't look back, there were on sale for half at B&H. My old i7 computer still handles the files in LR and PS as well as it did the 1DXmk2 files. LR always seems a little buggy and sometimes wants to hang up for a bit. The bigger files size didn't seem to affect that. Nice video :) I think the first photo from Norway is low, and 2 eastern yellow robbins are my guess. That Western Spine Bill is amazing, that looks like a full-frame R5 image that maybe you cropped a little, the detail is amazing! How did I do? Get them all wrong?

[jimtipton]

Great comparison video! I also like the flexibility of more megapixels. I went back and forth between the R6 and R5 and settled on the R5 and that was a large part of the reason, plus I do some landscape and sports so for larger prints... Cheers!

[wooster]

Thank you, Jan, for another lovely video. I admire your images and some of these are stunningly beautifully taken and processed. I'm also so, so, so envious or your location.

I have only recently realised that zooming in to 100% doesn't really show differences in resolution: it only shows pixel level sharpness and that you need to print or scale onscreen images so they are of a comparable. size when you look at them. The difference might be noticeable but for sure still insignificant. I also believe that doing the same comparison, the idea of noise differences between these two is also probably a red herring. If you have more megapixels you can always downsample which I can't help but instinctively feel must give better results than having to use AI to upsample. I might be wrong about that of course.

Either way, I agree that for the image, pixel-peeping doesn't matter but it does give you a buzz when zooming in on a large screen: -)

Talking of which, please can you tell me what monitor you have there? I'm in the market for one and not sure about size, resolution or manufacturer. I'd love to know what you use. I'm also just getting into video so I'm wondering if a 4k 32" would be ideal.

[kimdunphy]

It’s always exciting to be able to upgrade my gear, however as you highlighted, it’s isn’t just the cost of the camera, it’s the knock on effect. The EOS R and 5DMark IIII are perfect for where I am in my still level. The areas I need to improve are my processing skills and nailing my exposures. Your videos have really help in this regard. Thanks Jan, K

[fredericbeudot]

Very well thought through and logical case you make. I also think that the rise of mirrorless with higher resolution enables now more seamless transition from FF to APSC crop in camera if needed as the EVF resizes appropriately on the fly (the only benefit being to proactively cutting the pixels that will be trimmed in post, therefore saving space, time, getting a bigger buffer etc...) - it's hard to do with a 20MP sensor where the APSC crop is now 8MP but on the 50MP Sony A1, APSC is a very respectable 21MP crop. It goes to your flexibility argument, just another place where it can be taken advantage of.
As someone else mentioned though, you might want to look at your new opening sequence - the shots of your taking pictures (academy award winning acting by the way :-) ) are super crisp (excessively so?) in 4k but the following bird footage is very soft and the transition back and forth looks strange in 4K on a 4K screen.

[stephendavis]

Hi Jan - very interesting video, as always. It is great to have the various options compared in a balanced way, with logical conclusions….
For me, the R6 will have to suffice ( I love it 😊), as the extra costs of replacing computers etc were beyond me, and I am not a professional. Having said that, the ability to have ‘more pixels on the bird’ would be great on many occasions!