The Online Photographer

If you think a 24 MP or thereabout sensor is good enough for you, then why FF and not APS? You will save some volume and weight, even more if you count in the lenses. OTH, with FF you need fewer lenses as you can crop more. Saves volume and weight. (This is not very helpful, I fear.)

The OM-3 has a high res mode, you could try both at once.

Unless you photography benefits in functional ways from the lower resolution sensors — for example, you need a super high frame rate – I think it make sense to go with the higher MP system. If you don’t need the functional attributes of the lower MP system, you still might gain some advantage from the higher MP system. That not just about resolution either — it can include things like smoother gradients, more ability to crop, and so forth.

Some years back, there was a case to be made that going with a higher MP system sacrificed things iike noise, dynamic range, and higher ISO performance. But today’s high resolution cameras provide plenty of all of those.

I'll take a 24mp camera. My highest resolution cameras are Nikon D800 and D810 but I seldom use them. Hell, I still use D3 and D700 cameras. I use my 24mp Fujis and my newer Nikon Z5s the most. I'm also kinda in love with the old X100S, XPro1/X-T1 and GRII cameras with 16mp. The 16mp models just give a pretty B&W image. But 24mp is the best overall compromise for how I do photography (that's not a particularly great selling point, however).

I have both, and all other things equal, I like the high res Z7 files a little more than my ZF files. But it’s minor. The ZF is a better all around camera, with superior IBIS and significantly better autofocus, so I get more “keepers.” Still, I like that resolution boost. That’s why I’d be in favor of a simple Z7 upgrade, same size, using ZF or Z6III components. I’m in favor of lots of things that might not sell, though.

The Wandering Lensman (Dennis A. Mook) compared his OM-1 II with his Nikon Z8 (see his article of 22 November). Next to OM System MFT and Nikon full frame he also uses the Fujifim system, but since he is getting older he thinks about reducing his gear. Somewhere he even wrote about going back to an OM body with the 12-100mm f/4 only. Comparisons can be a nice read but most reviewers tend to focus on resolution and hardly ever on the quality of colors or monochrome. I would prefer a color comparison between the OM-3 and the Canon R5.
Will you also consider the quality, size, costs and availability of the lenses?

I currently have a m4/3 setup, but if I was starting today I would definitely look at a Sony A7C II 33mp, pared with a Sony 20-70 lens.

I’ve faced this question in the APS-C world. I’ve been very happy with my 26 MP Fuji X-T4 since it came out. When it dies, as digital equipment always seem to within a very few years, the X-T5 that has replaced it offers 40 MP which, at a stroke, will almost double my future storage requirements and probably require purchasing a new, more powerful Mac. With the majority of images shown online these days and the rare print seldom larger than A2, what will I do with all those surplus pixels? I think your observation that favorite images you’ve seen lately from the denser pixel cameras may really only reflect that professionals tend to shoot with up-to-date equipment.

Good Morning Mike. For most of the years that I've been shooting digital (28 years) I was using APC sized sensors. I was pretty much brand agnostic shooting Sony, Canon, Nikon, Epson, etc. My main subject matter was birds and other wildlife, with landscapes and vacations thrown in. I settled into the Sony camp with the A6xxx series until finally switching to a Sony A7R4 (61MP) primarily for the improved menu system and general haptics with the added benefit of having enough pixels to crop and still have enough to make a good photograph. I noticed that when printing landscapes they appeared to have more presence at a normal viewing distance. The only downside was the increased storage that was necessary. After 5 years I'm still very happy with my choice and it may well be my last camera.

24

Over 24MP other aspects of the camera are more important, including price. Actually taking it with me and getting the shot, trumps having a bigger sensor sitting at home doing nothing. 24MP gets me the prints I want without compromises.

My first digital camera was a mere 4 MP, which at the time was twice the resolution of its predecessor. To be competitive with my peers,I bought it, only to find I would be chasing a rapidly changing technological evolution that would challenge my ability to keep up. If I were still a working photographer, sensor size and frame rate would be dictated by the scope of its use. Today, if money were no object,I would probably join the Sony or Hasselblad fanboys.

24 MP are more than enough for me. I do not crop much, I do not print larger tha A3+

24 MP is plenty for me.

I get prints done for my albums and 24 is more than enough. The 24 MP Sigma FP is a camera that appeals to me as the colours look so good on it.

As it is, I'm currently shooting a mix of Fuji X and 35mm film.

I have both. I have a LUMIX S5 that has been converted to monochrome by the same guy who did your Sigma, a LUMIX S5II with the better sensor for focus, both 24mp. I also have the LUMIX S1r at 47mp. The larger files are really lovely but for black and white the conversion is the winner.

Also factor in the weight factor. The Sr1 is a brick. Rumor has it that it is Panasonic’s version of a Leica SL.

Forced to choose i’d go with the conversion for black and white and the Sr1 for color.

45 megapixels are not 2 times the resolution of 24 megapixels, after all these years you are still making the same mistake as a beginner. If everything works out (resolving power of the lens and so on), 100 megapixels has twice the resolution of 24 megapixels. 45 megapixels has about twice as many pixels as 24 megapixels, and this is quite different. Sigh!

[I just meant number of pixels is all. --Mike]

While the 24mp is perfectly adequate for my needs (and with High Res pixel shifting, you can get 2x-4x), the higher res bodies allow you to crop in, and this could eliminate the purchase and/or carrying an extra lens or two. Also would eliminate the debate about which lens. So, money no object, the higher pixel count.

I've worked in retouching for fashion brands for 30 years and for me, the arrival of 24 MP DSLR cameras was the big tipping point. With a 24 MP file you could do most anything you were asked. Large format in-store signage like a 96" window sign became a less frightening aspect with a solid 24 MP file. For myself, I picked up a used Leica M262 with a 24 MP capture for a fraction of the cost of an M11 and I have no regrets. I think the real and noticeable difference in quality that merits any added expense is a larger sensor size. Resolution aside, the added sensor acreage enhances the image quality.

FF 24 mpixels. Other than printing very large physical prints, I have not seen convincing arguments for what one would do with 45 or 60 megapixels. Isn't much of this an extension of the typical guy bragging competition? I have more horsepower in my car, a bigger McMansion, more income, more megapixels, longer zoom lens......

24 M would be enough for me, I prefer bigger pixels (provided than they have less noise in low light images) and al most never I do agressive crop forma my images neither huge prints.

I don’t agree that FF cameras are the norm now. There is a market for them but I believe it’s small (in terms of numbers sold) and I think it’s getting smaller. Even in ILCs there are alternatives- APSC and Micro4/3.

But the huge high-resolution camera market - the one that’s getting bigger every year and which dwarfs the market for ILCs - is the one for smartphones. And not only are those cameras getting better all the time but a surrounding infrastructure for them is being developed which makes it easy for users to produce even higher quality images. For example I’ve recently bought a cage + handles for my iPhone 16 Pro Max, and it’s transformed the handling of the phone for photography.

I’m about to go on holiday to Singapore and for the first time I may well not take my ILC with me - I know the phone will meet my requirements. They are serious photographic tools now. There are some specialist areas that they can’t really do - any really long-lens stuff (e.g. wildlife) or true macro, for example - but for pretty much everything else they’re good enough. HCB would have killed for an iPhone, I’m sure.

Being a long time reader of your posts about your shooting preferences I think you would like the Nikon Zf. This cameras has a designated B&W mode and 24 MP sensor. Great low light shooter with retro setup for more deliberate shooting that you seem to prefer.

I shoot Olympus m4/3s but have been recently toying with the idea of trying full-frame, mostly for landscape or similar "slow" work. I settled on a Nikon D610 or equiv era DSLR with 28 and 50 mm lenses. I set my target sensor at 24 mpix and kind of avoided considering anything with more pixels than that. This was for practical reasons for me, because I don't want to bother with large files and I will likely never print larger than 16x20. Also, I could build such a system for about $1000 CAN, which I set as my maximum for psychological reasons. Truth is 16x20 would be an outlier for me, I only have so much wall space and nobody buys my prints. The entire exercise would be for my amusement. About 25 years ago, I thought of buying a medium format film camera for more or less the same reasons but never did so.

The reason I targeted old DSLRs was because when I compared online tests of low-light high ISO noise, I didn't see much real difference between the full-frame sensors of that era and current ones. I'm not saying there haven't been improvements but none that jumped out at me based on my looking at test screens online. This may be an inadequate way to determine this but I was not going to do any better myself. I can't go to a store, asked to borrow a few bodies and lenses, test them myself for a few days then bring them back and say thanks. My life isn't like that. Do stores ever do that?

I haven't pulled the trigger yet but I have not ruled it out. Since I already own a Canon EF 50/1.8, a Canon 6D mark 2 is also a tempting buy. I should add that I don't care about the camera feature set.

One thing that is delaying my decision is the very good low light performance of Pentax APS/C bodies (e.g., KP, KF, etc.) They are 24 mpix bodies and if they can deliver in low light and higher ISOs, then I could meet my play requirements with a smaller lighter body. Also, historically my heart belongs to Pentax, so there's that. Finding lenses for APS/C is slightly more difficult than for full-frame and that's a consideration. But 24 mpix was my target sensor size, probably my sweet spot. But I don't earn my living at this so my needs are not the same as yours.

There is no simple answer to this question. I have solved it by having a full frame 60 MB and a much smaller same brand crop camera , which fits in a jacket pocket. I do not need 60 MB, that comes free with the other stuff, such as superb rear screen, viewfinder, ergonomics, menu system and a state of the art auto focus system (which I do not need for 95% of the time). The key factors for me are not the differences but what they have in common.. ie same battery, compatible with the same lens, same menu system, most of the same buttons and ergonomics and use most of the same accessories. One fits in my pocket and travels mostly with a small prime. The second uses f2.8 heavy large lens and travels in a camera bag.

I probably have this wrong but I thought it took a quadrupling of pixel count to double resolution. May be a misunderstanding of the inverse square law on my part, it wouldn't be the first time I got something like this confused.
Quibbling aside I feel pretty comfortable with 24mp and APS at that.
I am sure stepping up from my venerable D7100 to a Z8 or D850 would be lovely but not transformative. Expensive but not life changing.
If I do decide to drain my bank account for a fresh camera I suspect it would be a Fuji 100mp medium format box.
Your mileage may vary

Personaly, I stopped worryig about resolution years ago. I mean, what do you want to use the image for? Pixel peeping? Printing? Social media?

And since I've gone back to film, it's a bit irrelevant for me ;-)

I've had, between APS-C and 24x36, 10MP, 12MP, 16MP, 24MP, 36MP, 42MP, and 45.5MP.
With Nikon Z6II and Z7II/Z8 cameras, I've had both 24MP and 42/45MP now for ≈2 years. My take: 24MP completely replaces 24x36 film photography in terms of deliverable detail on a print, assuming silver halide/color dye prints for film, inkjet prints for digital. And... the 24MP files download and go through processing noticeably faster.
For snapshots-the things one shoots handheld, 24MP is very good.
For the times when one wants to simulate the detail available from shooting 8x10 film, 42/45.5MP is better than 24MP. With high MP images, the potential for increased size of presentation or cropping makes for increased demands on image detail that the lens produces, and for solid (non-shaky) camera support. As Stephen S. pointed out, the resolution of 45MP is slightly more than 24MP, so the differences are subtle. I definitely would not want to go back to shooting 12MP.

I had a D850; nice camera but more resolution than necessary. I sold it and went to APS-C Pentax instead. Best move I've made in probably 20 years of photography. The 24 megapixel K-3 has been the closest thing to a perfect DSLR that I have ever held. With a hand full of great lenses, I'm having more fun and getting more keepers than I have in a long time.

My experience matches Bob Spring's (first featured comment). I have a Canon R6 (20 MP FF) system and a Lumix G9II (24 MP Micro 4/3rds). The Canon shows less digital noise when using high ISO, but Lightroom's NR Enhance erases the difference. I prefer the Lumix’s 4:3 format to Canon’s 3:2 format. The Lumix camera bag with three lenses is half the weight of the Canon bag with equivalent lenses. The 17x22 prints from both cameras are spectacular. I can't imagine the need for 2X pixels.

It's a size/weight/IQ balancing equation. I agree that 61mp isn't needed for most prints and it certainly isn't needed for most screen display. It's the crop ability I like. The Sony A7CR give FF 61 mp in a considerably smaller, lighter package than the Nikons. It's an APS-C sized package that also gives Sony AF. I have no idea what Kenneth Tanaka is talking about when he says he chooses 24mp for superior speed and Af. He can't have used the Sony range. Possibly you can get more frames per second on some models - but how many do you need?
I no longer need to be carrying longer lenses around or doing much lens swapping. The A7CR is an incredibly versatile set up. I want something that is easy to pack/carry on a plane, easy to carry and fast for street, has the quality for product shoots and big prints. The A7CR with 61 mp and cropping when i want it, can handle the lot. And I don't need the widest lenses. The files, including when cropped, take kindly to the new noise reduction programs.
The thing about these Sony cameras is their versatility. Yes, the menus are complex. They aren't a camera for beginners. They are hugely configurable. You need to know what you want and then you set them up so all the controls you need for your shooting style are just where you want them. After that, you don't need to spend time in the menus.

I moved to FF Hi-Res when I bought a Nikon D850 and have never looked back. The files are just so much better to work on compared to lower res offerings, even if you have no real need for the extra resolution. I have used many of my photos from the early days of digital as illustrations in published books and found acceptable results even from 2002 4 MP cameras. BUT the files from my FF Nikon Z8 are just so much better and so much more forgiving.. Hi res all the way for me even though lower res images may be acceptable.

I did make that call, picking my ZF for low light over crying and paying for a Z8 - but Nikon is weird in that their highest resolution cameras are also their fastest - a Z8 or Z9 would be deeply fun to have. Fuji 100mp files are really pretty so a GFX might be fun too...

24 is enough for me. I have two FF 24s and couple of smaller sensor ones with 16-24mp. If money really was no factor, I would probably buy two, a 24mp and a 50-60mp for the few times I might need or want more. It is nonsense to think that there is a difference between 24 and 50 if one prints at small sizes. In really big prints, yes definitely. Enough is enough and smaller files are easier to handle, in camera, in post processing and in long term storage.

I print on a Canon Pro-200, and shoot both a Nikon Z6 (24.5mp) and a Nikon Z7II (45.7mp.) At the sizes I print, up to 19 inches, I find the prints from both cameras quite satisfactory. I also have a collection of twelve fine art prints by well-known photographers. In terms of size, my printer could have printed nine out of the twelve prints, all but the larger squarish ones. In other words, I think both cameras are capable of producing acceptable fine art prints in common wall-hanging sizes.

As Ken Tanaka said, the choice of what camera to buy has really moved beyond sheer MPs. The differing sensor sizes (both physically and in number of megapixels) have different advantages and disadvantages. It all depends on what you want to do. My determiners (if that's a word) were ergonomics and ease and speed of operation, after the cameras are set up.

I must say, for the camera I carry every day with me and don't use, for example, for landscape or related work, is an APC format body -- Fuji Xpro 2. When out for a short walk with the dogs, to have something when the grand children are around, just to have something to grab, the XPros are great--small and with the 27/2.8 the kit is almost invisible. When I am out "working," I carry MF digital. I do this for two reasons: (1) I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio and the ability to also shoot 65:24, and (2) I love the files from these 50 and 100 meg sensors, The large pixels often generate files with smoother tones. So, for me, while I own FF 24 and 47 meg versions, I don't use them much; its either the APC or most likely the Fuji MF rigs.

A lot of responses here, Mike. That's great! I'm not sure if my post is relevant as others have said pretty well everything. I have a Nikon D850 (and D810) if I had to replace the D850, I would buy another one, I have a wide range of F-mount lenses. I have had the D850 for about 5 1/2 years now and I enjoy using it very much. Prior to this, I was using a 4x5 view camera for some of my photography. The D850 easily matches what I was getting from the view camera.

This brings up tons of questions and thoughts:
For a 61 megapixel full frame camera you are staring at over 250 lines per millimeter (on the sensor)! Are there 35mm lenses that can resolve to that level?

There hasn't been much talk about displaying images. With 10 bit color depth and 8k resolution (35 MP), are large screen TVs now a valid "fine art" output media?

If so, is this now pushing the "preferred" format from 4:5 or 3:2 format to 16:9 format?

Quick point: A 16k display would be 132 megapixels...double the current A7CR.

If we do 300 pixels per inch (12 pixels per mm), the maximum print size on our 61 megapixel image would be about 20 x 30 inches (about 800mm x 530 mm) for a print. Does anyone really make such prints? The real question there is about 300 dpi at that size. Museums and galleries don't allow people to put their heads 8 inches away from prints.

Has anyone in this community actually produced a final product that required more than 50 megapixels (i.e. a fine art print, billboard or mural)? How often does that happen?

I would likely opt for a 24MP variant or something close. Small prints for photo albums and or books. The only digital body I still own is an old D2Hs. Big pixels and in enough light still work wonders. Nonetheless, more cropping room would be nice. I have opted to shoot some film with all mechanical cameras for a while. A nice relief from computers, software and menus.

Jeff Hartge: "Has anyone in this community actually produced a final product that required more than 50 megapixels (i.e. a fine art print, billboard or mural)? How often does that happen?"

Yes, Jeff, I have had to produce images that were to be printed and displayed very large. Once, for instance, for print on 12' vinyl film sheets that were mounted on museum walls and, more recently for prints on 5' dibond aluminum panels to be displayed outdoors.

But here's the kink: The enormous museum prints were produced from 16mp files and the dibond panels were produced from a variety of cameras and file sizes, the largest of which was probably 24mp.

Which really leads to the moral of the story: file size really doesn't matter especially for large displays. Digital cameras have produced very adequate image qualities for a long time, particularly when it comes to images displayed large and viewed from longer distances. So, as I posited earlier, file size probably shouldn't be the primary shopping quality for someone just starting-out (as Mike presented the scenario).

Full disclosure: I have a rather wide collection of cameras that span resolutions from 17mp through several at 101mp. The Leica SL3 has been one of my primary daily tools for the past year. BTW, it has a triple-resolution feature whereby its FF sensor can produce full-dimensioned images at 61, 36, or 18 mp. I very often shoot it at 36mp. So, as the late Chubby Checker said, there's a new twist!

IF (and it's a big if) I were going Full Frame, I'd opt for the higher pixel count, mostly because I often end up rethinking my framing and cropping during post-processing. Like many commenters, however, I find that APS-C cameras fit my use cases much better. I travel a lot, making smaller size and lighter weight my primary considerations. The extra cost, weight, and size of FF makes it a non-starter.

I guess I've already voted "in between" with my wallet, since I have the Pentax K-1 Mark II, one of a few DSLRs with the 36mp sensor. Would I like it as much if it were 24mp? I don't think so. I don't know whether it's the resolution, or just this sensor in particular, but I'm often blown away by the "depth" of the files, they're just marvelous.

Now, for an APS-C sensor, I think these 40mp+ sensors are overkill. I don't understand what the perceived advantage is when getting so many pixels packed into a smaller sensor. Same goes for Micro 4/3, I don't think they necessarily need to exceed 20mp, they just need to have better 14-bit RAW pipelines with more dynamic range. That doesn't come from pixel count.

Rent the Sony A7rV or even the A7cr & grip, which is a great combination, but it lacks the 9.44mp evf. Combine the camera with the 28-70mm f2 or 24-50 f2.8.

Why not see if Fuji will lend you the GFX 100sii with the 35-70mm kit zoom, you will be surprised at how good the files are from the GFX

You owe it to yourself & the readers. Then report back your findings.

I bought my Z7 after the Z7ii was released since it was less expensive for the same sensor. It is the best digital Nikon I’ve used (D40, D300, D800, and D810). I have no desire to upgrade it but if I did it would be for a ZF AND a Z8.

I also like the low ISO of the Z7. It makes using my 1.4 lenses practical in daylight without the use of an ND.

I think it depends on whether: (1) you you want to have high resolution images, (2) whether you are open to the idea, but have no clear need for it, or (3) are against it. Or (4) you have a professional need or bias to get one, as material for your writing—but I will set aside (4), as a special case.

Of course if you are making huge prints that presumably put you in category (1). But if not, it may be like choosing not to compare a perfectly good camera to the best one (hypothetically assuming there is such a thing).

I rather not see a difference (admittedly I am prejudiced) that is marginal/unimportant, except in the context of the A to B comparison. If I did believe in the difference, I would always be re-purchasing, rather than almost never doing so.

I imagined it is the same with resolution—certainly it could make a difference in post processing—but is it significant, except in the A versus B context? Well I actually did purchase a 36 MP Nikon D800.

When I could purchase the 36 MB body—similar to my 12 MP D700’s—so usable in my theatre photography, and for less than $500, I decided I should see if 3 x 12 MP was useful to me. It wasn’t at all.** But I do recognize I am in camp (3), and that has an influence on my perception, and I suppose one can argue my older lenses are not up to the challenge (although I don’t believe this), but there I draw the line—I will not use a (too) large and no aperture ring lens.

_____
** I am the theatre photographer for one of my colleges, and I routinely print 13”x19” and have had printed a number of 24” x 36” prints, with 12 MP sensor. (And very significant cropping is doable if printing 8.5” x11.”) Do most of us print or view larger than this?

I shifted from a7r² to Lumix s5. I get many more 'wow' shots now, likely from newer tech than pixel count. With its 3:2 full sensor video (via 4k/6k photo mode) it just might lure me back into videos, which i abandoned when 16:9 was forced upon me. I'd like a few more pixels but the S5 24mpx is tuned nicely for doing anything. For the perfect image, I have 48/96Mpx with its shifty sensor trick available. Their S1ii from next week sounds quite nice.. but well beyond my financial reach.

If I went with the high-resolution option, I would want to mitigate the associated downsides by getting a stacked sensor, fast high-capacity memory cards, more cloud storage, more physical storage, a faster laptop, and a new iPhone (I edit a lot on Lightroom Mobile). Assuming that the cost of purchasing all those things is truly of no concern in this hypothetical exercise, then I would definitely want the benefits that come from having extra resolution.

On the other hand, if I can't afford all of those upgrades, then I am likely better off with a lower resolution sensor.

I don’t always print big, but I do when exhibiting. As I don’t know which images will end up as exhibition prints, I try to carry the highest resolution camera I can for hand-held use (which I prefer). I’ve been wanting to upgrade my systems for a while but I’m so spoiled for choice, I can’t decide anything - what a lovely problem to have!