Megapixels: is it worth buying a new camera for more?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by suzannem, Nov 12, 2020.

  1. Oh, and I drive a Subaru so I'm not much of a status stud! :)
  2. up to a point...
    markminard likes this.
  3. The only DX, or crop body, with more MP is the Canon 90D at 32MP. For portraiture it would not be worth the system change. For sports and supertelephoto lenses it could be.

    So now we are talking about moving to full frame. To equal your 24 MP sensor, for resolution, you would need about a 50 MP full frame sensor and while there are more of them there is still only a handful. For Nikon we are only talking about the D850, Z7, and Z7 II. Of course changing to full frame portraiture may involve a lens of a different focal length than you are currently using too. Now, while these cameras theoretically only match your D5600 for resolution it has been my experience with a 50 MP camera is that they resolve better and have deeper colour than equivalent DX format bodies.

    If you are happy with results of your lens and camera there is not a significant reason to change at this time. Although this may depend on what lens you are using and if the working distance is working for you and your clients/subjects. Full frame with another lens at 50 MP may improve the look of your photos.
  4. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    BTW, I don't drive. I like to sleep on boring journeys, which I am told is frowned upon if you are nominally in charge of a motor vehicle. Usually the bus driver yells at me when we reach my stop ...
    andylynn and charles_escott_new like this.
  5. While I most certainly see the sense and usefulness in having more than 20MP in a camera sensor, I do agree on the senselessness of 1000+hp "street legal" cars. Or even 500+hp ones. Except those made specifically for racing, of course.
    Sanford likes this.
  6. Exactly. As print size increases, so does the stand back distance for the viewer, and you'll only see the gains when getting right in the face of the print, perhaps with a loupe (if that's your thing). Regardless, a loupe would hardly be necessary when walking right up to a highway billboard printed at 3 or 4 DPI. At my last gallery showing, no one seemed interested in the silver gelatin vs. inkjet narrative, but several did put their faces right in there LOL.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2020
    Sanford likes this.
  7. I think you mean “to a pixel.” :)
    Sanford likes this.
  8. What would a 35mm Velvia slide be equal to in terms of MP?
  9. Just love these drive-by posts that treat PN like a vending machine.
    Nick D., kendunton and Sanford like this.
  10. Welcome to the Internet.

    Advice: Have low expectations. Don't expend energy where you don't want to.
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  11. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Hmm... I most lie around
    in my treehouse eating
    bananas and termites...
    kendunton likes this.
  12. Graph goes to 80 cycles/mm.


    So about 22 megapixels.
    Sanford likes this.
  13. If'n you have the money---------why not ?.
    :D :D.
  14. It also goes to around 130% contrast ratio!
    So how believable can that be?

    Unless Fuji have invented negative light, and incorporated that technology in Velvia. Not likely though, is it?
    Sanford likes this.
  15. You said you're a portrait photographer unless you tell me otherwise I would assume that you are a professional. I think the best way is to find out what your clients expect or want from you. Do you think deliver images with higher resolution would make them more happy? Or they really care for something else? As a professional you should only buy the tools that deliver the result that your clients want.
  16. Velvia is equivalent to about 24 MP under ideal circumstances, for example a high-contrast resolution target. In terms of acuity with normal subjects (i.e., landscapes), it is roughly equivalent to 12 MP. Examine Velvia with a 10x magnifier. You won't be impressed.

    Resolution comparisons between film and digital tend to be misleading. With Velvia, sharp edges tend to be spread over 3-4 pixels in a 4000x6000 scan, whereas the spread is about 1 pixel. Consequently digital images look sharper on close examination than on film, even at relatively low resolution (6-12 MP).
  17. The OP asked a question about digital camera resolutions. Comparisons with various equivalent film resolutions are IHMO completely irrelevant in this thread.
  18. Perhaps, but since the OP hasn't been back and hasn't responded even once to anyone in this thread for 4 days, it may be the OP that's become more irrelevant than any of the posts here. While the question asked was about digital resolution, a related move to the question of a member who participates with regularity about comparative film resolution seems reasonable and acceptable enough to me. No?
    Jochen likes this.
  19. I don't need a 1000hp Dodge Challenger either. But I wouldn't mind having one. :)
    Sanford likes this.
  20. I'd be scared away too if I was a young girl after reading the posts from all the old men about where this should have been posted. :)
    Ricochetrider and mikemorrell like this.

Share This Page