[robgski]

Poor technique, lack of compositional skills, low quality lenses cannot be overcome by more megapixels

[UncleVanya]

Poor technique, lack of compositional skills, low quality lenses cannot be overcome by more megapixels

Can I get a HEJJ yes from the congregation?

[ramseybuckeye]

How many megapixels do you need?

Well, doesn't the sensor size have a little to do with it also?

[pschlute]

In other words, you can make impressive images with unimpressive cameras, given that the subject is framed more tightly. Being as close as possible to the subject.

But by doing so you are restricting the flexibility of things like DOF and perspective (background separation).

[Wasp]

I have always admired the Sony A7S II from a distance, especially how it trades megapixels for low light sensitivity.

[kiwi_jono]

Well when the K-1 was being released I was hoping for 24 MP with great high ISO. Of course its actually 36MP but high ISO is actually pretty good to (slightly better than my K-5 at pixel level and much better considering the full frame).
I ended up getting a K-1 anyway, and now I really like the 36MP because:
1. I like the ability to rescue images by heavy cropping. Sometimes my compositions are bit rushed (especially when traveling with the family or when shooting dynamic subjects) and often there is still a good shot in there if there is sufficient detail.
2. The high ISO is better than I hoped. I find I'm usually happy using the full resolution up (and including) ISO 3200 - sometimes using a little NR. Using ISO 6400 and beyond (e.g. when you are handheld in very poor light) it all depends on the scene and its lighting, but I'm more likely to use heavier NR and then scale the image down a bit. But the point here is that, with some simple processing and scaling the image back to equivalent of say 12MP can yield a great image at the higher ISO settings - certainly plenty of resolution for most of what I do.

[DWS1]

Poor technique, lack of compositional skills, low quality lenses cannot be overcome by more megapixels

Well said!

[SelrahCharleS]

I need enough that the best lens I own becomes the anti-aliasing filter!

[Michail_P]

I can probably get some really pleasing results from a ~20mp sensor. Not printing much, although I would definitely like to, screens are my thing. I often crop my 24mp shots with no regrets. I’ll be more interested in color rendering and noise-fighting imaging technology.
And yes, I also loved my CCD camera...

[Billking]

I had a chat with a sports photographer who switched from some Canikon body or other to the 645Z when it came out. He said it made his job much easier, because he could crop to his heart's content and still always have enough detail.

When I had to give up my K3 I found the 15mp available when using my K1 in crop mode was a little restricting compared to 24mp.

[texandrews]

Poor technique, lack of compositional skills, low quality lenses cannot be overcome by more megapixels

Or less, either.

[SpecialK]

...and viewing distance. It's all relative.

[photoptimist]

How many Megapixels does one need? The correct answer is "more."

It may be true that the average picture needs only modest resolution, but the required specs for a good camera need to cover more than just the average photo use case. One wants a camera that also covers the extraordinary cases that can capture every bit of detail of a cathedral, verdant forest, striated bird feathers, crystalline rock formations, grains of beach sand, brush-strokes on a painting, strands of a spider's web, etc. Or if one only happens to have a 50mm lens on the camera but then sees some extraordinary but distant subject that needs a 500mm lens, the camera needs the resolution for heavy cropping.

In photography, the cost of storing an image is typically a rounding error compared to the cost of getting to the subject matter for the decisive moment. Storage is incredibly cheap these days. Disk drives for image storage currently cost only about $20/TB (e.g., a n 8 TB drive is about $160). That's a measly $0.02 per GB per copy or 0.10 cents per GB for a main copy, hot backup, on-site cold backup, and two offsite cold backups. So storing images from a 500 MPix 16-bit raw (1 GB) is only a dime. A 1 GB digital image is much cheaper than a 35mm negative and no one ever complained that 35 mm negatives were larger then needed!

Although loading and processing an massive-megapixel image seems onerous, nothing stops a photographer from downsampling images to a lower-resolution if that is all that is needed. Likewise, it's easy to offer a camera with lower-resolution modes (and higher frame-rates and pictures-per-SD-cars performance) so the photographer pick the resolution as needed.

The point is that extra resolution brings extra benefits. And although the need for those benefits might be very rare, the costs of having them available isn't high.

Why give up performance for a once-in-lifetime image just because most images are not once-in-lifetime pictures?

[Wheatfield]

How many megapixels do you need?

I don't have an upper limit.

[Wheatfield]

Poor technique, lack of compositional skills, low quality lenses cannot be overcome by more megapixels

Can I get a HEJJ yes from the congregation?

More like that poor old horse is being trotted out again.

---------- Post added Jun 19th, 2021 at 12:01 PM ----------

How many Megapixels does one need? The correct answer is "more."

It may be true that the average picture needs only modest resolution, but the required specs for a good camera need to cover more than just the average photo use case. One wants a camera that also covers the extraordinary cases that can capture every bit of detail of a cathedral, verdant forest, striated bird feathers, crystalline rock formations, grains of beach sand, brush-strokes on a painting, strands of a spider's web, etc. Or if one only happens to have a 50mm lens on the camera but then sees some extraordinary but distant subject that needs a 500mm lens, the camera needs the resolution for heavy cropping.

In photography, the cost of storing an image is typically a rounding error compared to the cost of getting to the subject matter for the decisive moment. Storage is incredibly cheap these days. Disk drives for image storage currently cost only about $20/TB (e.g., a n 8 TB drive is about $160). That's a measly $0.02 per GB per copy or 0.10 cents per GB for a main copy, hot backup, on-site cold backup, and two offsite cold backups. So storing images from a 500 MPix 16-bit raw (1 GB) is only a dime. A 1 GB digital image is much cheaper than a 35mm negative and no one ever complained that 35 mm negatives were larger then needed!

Although loading and processing an massive-megapixel image seems onerous, nothing stops a photographer from downsampling images to a lower-resolution if that is all that is needed. Likewise, it's easy to offer a camera with lower-resolution modes (and higher frame-rates and pictures-per-SD-cars performance) so the photographer pick the resolution as needed.

The point is that extra resolution brings extra benefits. And although the need for those benefits might be very rare, the costs of having them available isn't high.

Why give up performance for a once-in-lifetime image just because most images are not once-in-lifetime pictures?

I've long thought that if one's storage costs are too high, one should be more discerning regarding when and how often one pushes the button.