Camera / photography question

[Felonious Crud]

I'm pretty certain there's been a thread before but I can't for the life of me find it. Anyway, a question for your happy snappers out there (at the very least @highlander and @CatmanV2): is there any sane reason to opt for a 62MP camera vs 33MP? I'm looking at the new Sony A7Cii or R and as usual find myself getting sucked into spec nonsense. There's an economic argument to be made despite the price difference ('you need fewer lenses', advise the forums), but it's still a big price difference plus the AF on the 62MP might not be quite as good.

Thoughts, oh wise ones?

 

[CatmanV2]

I'm not really the best to answer, but more is probably good if you're going for very high detail and large blow ups. For me, I very much doubt there would be much impact

C

 

[Guy]

I shoot RAW to give me the best options post processing and more data is better (my photos are typically 50Mb from my Canon 1dx III) but if you are just shooting and keeping jpegs they will both be fine. I am not familiar with the models but if different bodies, see which handles better for you. The more comfortable the more you will use and the better pics you will take.

 

[zagatoes30]

MP is all about supposedly capturing more detail which in essence is true, however unless you are going to be printing images larger than A4 size you are unlikely to ever see the difference. They do allow you to crop smaller parts of the image as once again they have potentially more detail in a smaller space however it is not the most important aspect of a photo.

The quality of the lens is the most important, after all a photo is all about light getting to the sensor or sensors. The wider the lens the more light that can enter and the clarity of the lens the more a clean image can be passed to the sensor without distortion. I would always chase these aspects of a camera rather than MP.

I mentioned sensors above and this can be critical, most cameras have crop sensors which work on a wider field of view which reduces both the light being measured and the detail captured. These sensors are small hence the use in most cameras. Full frame sensors don't crop hence the capture more light and sharper detail. If you're taking long exposure shots, or shots in low light using high ISO values full frame sensors really show their abilities.

My now aging Canon 6D is only 20MP but it is has full frame sensor and by using Canon L Series lens which are wider, 82mm as opposed to normal SLR lens of 50mm, produces outstanding images even when cropping to quite small sections of an image. I occasionally look to replace it but to be honest it does everything I need so I don't bother though I do get tempted by a Canon 1D-X III until I look at the price

 

[Ebenezer]

No, unless you are either going to crop tight or print very large. 33Mp is already more than enough! However, 66 is a bigger number than 33 so you'll feel like you've got the Stradale rather than the 4.7S which is a good enough reason!
Eb

 

[highlander]

@zagatoes30 hit all the nails on the head in his answer, so not going to repeat his sage advice but in short, dont be tempted by big MP numbers alone. Sony lens' usually pretty good, i am still rocking the original A7 but with a 40 year old 300mm APO 2.8 lens it is still super fast and sharp even for fast moving stuff like birds in flight.

 

[Felonious Crud]

Sounds like good advice, all, thanks.

To summarise, put the saving towards a decent lens (and at the same be happy that the lower res sensor can see better in the dark that its fancier and more expensive sibling)?

 

[Mr.Cambio]

Hi Adam. A quality camera is the capability of its sensor, not the MP.
Bigger MP will give you better clearance when upgrading image size. In real life this means that if you plan to print in hight scale, then you need more MP. Otherwise look for the best suitable sensor you can afford.

 

[Ebenezer]

I see you have not reached the photography level where you realise that carting about lot's of kit is a royal pain in the derriere and that the only pictures that anyone actually is interested in is of people / selfies!

A camera, 3 lenses, tripod, ball head, assortment of filters, rain cover soon give you back ache. Unless you go out photographing by yourself or with other photographers, you aren't going to realise the benefit of this stuff!

I have an extremely cumbersome underwater camera setup where I take mainly underexposed pictures of rocks as they're the only things big enough that I can see and that don't feck orf when I get within shooting distance!

Otherwise I rely on an old point and shoot canon which shoots raw and is 12 Mp which fits in my pocket and is ideal for recording the family snaps that are used for the annual album

Eb

 

[zagatoes30]

The above is good advice, unless I'm taking motorsport photos I often leave the 6D, lenses and tripod behind and use the wires Canon G16 (which fits in my pocket - just) and or my phone both of which take perfectly good shots. The G16 is a great single point and shoot with a bit of zoom but a great little lens combined with a good sensor, stunning photos

 

[Ebenezer]

You may or may not have seen this article...

The Perfect Travel Camera? The Sony a7CR on Safari in Brazil

The compromises for compactness are worthwhile tradeoffs.

petapixel.com

Eb

 

[Felonious Crud]

I see you have not reached the photography level where you realise that carting about lot's of kit is a royal pain in the derriere and that the only pictures that anyone actually is interested in is of people / selfies!

A camera, 3 lenses, tripod, ball head, assortment of filters, rain cover soon give you back ache. Unless you go out photographing by yourself or with other photographers, you aren't going to realise the benefit of this stuff!

I have an extremely cumbersome underwater camera setup where I take mainly underexposed pictures of rocks as they're the only things big enough that I can see and that don't feck orf when I get within shooting distance!

Otherwise I rely on an old point and shoot canon which shoots raw and is 12 Mp which fits in my pocket and is ideal for recording the family snaps that are used for the annual album

Eb

You make a very good point. I did once manage some good underwater photos in the few minutes it took before everything misted up.

You may or may not have seen this article...

The Perfect Travel Camera? The Sony a7CR on Safari in Brazil

The compromises for compactness are worthwhile tradeoffs.

petapixel.com

Eb

Yes, thanks, but unhelpfully he was using the more expensive / bigger sensor model. I wanted him to get along just fine with its less-well-spec'd sibling.

 

[zagatoes30]

First question is what are you planning to take photos of?

Motorsport of fast moving objects, wild animals that are far away or stationary buildings, cars or friends (assuming you have any) and family?

If the latter the smaller cheaper camera will do just fine but then again so will your phone

 

[Felonious Crud]

First question is what are you planning to take photos of?

Motorsport of fast moving objects, wild animals that are far away or stationary buildings, cars or friends (assuming you have any) and family?

If the latter the smaller cheaper camera will do just fine but then again so will your phone

Wildlife, landscape, city stuff. Not friends, too darn fugly, the lot of 'em.

 

[Mr.Cambio]

Wildlife, landscape, city stuff. Not friends, too darn fugly, the lot of 'em.

No idea what your experience is, but if you plan to take it seriously, start reading about how to set the right speed, ISO and aperture. You'll discover a great world there.

 

[Felonious Crud]

No idea what your experience is, but if you plan to take it seriously, start reading about how to set the right speed, ISO and aperture. You'll discover a great world there.

I used to use 35mm SLRs, developed my own stuff, moved onto DSLR and then couldn't be arsed to drag around all the kit along with children and all the family blah blah so downscaled to a compact. it's limitations became infuriatingly apparent on holiday in Costa Rica last year when I just couldn't get close enough, enough light or a fast enough speed to shoot anything that hadn't been nailed to a branch. I'm no expert but can find my way around a camera... but I'll need to brush up a bit. Well, a lot!

 

[Wack61]

What cameras are you looking at

I've had many over the years , most of it is BS , when I look back at pictures I took with a nikon D300 they're just as good as I took with 5k worth of Sony gear

My current camera is a Sony RX10 IV and I love it , I tried going back to a dslr but it's like carrying thors hammer around with a big lens on

I tried slimming down to sony mirrorless but by the time I'd added the lens and a battery grip I was back to dslr size

The best camera is the one you have with you

 

[CatmanV2]

I used to use 35mm SLRs, developed my own stuff, moved onto DSLR and then couldn't be arsed to drag around all the kit along with children and all the family blah blah so downscaled to a compact. it's limitations became infuriatingly apparent on holiday in Costa Rica last year when I just couldn't get close enough, enough light or a fast enough speed to shoot anything that hadn't been nailed to a branch. I'm no expert but can find my way around a camera... but I'll need to brush up a bit. Well, a lot!

I've gone mirrorless, but fundamentally you need big lenses if you're not close enough, or there's not enough light. Then you have to carry them around.....

C

 

[midlifecrisis]

I'm in no way a camera geek, but doesn't the more megapixels require more processing, more memory and more time to eventually save the shot to the memory card?
And even memory cards have a write speed limit (class?) So if you're taking a burst of shots the speed of the burst maybe compromised.

Awaiting sage education.

 

[GraemeA]

Just putting my tuppence worth in. I see the new Leica Q3 is 63MP or something like that. This is a fixed focal length lens camera, so any telephoto type work requires cropping. Standard focal length is 28mm, so if you want to use its digital zoom at 90mm you have effectively a 6MP camera. I have a Sony A7 II which is 24MP at what ever focal length lens I attach. The reality is that you would need an exceptional lens to actually resolve anything like this. But then I have a number of A3+ prints on my wall, taken with a Nikon D1, which had a mere 2.7MP. Yes, they would have been better taken on My Nikon D600 or the Sony, but there are thousands of 35mm photos I've happily taken, which never exceeded the equivalent of 10MP. In fact, I mostly had better real results with the D1. The myth of megapixels. High resolution by itself doesn't make a good photo.