How Many Megapixels Do You Need?
Feb 26th, 2008 by jeremy
I often get asked which camera to buy, and practically in the same breath now I also get asked how many megapixels in a camera do I need. There is really no simple answer to this, but typically I try to quickly gauge the needs of the individual I am talking to and make a quick recommendation. I enjoy researching the latest cameras available, so typically I have a decent idea of what to suggest. It is getting harder and harder these days though as the options continue to expand and get better at all levels of cameras.
There are three general groupings or levels of cameras often referred to, consumer, pro and the ubiquitous somewhere inbetween now coined as prosumer.
Consumer cameras are what the average family can buy and be happy using. The current crop of cameras will typically fall between 4 and 10 megapixels, and most do a fine job capturing the snapshots that most people are looking to capture. These images will print as a 4×6 and often up to an 8×0 with very good clarity and colors. The flashes on these are average and in general the best photos are taken with outdoor or brighter lighting.
Prosumer is really a fancy way of saying these cameras cost more and give the user more features to control how the camera is capturing photos. For those wanting to dabble in photography I general steer them in this direction as the cost is more attainable and you don’t have to worry about all the additive cost for the variety of lenses you might need on an SLR. Prosumer cameras have a fixed lens, but typically one that yields a fairly good range from wide to telephoto to meet your creative needs.
Pro cameras are those big, bulky SLRs that photo enthusiasts are buying into today. You can use the full range of lenses just like the high end pro does, or pick from cheaper to mid priced/quality offerings that every brand has in their line up. The cost can be much higher with these cameras, including a wide variety of options in body types, including cropped and full frame sensors. Many enthusiasts are entering this level of camera though with the low priced options from Canon and Nikon, along with other brands working their way into this market.
With that summary aside, not all megapixels are created equal; the digital camera industry is just like any and subject to the spin of the of the marketing department. Marketers know that most consumers think that a bigger must be better, so an 8 megapixel camera is better than a 6, right? Yes and no. Having more megapixels can be a good thing, but what the camera does to achieve that resolution can greatly impact the quality of the photo in the end. Without getting too technical, if a camera is using the same size of sensor to give you a larger number of megapixels, it is squeezing in the photo receptors into a smaller space, often resulting in more “noise” within your image. As technology continues to improve, this problem is improved upon, but take care in researching the output quality of the photos produced by a camera along with the resolution.
A great site for seeing in-depth reviews that I use is dpreview.com. You can see all the details, including sample photos produced by a camera and even compare the details of different models side by side.
Now down to what got me started on this topic today. I read an article posted recently at Digital Pro Talk about how many megapixels are enough. This is one of the best, real life analysis discussions I have read about why having a few more megapixels can matter depending on the type of photography you do. Set in the context of wedding photography, the question posed is how many pixels does it take to produce a clear image of a face when capturing a group photo.
Up close portraits lend themselves to working just fine with fewer megapixels because the face is filling the frame and utilizing most of the pixels available. In the case of group photos, there are far fewer pixels dedicated to the details and making up the face of each individual.
This holds true of any situation where you subject is further away from camera and only a portion of the overall photo. Think of this in terms of concert photography, which is a frequent part of my camera use. If you are able to get in close or zoom to your subject, then your sensor capacity is dedicated to getting all the details of the face and person you are capturing. If you are either further back or choosing to capture the overall scene of the stage, far fewer details are captured if the individual entertainer(s), and having a lower megapixel camera will mean far less detail will be displayed in your final image.
Give it a read and see if this helps you when you consider your next camera purchase, which we all know will be sooner than you think!
Canon 20D, EF-S 18-55, 1/40 at f/4 and 800 ISO
see the large version on flickr
- No related posts
LOVE ANY PHOTO OF DONNY
THE BEST ARE THE ONE THAT IS CLOSE UP ON HIM
TELL ME WHICH CAMERA IS BEST FOR CLOSE UP?
Oh I love this one, Jeremy! All those people packed in the front trying to get as close as possible! LOL Do you know where/date this was taken? When you post Donny photos, if you know the date of them, that makes them mean so much more! : ) Love the lights in this shot too!
@Linda – there are many cameras that are great for closeups, just make sure you have enough telephoto “reach” if you are going to be further back. If you have front row seats, then you can get away with most anything
@Darlene – I typically don’t take the time to post the date info because if you look at the file you can see that. I know that is not as user friendly, but because I know it can be done I often don’t think that. On any of my photos, if you click through on the flickr link, in the lower right of the page links is one for more details on the photo, which will tell you the model of the camera, the settings and the date/time taken. Perhaps I will write a post on that soon to help out.
This one specifically was taken March of last year at The Orleans Casino in Las Vegas.
Jeremy,
Can you explain about “pattern” mode setting? I posted on your Flickr website, too. Thanks for sharing.
Not sure of a pattern mode, but there is a program mode; perhaps this is what you mean? Program mode will act much like the automatic mode but will allow you override specific settings. Basically it is a semi-manual mode.
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the advice.
Sometimes it’s hard to make a good choise between all those diverent DIGI camara’s.
Good article with one small factor left out: Even Pro’s can have too many megapixels! I made the decision recently NOT to upgrade my Nikon D200 to the next version up and to just stick with my 10 megs. Why?… Because even though the manufacturers are getting smarter and making camera upgrades similar so you don’t have to learn a whole new system to use the newer camera (ie; the Nikon D300), I’m getting good enough professional results with a smaller, more manageable raw file size. This becomes a really important TIME factor when you’re editing digital images, and also a really important SPACE factor when storing digital images.
I’m getting excellent portraits from my lab using my 10 megs, even on portraits 24×30 size. So don’t believe you need to keep upgrading, just because camera makers need new products to sell you. Sometimes it’s good sense to say “enough is enough”. I have.
Professional Photography: Success Without School
@Tom
Though I think you make a very good point in terms of 10-12 MP being more than sufficient for even enlarged images, I did make the jump to the next level of huge image capacity when I purchased the Canon 5D Mark II. Yes, the images are very big. Yet, for some instances having that resolution has already been very handy. That said, I am glad it has the ability to shoot in sRAW, which is a 12 MP image, which I think gives me the best of both worlds. I can shoot large, or drop down in resolution and shoot in a more manageable size if the situation doesn’t need the extra pixels.