The downside of a camera with lots of pixels

Nando, a clear and well-reasoned argument. Yet you are still forgetting something. The more pixels there are on a sensor, the closer together they are and also the smaller the pixels become. This also seems to me to have an influence on light sensitivity and therefore also on the noise ratios.
If you then also put the number of pixels on a full-frame onto, for example, an APS-C sensor, it cannot help but have a negative impact on the image.
A high number of pixels, 50mp or more, only makes sense for gigantically large prints.
I have an R7 with 32mp myself. As far as I’m concerned, 24mp would have been enough too.

The resolving power of the very best lens ever measured is 38mp. 24mp is really more than enough. Everything above 40mp is useless.

The camera I still use the most has 14mp, and that is indeed more than enough for photobooks and prints. Even when I crop.
I also have a camera with 24mp, and that is very handy because I use it a lot for sports with a long lens, and even the longest lens is not always sufficient. So having a bit more room to crop is nice.
But when I print, and you look at it from a normal distance, you don't see any difference between the photos with the different sensors.

I still regularly photograph with <10mp, even with 4mp.
Once exhibited, 4mp up to 30x40.. still top quality. I do believe in higher mp, but then the camera is also quite pricey.. Fuji Olympus

Hi Nando, I agree with what you stated about "what is done with photos" I use sensors of 4 MP, 12 MP and 16 MP interchangeably .On the PC screen, in terms of presentation at normal viewing, sometimes only some colour difference can be noticed. Usually the difference in resolution is not disturbing

Hi Nando

Clear argument, meaningful content.

My camera has 27mp on APS-C, my largest print; 75-50 cm, printer profotonet.

For your information: I used to walk to take photographs, now I take photographs because I walk. Hence my lighter and more compact equipment.

Works excellently.

Regards,
Hans.

Hi Nando,
Once again a very clear story. My first DSLR was a Nikon D80, 10Mp. Even with that it was fine to work with, also for larger prints. later a D7000, with 26 Mp, prints at A3+ no problem. Now I've had a D500 for a number of years, 20Mp, you can do everything with that, but I've had more trouble with motion blur with this one before.
And speaking of cropping: I wanted a double decoration on A3+ for a cat lover, but one of the photos to be used was horizontal, the cat was located approximately halfway across that image, so it had to be cropped to make the diptych vertical. Result: 2 A3+ plates, which don't show any disturbing pixel artefacts even with your nose right up against them. Those were shots from the D80......
Does show that more pixels aren't really necessary.
It does have another disadvantage, by the way: editing a lot of pixels takes much longer than, for example, those 16 or 20Mp from my cameras, especially if you don't have a particularly powerful PC.

I have 60 MB RAW (Sony), and for small birds it’s really a godsend because you can crop in so far. For landscapes I use my other camera (24 MB), and that’s more than enough.

Nando, isn't it an assumption to suppose that people are disappointed because the R5 MK II has fewer pixels than its predecessor? After all, the R5 is a professional camera. I assume that its users are well aware of cameras and their specifications. I read that according to various sources, 90 percent of photographers would consider 25 megapixels the best choice. However, I think that for 90 percent of photographers, a good smartphone (such as the iPhone 16 or Samsung S25) would be the better choice, especially in combination with artificial intelligence. I use my smartphone a lot to take photos. Even you won't always see the difference.

I have the feeling that the calculation with the 12 Megapixels and a print of 50 cm x 35 cm isn't correct.
(50/2.54) x 300 = 5.905
(35/2.54) x 300 = 4.133
That gives me 24.4 Megapixels!

I have a Sony A7R4 with 62 megapixels. An additional disadvantage of that resolution is the size of the raw files (130 MB), and that means you need larger SD cards and more backup space. The PC also needs better specs to still edit these photos smoothly.

On the other hand, the detail is phenomenal. For example, group photos of family, and you can zoom in a little more without loss of quality. That kingfisher in the park also still comes across well while 95% of the photo consists of background.
Yes, it can also be done with fewer megapixels...

Quick question: does the sensor size also have an influence here? Think medium format, APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, etc?

@Andre:
With analogue there are 2 factors, the resolving power of the film and that of the lens. That of the film is therefore always variable, depending on brand, type and iso. Because of that you can't simply "convert" digital and analogue.
I used to read 'Focus' and they very often did tests like that, and at one point it said that for the test they used a special orthochromatic, very low-sensitivity black-and-white film, a so-called reproduction film, with its own resolving power of, if I remember correctly, 400 lines per millimeter.
Standard b&w and colour films didn't come close to that, indeed as you wrote 100 l/mm 200 was already exceptional (pan f for example) the Kodak ektar was the "sharpest" colour film, don't know how many l/mm. But because of the lens/film combination it always turned out less. Doesn't change the fact that a good negative scanned leads to exceptional results. Indeed sometimes better than digital, but usually less.

Of course. 50mp for example on a medium format or aps-c gives larger (more quality) or smaller pixels

Liesbeth Verkade wrote on Tuesday 11 March 2025 at 20:09  | reply

Hi Nando, thanks for your article. Very enlightening again.
My first digital camera was a Sony Cybershot DSC-W7 with 7.2 mp. A birthday present. With that camera I discovered the joy of photography and learned quite a bit already. I kept delving deeper, including into editing photos.
Because I wanted a camera with interchangeable lenses to have more possibilities, I bought a Canon EOS 500D (15.1mp) in 2010. Took a great many photos with it and often very beautiful ones (I think so myself). I did have problems with a lot of noise at high ISA, for example in churches, etc. In 2020 I therefore bought a 90D (32.5mp). I am still very happy with this camera. A great many (perhaps even too many) possibilities and very pleasant to use. With the 3 lenses I have, 50mm fixed, 18-135mm zoom and 70-300 zoom, I can photograph almost everything the way I want. I do like the high resolution because it gives me plenty of opportunity to crop, especially with nature photos.

Nando, Thanks for your clear explanation/response!

Hi Klaas
The R5 MK II has exactly as many pixels as the R5 (1).
So 45 Mpix = 45 Mpix and that is more than enough.
I can't emphasize it enough, when you buy a camera regardless of which brand, it is important to get to know your camera. Try new settings and look at the differences, that way you can set up your camera for the kind of photography you do.

MacBigfoot wrote on Thursday 13 March 2025 at 23:02  | reply

Just like with my Harley (what’s the horsepower and/or torque? “Enough.”), I only know approximately how many megapixels my camera has, enough in any case.

After I had sold my old set, I had free rein when it came to choosing a brand, camera type and sensor. I considered other requirements for the specifications more important. I still haven’t regretted my choice of my current Olympus set for a single moment. I secretly chuckle when I hear others with a heavier set wondering whether they should really take that one (heavy!) lens with them on a trip of a few hours.

And the printed photos are perfectly fine quality-wise for an exhibition in a large format.
I still shoot analog from time to time as well, and those prints are still good enough too, the difference is actually impossible to see.

isn't it the case then that the size of the pixel should also be taken into account in the story. 24 MP on crop is not the same as 24 MP on full frame. not to even look at micro 3/4 . have once read about quality of pixels. that was then traced back to how many mu one single pixel is in size.