Save up to 60% on all Fstoppers tutorials

Do You Need a High-Megapixel Camera?

For several years, it seemed like the megapixel wars of the early digital era had died down, but in recent years, numbers have started to skyrocket again. So, do you really need all that extra resolution, or can you get by with a cheaper camera with a normal megapixel count? This awesome video discusses the topic. 

Coming to you from Jan Wegener, this great video discusses if we really need high-megapixel cameras or if standard bodies are enough. High-megapixel cameras can be great for more than just having a lot of resolution for prints. That extra detail can be really useful for creating multiple compositions from a single frame or for cropping in significantly and still getting a usable image when you do not have the reach for a certain photo. On the other hand, though, it is important to remember that the extra expense that comes with higher resolution does not end at the camera. You will likely need a lot more storage and horsepower in your computer to handle the bigger files, so be sure to factor that in when you are choosing which model to go with. Check out the video above for Wegener's full thoughts. 

Log in or register to post comments


Dan Seefeldt's picture

Kinda hard to get sharp images of airplanes when there is massive cropping so in that regard I really feel the need for megapixels.

Adam Rubinstein's picture

Jan is a good guy and full of useful information though some of the information is presented a bit awkwardly and he makes a few minor errors. The primary advantages for more MP for this type of photography (birds, etc.) is to allow for cropping and for those circumstances when approaching the subject is difficult. I think he missed on the comparison of the R5/R6 images when he didn't magnify the R6 to match the R5, rather he just looked at both images at 100%

Brian Cover's picture

This comment/question is very misleading "Can you get by with a cheaper camera with fewer MP count?" Cheaper and less pixels do not go hand in hand. The Leica SL is "only" 24MP yet the images are superior to those generated by many 50MP cameras. The real issue is not how many pixels. The hardware/software in body and the lenses used have far more obvious effect on the final image than the quantity of pixels.
An honest comparison of a cheap camera using a cheap lens to a Leica SL or Q would be far more informative and interesting and beneficial to your readers. Some would learn that they would have better results using a used Leica with a single lens or maybe two lenses than they have using a cheap camera with many many cheap lenses. Many times people spend more money on cheap junk trying to achieve a goal than the amount of money they would have spent if they had bought the better and more expensive tool (camera & lens).