Why More Megapixels Matters
If I was recommending a setup to someone who wanted to get into travel photography, I’d recommend a wide lens, a tight lens, and a high-megapixel camera.
I see a lot of drama in various groups discussing cameras and gear. The debate is always around megapixels. Should camera manufacturers focus on megapixels, or have we reached a point where it doesn’t really make that much of a difference anymore? I’m going to share my thoughts, and an example or two of why I will always choose a high-megapixel camera over a lower one.
Let me start by telling you my setup. I shoot on the Sony A7RIV, a 61mp camera. I also have an A7RIII, a 42mp camera. I frequently shoot with Jenn, who shoots an A7III, a 24mp camera. The lenses we shoot on are mostly prime, with a couple of zooms. We use all Sony GM lenses, including the 100-400mm, 135mm, 85mm, 50mm, 35mm, and 16-35mm. This is quite an extensive (and expensive) setup, but for the commercial and personal work I do, it serves me well.
Most of what we do is travel-related. Even the commercial work I do is often connected to a location that matters, not just in a studio or around the neighborhood. I don’t always take every lens when I travel, mostly just what I think I’m going to need. Having a 61mp camera is a major part of my work flow. Here’s the biggest reason: It gives me flexibility to travel light.
Case Study #1
Sony A7RIV + Sony 135GM, f/7.1, 1/200, ISO 250 // RAW FILE (UNEDITED)
I have a person project called Rocketman. I started it last year, and have been slowly building my images out. You can see the Rocketman Gallery right here. The above photo is the RAW file, straight out of the camera. This was during the sunrise in the Valley of Fire, NV. It’s kind of like Mars, on Earth. In the late fall, the sunrise hits this rock in a really cool way, and it was perfect for a Rocketman photo.
So I’m looking at this photo. What it took to capture it was quite a bit. Right place, right time. Wearing that space suit… and climbing that rock in the space suit. Also, I’m really far from Jenn, who took this photo. Remember, this was taken with a 135mm prime lens, and that is a fairly tight lens. I actually rode my Onewheel down the road to this spot, and it’s right outside the bottom of this photo by the road.
We snapped this photo, knowing that there would be some flexibility in the final image for my gallery. This is what high megapixels give you - flexibility. With this photo, I have some options to reframe and recompose this image while traveling light. Sure, some would argue that the composition of the shot is everything - that I should have used a longer lens to get the following compositions. But what if I don’t have that lens arsenal? What if I wanted to travel light? Here’s what I could do with 61mp.
Same image, edited and cropped-in for my gallery.
Yes, this is a modest crop. I punched it in from it’s original 6336 x 9504 (61mp) to 5346 x 6682 (35mp). Nearly 2x of the original shot, and it’s still completely clear and sharp. That’s pretty amazing, right? I could easily print a 24x16 and have absolutely no quality loss. That’s wild. But can it go further?
Same image, cropped further.
Here is that same image punched in to a modest 2800 x 2000 (5mp). Before you start balking at the 5mp rendering, look at the clarity of this image. If I was just sharing on social or digital, do you think there would be a problem seeing this on a six-inch iPhone screen? I could even print this with no issues on an 8 x 10. That’s pretty amazing. All because of having 61mp.
5mp crop over 61mp RAW photo
Look at the flexibility I have shooting at such a high resolution. None of this would be possible on a 24mp camera. This is why I encourage everyone to go big.
CASE STUDY #2
Sony A7RIII + 100-400mm GM @ 400mm, f/10, 1/400, ISO 100 // RAW FILE (UNEDITED)
This 42mp image was captured in Jackson, Wyoming in the dead of winter. It looks like I’m out in the wilderness, but in reality, I was standing on a bridge avoiding traffic! With a 42mp image, I was able to crop in and edit what has become one of my favorite wildlife photos I’ve ever taken. High-megapixel cameras are especially helpful with wildlife.
Same image, edited and cropped-in for my gallery.
Because of having high-megapixels, I was able to crop this in to a 2625 x 3282 (9mp) image, more than suitable to display digitally, or even print at 13 x 9, which is more than reasonable for a lossless print. You may not notice side-by-side, but this crop is only 1/3 of what I originally captured. That’s pretty amazing.
So if high-megapixels is all #winning, what is the drama about?
The biggest thing I see people complain about with high-megapixels is that they tend to be noisier, especially in low light. For how I shoot and the conditions I typically shoot in, I have not encountered this problem. But that’s me, and my personal threshold. Another complaint is that high-megapixel photos are large files, and storage can be a hassle. This is a fair argument, but I’d argue that storage is cheaper every year and worth the resolution. I use Adobe Cloud storage with 2TB, and at nearly 20K images in my Lightroom Library, I’m 90% full. I’ll probably have to add on, soon. I also back up to a physical HD. But for my business, it’s just the cost of doing business.
Between the new iPhone boasting 48mp, and the potential of an even higher R camera on Sony’s horizon with the R5, I’m curious if we will continue to see the trend to higher-megapixels. I welcome it. For a travel photographer, the flexibility is worth every megapixel.
I’m doing something new. I’m opening up comments. Be nice. So I want to ask - what about you? Do you prefer high megapixels? If so, why? If not, why not?