>Be me
>Start with 12-16 mp cameras
>Eventually chase gear to 40 MP range
>After shooting for years realize that 10-24 MP is the sweet spot for 98% of my shooting.

Anyone else eventually reach the same end?

Fuji fag here. Their old 26 MP sensor was enough in terms of detail, but somehow the images always had a bit of a mobile phone look to them (artificial HDR and sharpened look).

Now with the new 40MP sensor, the images look great and similar to full frame in terms of IQ, but I am saddled with extra file size and resolution I probably don't need.

So in response to your comment, it depends on the sensor size, not only MP. Also other factors like dynamic range and color science..

>>4439342
That's my biggest issue is storage space. Once you start shooting hundreds of photos, it becomes much harder to decide how many to keep.

>>4439339 (OP)
Every single-chip DSLR resolution is adequate for common prints.
The only reason for more are special-use cases.

>>4439339 (OP)
4mp (D2h) would still feel good enough for like Instagram, but I mostly used mine for timelapses
12mp felt fine at the time 15 years ago, but would feel limited by it now
24-36mp is the practical sweet spot for me, enogh for an adequate amount of detail and a little cropping, most my client stuff gets delivered around 20mp anyways
+40mp has been nice to have, but starts to feel very diminishing returns, and I don't prioritize resolution as much as I used to before using it, and not interest going back to GFX
for the 1% of cases I want insane resolution for whatever, I can usually get by with stitching 4-6 frames for even greater resolution, or pixel shift / ai enlarging

26MP in my A6700 serves me quite well. Filesizes are managable and enough detail for my needs. I was considering the A7CII for the added resolution, but I find myself shrinking almost every picture to fit the limits of the apps I share them through.

>>4439339 (OP)
100mp is the sweet spot. Other cameras are copes. Might as well shoot mft.

14 Megapixels is top tier
No more no less
also color is overrated

>>4439339 (OP)
80mp is the sweet spot for serious photography
21mp for worthless photography (street and snapshots)

I started with 24mp and I don't mind dying with it either. I can crop and straighten without worrying too much and the file sizes aren't insane. If I was rich I would probably use a 100mo medium format camera just because I could but for now I'm good with 24

Youtube photography channels that are bearable and actually fun to watch.
So the opposite of Jared "buy my presets" Polin and Peter "I tell you what to buy" McKinnon.

@VisualEducationStudio good tutorials on lighting with little gear faggotry.

@TinHouseStudioUK
The talking head and podcast videos are complete shit, but videos with actual photography have some decent explanations and style ideas.

@christopherfrost
neutral and technical reviews of lenses with no bullshit attached and no product shilling.

And for those into videography:
@MediaDivision
Long, detailed and relaxing videos with good editing and just a pleasure to watch. Even makes the gear shilling enjoyable.

>>4439342
I genuinely have not heard anyone say they prefer the 40mp sensor over the old sensor for Fujis

>>4439482
I will 2nd that I prefer the 40mp
I don't notice much difference for pixel peeping, and it only helps cropping marginally, but I definitely notice the difference when looking downsampled to match the 24/26 sensors

>>4439482
Because the 40mp guys don't feel the need to constantly justify having an older model.

>>4439339 (OP)
8MP. Anything more is overkill.

>>4439491
But the problem is all the 8mp sensors are old and have shit dynamic range

>>4439491
Digicope

Film is FF 20-25mp with 14 stop DR (10 for slides)

>>4439497
Even if this were true the colours are hideous and you're literally paying a subscription service for your hobby.

>>4439497
>Film is FF 20-25mp with 14 stop DR (10 for slides)
What does that have to do with 8MP?

>>4439497
film is not meaningfully higher than 16mp. That's why pros started switching when pro bodies got to 16mp

>>4439515
>when pro bodies got to 16mp
So 2004. And yet boomers like Ken were still reccomending the 1V over the 1Ds/1Ds Mark II for those who want "more detail". Smh.

>>4439518
there was a mild argument to be made that even though you had the megapixels, performance above base iso dropped like a rock. was it bad enough to the point where you'd continue using film? i guess that was up to the photographer.

>>4439525
Here's a shot @ 1600 ISO from a 1Ds ii. I wouldn't say the quality suffers more than 1600 ISO film.

I shoot using a 61mp camera but cropped so it's 26mp
Because I'm too poor for a $2000 lens so I just use ASP-C lenses that are sharp in the center

>>4439518
well it took some time for people to switch and for the price to come down.

>>4439552
seems like you wasted money on that body then

>>4439552
Dangerously based
>>4439556
Poor pleb

>>4439594
you're poor if you can't get a proper lense for your body. You're supposed to spend the money on the lens retard

>>4439556
It's not a waste when you make friends along the way

>>4439603
>when you make friends along the way
well did you?

>>4439369
heh

>>4439339 (OP)
45MP Nikon Chad. This is the end. Only 100MP Hassle-Giga-Chads are better for certain shooting.

The actual sweet spots in theory are...
>1800x1200 or 2MP
This gives 300 DPI for 6x4 prints.
Bayer causes aliasing, so you need more, 4x more at minimum so 3600x2400 is "okay" but more is even better so 7200x4800 or 32MP is nice for 6x4.
Downsampling obviously used. Bayer res is not full RGB res.
Exact pixel dimensions required.
Distortion free optics required.
Analog alignment (bubble level, tripod, while shooting not software) required.
>14400x9600 or 138MP
for 12x8 prints. Same reasons as above. Lower is copium.

If you ever think you need unsharp mask, you've already failed. Sharp photographs do not need sharpening.

>>4440889
is this a micro four cope?

>>4440889
>32mp for a 6x4

>>4440895
No, in practice the 1800x1200 for 6x4 is a fallacy because you need to capture 4x that, and bayer cuts effective resolution down.

Essentially, if any crop or digital lens corrections/rotations are involved, you need 45-60MP for a 6x4.
Four turds can't fucking dream of this.

Remember folks, 110 film was rejected by the masses because it wasn't comparable to 35mm. What makes you think the digital equivalent would suffice when 35mm digital sensors barely pull it off?
Don't be a retard.
Shoot full frame. Reject bayer, assume your camera is only good for 1/4 of its advertised res unless it has pixel shift (and that is only useful for static subjects under static lighting on stable weighted tripods in low vibration environments, museums/etc, not your typical handheld shot)

>>4440908
Is there anyone you can cite that thinks this way about printing?

>>4440912
lol no he's just making shit up

>>4440908
What about ccd?

>>4440908
That is not even how the math works for the most primitive demosaicing algorithm

The bare minimum you can get out of bayer is 2/3s the resolution of the monochrome version
But in practice it's more like 90-99% because modern demosaicing is good enough to only lose resolution with certain alternating colors (or on xtrans, any colors at all, lol)

>>4440918
CCD/CMOS affect signal to noise. Nothing more.
There's no "magic" in CCDs vs CMOS like people think, instead some old CMOS had better color filters vs weaker CFAs becuse they were optimized for proper capture with enough light, not "high ISO" copium shooting.

Bayer regardless of its filtering capabilities always reduces resolution vs a three-sensor design or something like FOVEON (which itself is an imperfect meme, but has the right idea) and things like film scanners/high end digitization machines (museum scanners) all recognize this fact because it is a fundamental thing that MOAR NUMBER doesn't solve.

All calculations on film's "effective" resolution that end up in 50MP or so assume that the 50MP are of actual RGB information, not subsampled moire+aliased bayer shit.

If you're shooting nude and bald homo sapiens 2MP is plenty but the moment they start wearing textiles or grow hair, the limitations of digital sensors will manifest in artifacts. Film never has this issue. It just has grain with its immunity to aliasing.

>>4440919
>That is not even how the mark works for the most primiti-
Fuck your math I live in reality sir.
>modern demosaicing is good enough
No, it is not, you are a faggot.
There is a reason people physically scrape the bayer filter layer off their sensor for astro photography and nothing you say can change reality
Circle back to my mention of nude homo sapiens. Resolution only matters when it matters, when it doesn't, you get a freebie and can say demosaicing has no losses. When you have sharp glass and high frequency detail, that is not the case and everyone above 90 IQ recognizes this. You don't even need three digits.

>>4440912
Everyone above 90 IQ that isn't a paid shill for a camera company defending bayer.

>>4440924
>astro photography
Because astronomers deal with single pixel sized details, that's why. No one else does.

In photography this only matters to people who pixel peep test charts meant to create issues with demosaicing.

>>4440926
It is settled.
You cannot understand that bayer has issues and refuse to believe that modern digital is still too low resolution to truly replace film. You will forever be applying unsharp mask to your images and you will never understand the concept of intrinsic quality.

32MP bayer for quality comparable to pro medium format film printed at 6x4 is perfectly within reach for most people but go ahead and claim 18 or 24MP is all we need.
Remember, if you set the bar low enough, anything can do the job. Save every penny! Accept that we can't compete with 8x10 film today, because, well, IT'S GOTTA BE CHEAPER TOO!

>>4440934
Delusional.

>>4440935
You don't even own a full frame camera, sir.
Shut the fuck up.

>>4440924
>There is a reason people physically scrape the bayer filter layer off their sensor for astro photography
Because they aren't capturing color, so even a 0.1% increase in sharpness is worth it in exchange for losing a feature that is useless to them.

>>4440934
It's a really good thing that focusing, light, size requirements for 8x10 is so limiting. Could you imagine the seethe if it had fast AF and magically high DoF?

>>4440924
So there isn't actually anyone you can reference so I can learn more?
Kinda sound schizo

>>4440946
>NOOO YOU DIDN'T LINK A HECKIN (((YOUTUBER))) TO CONFIRM EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS!!!!!
>Kinda sound schizo
What the fuck are you on about you dumb nigger?
You can buy a 20MP four turds camera with multiple lenses for under $1000 and scaling that up to full frame (PPI density) would equal about 80MP.
You still run into moire/aliasing at 20MP four turds so you will obviously run into moire/aliasing at 80-100MP full frame.
Do you really refuse to accept that 45-60MP full frame (lower PPI than sub-$1000 4turds) with its sharper optics and better signal to noise isn't limited artificially by the lack of pixels?
Are you actually fucking RETARDED?

You need someone with a "following" (aka a shill) to confirm the obvious for you before you accept the simple truth?
Trust me, once it becomes feasible to mass produce 100MP 4turds and 400MP full frame sensors every shill on earth will be laughing at how bad the 60MP sensors were. Just wait.
Smartphone sensor pixel densities scaled to full frame would be nearly 800MP or 1GP and even those show moire in some situations.

If only you knew how bad things really are.

>>4440963
Have you seen a good 8x10 contact print in person?

>>4440965
Yeah, fabrics don't turn into weird mazes.

>>4440967
You're absolutely correct.

>>4440971
The best kind of correct.

Film can also photograph LCDs (in focus) without turning into aliased memes.
Low res digital simps cope with missed focus or diffraction limited optics. It's all a sad joke.
A lot of Hollywood films includes things like cellphones and monitors/tvs these days but what most people don't know (but I do, having experience) is that almost all of these are actually just digitally overlaid in post because the real-world capture is so hideously bad that is isn't even salvageable. These have to be fully overlaid with CGI or just the original digitial source image digitally fit to the output perspective/size because LCDs/OLEDs are a fucking nightmare for real-world filming.

Any idiot with a smartphone can sit 10' away from a computer monitor or television and immediately see it alias into garbage when in focus to confirm this.

Filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino understand this basic truth and aren't fully for or against digital but just understand its obvious limits. If you are looking for timeless capture, film is the way to go. If you understand the limitations and are willing to adjust costume designs (ties are a meme) and add CGI overlays to solve problems caused by digital then digital can do the job for cheaper but film still has its place if you can afford it. Actual IMAX film has no real competition and probably won;t for the next 20+ years but fewer and fewer things are shot on IMAX these days.

>>4440988
Do you think there is something to be said about the look of an image printed on paper vs. Displayed on a backlit screen?
I know that in a way paper prints are backlit by light going through the emulsion, but it's just different and so much better.

>>4441009
i experience the same thing trying to explain why i love reading on epaper vs an lcd tablet to people and their brains just can't seem to comprehend it. i think it's not a problem of you showing them, something about their minds just doesn't have the context to understand. it's odd.

>>4441017
Yeah, I figured as much. I don't think many people have really seen/held a silver gelatin print let alone made one to experience the glory of it.

>>4441009
That's kind of a broad subject.
I think you would have to specify whether you mean screens vs prints or backlit vs prints because some technologies like self emitting LED screens or OLED will be pretty different to backlit shit.
Even things like LCD aperture ratios (circitury vs light passthrough ratio) come into play but in general, real-world prints have essentially infinite viewing angles that LCD/PLASMA/OLED can only dream of so they can be more aesthetically pleasing in general if in a bright enough environment.
Also prints have a black level far below that LCDs will offer. OLEDs are also usually somewhat glossy and paper might not be "as black" but still manage to reflect less light in some environments so it's hard to say.

Paper itself is also a variable and not all are the same. In general, prints usually have much better black levels and viewing angles even if their measured contrast (difference between black/white) ratios exceed what prints deliver.
A genuinely good print in ideal viewing conditions will usually shit on a screen IMO.

>>4439380
only good post itt. its clear how many of u are instagram larpers

>>4439346
storage is so so cheap. Buy an external portable HDD with 5TB for 100 bucks. If you got an Desktop or your wifi router has built-in NAS functionality you can easily slap a 24TB into it.

14 megapixel masterrace reporting in

>>4440963
>more schizo rambling
All I was asking for is an actual photographer that talks about the same stuff you are, so I can go read from their perspective too
If there isn't anything you can reference for your views outside of yourself, it means it's all in your head

>>4441311
He's making shit up. It's micro four cope. They will make up any amount of bullshit to make full frame not an option and actually worse.

I shoot at 2 MP these days. Enough for web use.

>>4439494
>shit dynamic range
Skill issue

>>4439339 (OP)
I used to think 24MP was enough, then I started actually producing professional prints.
The problem with 24MP is that few of the common professional print sizes are actually 3:2 aspect ratio like a FF sensor. Instead you get 3:4 and 4:5 aspect ratios, lke a 6x8 print or a 8x10 print or, 11x14 in particular because fuck photographers.
Now, those print sizes are just fine with 24mp. The problem is as you go to bigger print sizes, then your clients are complaining why the image is blurry up close. 24MP breaks down scarily quick under cropping and printing large. It wouldn't be an issue if you could just take photos intended for 3:2 and never crop it. Instead you need to have the foresight to take pictures with crops and relevant compositions in mind.
Higher megapixels makes it so much easier as I don't have to consider the aspect ratio I'm going to crop to when composing, I can just figure out which aspect ratio works best with the composition after the fact.

So I have arrived at 36MP. It's like 24MP with room for cropping.

24MP is fine if you're printing for yourself and/or are sure you're not going to have clients asking for big prints. That's hard doing family portraits because it always seems there's some rich aunt asking for a 30x24 print of the family together.

For web/social honestly 12MP is more than enough. 4K is like an 8MP image.

>>4440963
>people complaining about moire and aliasing
should've got Pentax. Sharpness of AA-filter-less sensor, with AA-filter-simulator available.
It actually works.
Honestly don't know why other brands haven't implemented something similar yet. It's a simple concept.

>>4441592
>blurring image to avoid aliasing
You do realize this reduces resolution right?
It's not a free lunch. What Pentax is doing is essentially a copium take on what Pixel Shift accomplishes, only it does so without multi-shot capture and just moves the sensor around to emulate an OLPF, blurring the image somewhat to mitigate it.

I'm not saying it's bad, and being able to choose between no OLPF and an emulated one is neat, but it clearly isn't something most people would use and let's be honest, it's probably patented. All of this shit is and "why doesn't everyone do X" is usually answered by "someone owns it and is not making it available, or wants way too much money for it because they want it to be exclusive to them" which is our modern reality.

>>4441591
Web/social doesn't really matter though. Just AI generate the ideal likes-generating shit. It doesnt matter. Your audience is composed of literal sub-human cattle. Tell them what to like, and they like it. Tell them what to think, and it becomes their new religion. They arent like us/

>>4441592

The Nikon D2x. Do you remember that one? It also does something similar.

>>4439339 (OP)
dumbest thread in the catalogue

>>4441807

Tell us how you really feel.

Whatever the mega pixel count is on my current camera i'm fagging out about. Storage is cheap now a days so it doesn't really matter one way or another

>>4439552
incredible bait. You can kind of actually pull this off with a GFX though. Some full frame lenses cover it.

>>4441354
I mean FF is heavier

OK. So the way I see it is that the megapixel count of a sensor should not be as important as how well the camera utilizes it.

How much resolve is achieved per pixel? Does it trade away too much resolution to keep noise levels in check? Does the camera render accurate or pleasing colors?

Also, are you happy with the cameras size, weight and physical layout? Do you care how sophisticated its focusing system is?

There are many more things to consider than mere specs.

>>4441857
>How much resolve is achieved per pixel? Does it trade away too much resolution to keep noise levels in check? Does the camera render accurate or pleasing colors?
>Also, are you happy with the cameras size, weight and physical layout? Do you care how sophisticated its focusing system is?
those are all specs tho

>>4439339 (OP)
Not really through experience but logic. I have a 32mp DSLR Csnon 90D. I shoot simultaneously RAW and JPG. I delete alot of shots but have alot of keepers and my laptop ssd is filling up too quickly. 350GB now . Over a 3rd of my SSD just pictures, cool okay, but this forces me to purchase backup SSDs etc. I cant even imagine Canon R5 ussrs or even sony with 60mp how large their files are.

>>4441861

No. It is how well the camera functions, performs and fits you beyond its technical specs.

>>4441167
5TB for a hundred? where you get that low quality chink shit Temu? What arr the writing speeds? Sorry but when I backup my files I need high quality SSDs. Samsung T7 and above.

>>4441864
NTA. 4TB WD NAS-grade HDD is like $100 off Amazon. Not the cheapest WD offers either. Even going full nerd on a NAS with multiple drives will only cost you as much as a consoomer-grade lens.

>>4441864
>when I backup my files I need high quality SSDs
Who's gonna tell him?

SSDs are inherently flawed as a backup medium. They're only good for active use. If you don't turn an SSD on every few weeks at least the memory will eventually wipe. For backups you want HDDs or tape

>>4439339 (OP)
AI image in the photography board?

>>4441864
>>4441897
Yeah but in reality most SSDs will go for 4-6 months cold without issue. Some are rated at a year but I wouldn't go intentionally that long for anything remotely important. I did once have a SK Hynix corrupt after a few weeks cold, but it's the only time I've ever seen one go that fast.
SSDs will bit rot over time regardless which gives you a max lifespan (just like a HDD).
IIRC QLC drives die off stupidly fast, and high capacity TLC (>2GB) is not great either. SLC and MLC tend to do alright for lifespan.

Moral of the story is to use HDDs for backups.

>>4441926
HDDs are not a serious solution for mass storage of photographs or videos. LTO-9 holds 18TB for $80, LTO-10 holds 30TB for $300. The tapes are warranty guaranteed to last 30 years. Nothing competes in reliability or cost per TB

>>4441900
So?

>>4441948
Am referring to OP's image that started this thread - it's AI generated.

Just surprised either no-one is phased or picked it up on the photography board, which seems to be the least applicable place to have AI imagery acceptable.

>>4441927
Tape would be the proper thing to archive on yeah, but if we're talking cold or hot storage that's being used semi-regularly it's obvious what the answer is. Different mediums for different uses and I guarantee you most people aren't doing 3-2-1 let alone more robust backup solutions that include tape.

>>4441957
Maybe it's just very obviously an AI version of a very well known photographer
Yeah, because photographers never ever make use of AI lol

>>4441957
There's a Subaru badge of the rear quarter panel. It's pretty fucking obvious. But for the purposes of this discussion (gear) nobody gives a fuck. Remember that half of the /p/ userbase doesn't even own a camera.

>>4441927
The tape reader is like 6k dollars.

>>4439339 (OP)
Street photographers have a lower MP sweet spot because they mostly shoot in places with regular geometry, which doesnt fuck bayer filters up as hard. With natural subjects instead of asian office buildings cameras with much less than 36 megapixels immediately show their shortcomings.

35mm film is 20 true color megapixels, equivalent to about 36 bayer megapixels. If you can't afford shit do your critical photography on some good film.

>>4441981
>If you can't afford shit do your critical photography on some good film.

Especially if you need to truly archive your images.

>>4439368
hello neighbor

>>4439339 (OP)
Yeah
>grew up shooting 110 film.
>Chased gear to 45mp range.
>after all these years realize that shooting Ektachrome on 16mm Ultra modded 1920s movie cameras with 1990s Nikon macro lenses and using my 45mp Z7ii as a frame by frame footage digitizer is the sweet spot for 100% of my shooting.

>>4439380
real pros don’t work below 100mp

>>4447188
I'm not from Seattle, just visiting.
Unless you mean neighbor as in we have similar nikon top tier 14 megapixel cameras.

>>4447790
Every man with a camera should be legally required to keep a CPL in his pocket

>>4447802
Does that mean you like the photo but you think it could of been superb?
Sorry Nikon in their infinite wisdom did not include one.

The human eye cannot distinguish the difference between 1 megapixel and 1,000 on a standard screen.

>>4447889
I forgot to mention I'm indian and a standard screen is 800x640