I just purchased a Canon 500 F4 (very happy!). I own a 6D (20 MP). I understand that glass and technique are both huge determinants of taking great pictures (and maybe a little bit of serendipity). My question: how much will I help myself by getting a newer camera body that has either/both a cropped sensor and/or more megapixels? I do have a 1.4X TC so I'm not sure I really need to get so much closer - I suppose I'm mainly interested in understanding if having a 40 MP (or 30 MP) sensor is going to appreciably enhance the quality of pictures that I take. Thanks for your thoughts - excited to learn!
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Megapixels and Sensors (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GCA123
- Start date
I do not think there can be a single right or wrong answer to this question. If you get more pixels and you pixel peep, then any deficiencies of your technique will just look that much more magnified. On the other hand if your technique is perfect then you probably could benefit from upgrading.
Niels
Niels
Hello GCA123 , and welcome to the forums.
In my opinion it is a mistaken view that more megapixels and a "super sensor" will necessarily increase the quality of pictures taken.
I have seen a lot of award winning pictures taken with seemingly outdated and "obsolete" camera's and equipment.
But if you have the money , go for it.
o
o o
Cheers.
In my opinion it is a mistaken view that more megapixels and a "super sensor" will necessarily increase the quality of pictures taken.
I have seen a lot of award winning pictures taken with seemingly outdated and "obsolete" camera's and equipment.
But if you have the money , go for it.
o
o oCheers.
I think that more pixels and newer sensors, assuming your technique is already sound, should see an increase in quality of output for you. Depending on budget you may see small jumps in quality rather than massive leaps, but if for example you are able to go all out to an R5 I think from what I have seen of reviews that your quality and cropping capabilities will see quite the boost - not cheap though!
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Welcome aboard GCA123.
If you want to compare higher MP camera bodies to cropped sensor bodies in the Canon ecosystem divide the full frame sensor resolution by 1.6^2 ..... ie. 2.56.
So the new Canon R5 at 45MP full frame is equivalent to ~17.5MP APS-C (Canon). So pretty much the same resolution as the Canon 7D II. (It's also equivalent to 20MP APS-C [Nikon] - so pretty much the same resolution as the Nikon D500). Canon seems to have given up on a 7D III. In many ways the R5 is it with extra (profit making) bells and whistles.
I think the most important question is which body focuses most accurately, more of the time, and fastest. Something like the Canon 90D (32MP APS-C) is equivalent to an 83MP full frame sensor - but if the frames are out of focus and/or technique is not rock solid, then a whole lot of softness can result.
The other thing to consider is ISO performance, and there will be times (especially using your lens set up with TC or even bare, at closer ranges) where you won't have to crop a full frame image, or won't have to crop as far as an APS-C. More modern sensors such as the R5 are going to offer an advantage over the 7D II particularly at base, low, and very high ISO's. Check it out over at photonstophotos.
I agree that gains in IQ are likely to be incremental rather than revolutionary. Autofocus performance is the key (whether you shoot mainly static or moving subjects also plays into that).
Chosun :gh:
If you want to compare higher MP camera bodies to cropped sensor bodies in the Canon ecosystem divide the full frame sensor resolution by 1.6^2 ..... ie. 2.56.
So the new Canon R5 at 45MP full frame is equivalent to ~17.5MP APS-C (Canon). So pretty much the same resolution as the Canon 7D II. (It's also equivalent to 20MP APS-C [Nikon] - so pretty much the same resolution as the Nikon D500). Canon seems to have given up on a 7D III. In many ways the R5 is it with extra (profit making) bells and whistles.
I think the most important question is which body focuses most accurately, more of the time, and fastest. Something like the Canon 90D (32MP APS-C) is equivalent to an 83MP full frame sensor - but if the frames are out of focus and/or technique is not rock solid, then a whole lot of softness can result.
The other thing to consider is ISO performance, and there will be times (especially using your lens set up with TC or even bare, at closer ranges) where you won't have to crop a full frame image, or won't have to crop as far as an APS-C. More modern sensors such as the R5 are going to offer an advantage over the 7D II particularly at base, low, and very high ISO's. Check it out over at photonstophotos.
I agree that gains in IQ are likely to be incremental rather than revolutionary. Autofocus performance is the key (whether you shoot mainly static or moving subjects also plays into that).
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
The art and craft of photography will always beat the technology. The professional photographers I know personally don't fuss over the kit they just get out there and take pictures.
Sure some people love the kit and if you get enjoyment out of that then fine. It is the same on the optics forums lots of folk get enjoyment over the tools rather than to use of the tools.
Sure some people love the kit and if you get enjoyment out of that then fine. It is the same on the optics forums lots of folk get enjoyment over the tools rather than to use of the tools.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Yes, perhaps the most important step is to make the most of what you've got first. Having to use something like a 7D II certainly sharpens the technique and the discipline. Very few things are missed due to a lack of flexibility - though sometimes the cursing from friends who use them makes an inappropriate chuckle hard to contain ! :-O
Chosun :gh:
Similar threads
