Home Gear!

Need Immediate Answers? Check out our SUPPORT CENTER or CONTACT OUR SUPPORT TEAM

10.1 megapixel vs 18 megapixel

Dan ReinhartDan Reinhart Member Posts: 1
I was wondering if there is really much of a difference in the megapixel that the eye can see.


  • alejandroceppiphotographyalejandroceppiphotography Buenos Aires, ArgentinaMember Posts: 38
    May be not if you’re just going to show your photos through the internet as you took them, but it matters when you need to crop a photo and specially when you intend to print. With a 10 Megapixels 2/3 ratio photo you can get a really good print of about 8,6” x 13” (8” x 12”) at 300 dpi, whilst with an 18 Megapixels photo (if this is the true value that the sensor can deliver and has not been reached by resizing / resampling the photo) you can get a good print of about 11,3” x 17,3” (11” x 17”).
  • Totally agree with Alejandro...it depends on what your final output is and your workflow (as far as cropping/resizing/retouching) whether or not the megapixels will make a difference.

    It's also good to remember that not all megapixels are created equal. Sensor size is also very important when considering things like dynamic range, low-light performance and overall noise. The larger the sensor - better the camera will be able to handle these and the more detail will be in the file.
  • McCartyMcCarty Member Posts: 30
    I once owned a Nikon D1. The D1 is a 2.7 megapixel camera. I have beautiful 16x20's that are indistinguishable from film prints. That was the camera that convinced us to sell all our Hasselblad and Bronica equipment and purchase a few 720's and 760's. I still believe the 760 is one of the best camera room portrait digital cameras.

    I laugh every time I hear bragging about megapixels. I will take my D1 over your iPhone any day of the week.
  • D7100 here with 24MP. I chose it over the D600 because they are almost the same camera except for the full frame and $1000 price point difference. In a perfect world, with no monetary constraints, the D800 at 36MP. Regardless of the MP, the quality of the shots in camera improved dramatically from my 11MP D200, which was still an excellent camera. But I think once you get to 15MP+, I don't think there is much of a noticeable difference.

    A 16x20 from a D1 might compare to film, but I think if you put up a 16x20 print from a 2.7MP camera against an 18MP camera print, you would definitely see a difference.
  • clickdogclickdog Member Posts: 3
    We started our digital photography business with Canon DCS520's 2mp then went to a 1Ds 11mp then 1DMK2 8mp then Mk3 10mp followed by a MK4 16mp and now 1Dx 18mp. Is their a difference in megapixels between them? Oh yes! Each has a native size from the sensor say at 300dpi, 2mp = 6x4 and so on. Equates to a film neg, the more info captured the more detail. Event at lower size enlargements, but, a good well exposed file from a 10mp file can be better than a bad one from an 18mp plus lenses make a big difference. The bottom line is if you need more pixels you will know as you will be hitting the limits of your work envelope.Not dissimilar to 35mm ver medium format in a way.
  • Pete FerlingPete Ferling Member Posts: 26
    Made a business decision to drop our film Cambo's (had a 4x5 and 8x11 with Xenon lenses) in favor of a 1Ds mark I, the first digital full frame at 11MP. While I admire a drawer full of sheet negatives and the means to print any size I want that would pass a loupe test. It was expensive and overkill for 99% of the single, double page, and online targets we needed.

    I had plenty of prints from an Epson 44" printer to know that it was good a move. Besides, the instant gratification and dropping film as an expense in a production environment, helped released an ROI within the first week for a $7000 camera.

    I also have a Film Mamiya M645, just in case, and only needed it twice, (though I still shoot landscapes with it). I've since switched to a 5D for portraits (a Mark I to retain the larger photo sites), and a 7D for product, event and action. Using crop sensor means that more critical image area remains in the center of the lens, where it's sharpest, creating more images that are sharp edge to edge. The drawback with 18mp reared it's ugly head with regards to production on tethered shoots for high volume jobs. Most jobs are meant for online and small print in catalogs. Not many folks print paper catalogs anymore, and when they do, it's cheap quality and fine details become lost at 3x5 ad space. Switching captures to medium and small RAW increased throughput significantly.

    Therefore, you have to consider megapixels in terms of image and memory management.
    Commercial and Product Photography
  • APIX ImageryAPIX Imagery Atlantic City, N.J.Member Posts: 1
    Our camera body of choice is the 36MP Nikon D800. Having said that, I always place more emphasis on the quality of the glass in a lens. If you invest wisely in high quality lenses, you will get great shots, whether you're shooting with 18MP or 36MP. Do your homework, then be prepared for your lens to cost more than your camera. In the long run, it'll be worth the cost.
  • phil rosephil rose Member Posts: 236
    I once owned a Nikon D1. The D1 is a 2.7 megapixel camera. I have beautiful 16x20's that are indistinguishable from film prints.
    An astonishing claim! I hope no one reading that takes it too seriously, unless of course, they prefer to view their 16x20 prints from a fairly great distance (say 12 feet or more); or they don't require their prints to reveal much fine detail. A "film print"? Yeh, perhaps one from a Minox negative.
    I laugh every time I hear bragging about megapixels. I will take my D1 over your iPhone any day of the week.
    I didn't notice an iPhone mentioned in this thread. Anyway you got me laughing, too.
    Use my referral code, 5M4-A1Z-7DG, for a discount when opening a new account.
Sign In or Register to comment.