24 megapixels or 20 megapixels

OK. Which would be preferred? 24 megapixel crop sensor or 20 megapixel FF?
Thanks

I'd prefer the one that made the most sense for the task.

I think that the MP of a body should be one of those specifications that fall low on the list, especially these days. There are so many more factors that go into the quality of an image that MP alone. Dynamic range, noise, feature set I would think should come first and then worry about how many MP the sensor has.

eddieb1 wrote in post #17418365
OK. Which would be preferred? 24 megapixel crop sensor or 20 megapixel FF?
Thanks

12mp FF

But really, this...

nqjudo wrote in post #17418382
I'd prefer the one that made the most sense for the task.

What are you trying to do? If you are looking to pound in nails, for instance, a hammer will work better than either a 24MP crop camera or a 20MP FF camera.

Apples and Oranges?

Real answer comes if you share what 2 cameras you are comparing and why. What is your application, concern? Answer those questions and the forum will reply...

I'd prob go with FF

right what cameras?

i know i was looking at 2 cameras and were 20mp vs 24mp..

Canon 7dm2 vs Sony A77ii

I'm still shooting 10mp on a 40D with no complaints. I don't see the point of either 20 or 24 unless my goal was to fill up my hard drive more quickly.

eddieb1 wrote in post #17418365
OK. Which would be preferred? 24 megapixel crop sensor or 20 megapixel FF?
Thanks

As has been said above, your question is too vague to answer. We need to know what it is going to be used for to know which would be better.

As a start to answering your question I would just say that my preference would be to have both (and I have had both crop and FF in my bag for the last 9 years) as they are very different tools for different jobs. You don't say what job you want them to do however, so it is like saying "which would be preferred a hammer or a screwdriver", the answer of course depends on whether you have a handful of nails or a handful of screws.

To give examples, when birding the 24mp crop would be my choice, the much higher pixel density means that I can crop in to the bird much easier and still have a decent resolution. Any task where "pixels on target" matters will go to the cropper. When shooting in situations where you have more control and can fill the frame with your subject (landscape, portraiture etc) then you will be getting much the same resolution with either camera, but the 20mp FF will be using much larger pixels and give you increased IQ accordingly, so for such tasks the FF would be preferred.

There are other differences, it is easier to get shallow DoF with the FF due to using longer lenses for the same framing and composition, and also get deeper DoF with the crop, which can be handy for macro etc.

So, without knowing what you want to do with it, we cannot answer your question.

sandpiper wrote in post #17450677
As has been said above, your question is too vague to answer. We need to know what it is going to be used for to know which would be better.

As a start to answering your question I would just say that my preference would be to have both (and I have had both crop and FF in my bag for the last 9 years) as they are very different tools for different jobs. You don't say what job you want them to do however, so it is like saying "which would be preferred a hammer or a screwdriver", the answer of course depends on whether you have a handful of nails or a handful of screws.

To give examples, when birding the 24mp crop would be my choice, the much higher pixel density means that I can crop in to the bird much easier and still have a decent resolution. Any task where "pixels on target" matters will go to the cropper. When shooting in situations where you have more control and can fill the frame with your subject (landscape, portraiture etc) then you will be getting much the same resolution with either camera, but the 20mp FF will be using much larger pixels and give you increased IQ accordingly, so for such tasks the FF would be preferred.

There are other differences, it is easier to get shallow DoF with the FF due to using longer lenses for the same framing and composition, and also get deeper DoF with the crop, which can be handy for macro etc.

So, without knowing what you want to do with it, we cannot answer your question.

Thank you. That's the kind of information I was looking for. I wasn't quite sure why Canon, Nikon, etc, would produce crop and FF copies of cameras. To me, a full frame, which I own, is capable of producing outstanding results. Add a longer lens, or a TC and you have the reach that you give up when moving to FF. I owned a 7D, sold it, moved to a 6D, and never looked back. I only occasionally do any birding. My main interests are landscape, portrait, and architecture. The times I do go birding, I, honestly, don't miss my crop. An ef 100-400 with a 1.4 or 2.0 TC and I'm good to go.

eddieb1 wrote in post #17450756
I wasn't quite sure why Canon, Nikon, etc, would produce crop and FF copies of cameras...

Cost. Followed by overall size, I would suspect. I used a FF camera for 40-some years (read: 35mm film) and never considered it a drawback with regard to reach until crop digital came along, but then I didn't have a choice back then.

Snafoo wrote in post #17451001
Cost. Followed by overall size, I would suspect. I used a FF camera for 40-some years (read: 35mm film) and never considered it a drawback with regard to reach until crop digital came along, but then I didn't have a choice back then.

Of course, film would not have a reach advantage. It would have the same grain density regardless of the size of the film.

And of course not all crop cameras have better sensel density than all FF cameras. For example the Canon 20 odd Mpix FF bodies have about the same pixel density as a 20/30D; 8 Mpix. Of course the 5dS/R has about the equivalence of a 19 Mpix crop camera. When looking at these new 50 Mpix FF cameras it is important to remember that for uncropped images the noise advantage is not really due to single pixel sizes, but to the total area of the sensor. FF has a big noise advantage because it is 2.56 times greater in area than the crop sensors are.

Alan