Why do some people shy away from high megapixel cameras/sensors

Well photos is just a program and no files reside in it. The files are just in a directory location/tree configured by the program. There is likely a setting page where you can change and control the inventory. You also may want to know where these files are on your drive just so you can make a backup from time to time.

If you go to pictures on your Mac, you will likely see a folder called Photos, and that is your image library. It can be copied to a backup drive this way. That is what I glean from reading the photos app help.

And it seems quite easy to move your Photos library off your main Mac and onto a removable drive. Just bookmark this, you will need it should your mac start to go bad, and you need a new one.
https://support.apple.​com/en-us/HT201517

wemrick wrote in post #19213286
...as I increase the mp size (D200 12mp, D800 36mp, D850 46mp) the more I see finer distortion in my pictures. I know some have been to do with focus, some vibration, some exposure.

A bit after the 50MP Canon 5Ds was introduced people were complaining of poor image quality. But from what I remember what was happening was people began seeing the finer distortion that 50MP would reveal. I suppose those users had to adopt faster shutter speeds, and use a tripod when possible. I think this is what branded the 5Ds as a studio camera and wide field of view landscape camera.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19213270
It's better to have and not need it, then to want and not have it. You can always resize your images down or set up the camera to resize and store smaller JPGs if so desired. To go the other way is always detrimental to the final IQ of the images.

Can you resize RAW files down, apart from crop to APS-C dimensions? If not, I draw no benefit from smaller JPG file storage.

I keep my 1DXs and piles of lenses for when I need less resolution and "more performance". My primary cameras are all 50-150mp Hasselblad and Phase One. I don't use these for the resolution, pixel count, or cropability - but rather for dynamic range and fine detail performance. It also allows me to shoot for the original intention, which may be catalog/print/web, but allows me to later sell/use the same file for poster/signage/wallpap​er printing. The smallest print I make is 11x14 as my "wallet size" with 16x20 being standard, and that's for personal/vacation work. There's been many-a-time where a client called back a few months after the original job asking if there was any way I could re-shoot the image for signage or billboard. Since I already have the shot ready, it saves them time and money and makes me extra with little work. This has also come in handy for revisiting my personal work where originally a shot looked ok for smaller printing, but later technology advances (and time) allow for additional processing to create an image that looks good enough for large printing.

I never considered the 5Ds/R due to the small sensor size, tiny pixels, and low(er) dynamic range. The R5/6, Sony, and other mirrorless cameras are not an option for me either due to no OVF, poor tetherability, weak operation in low light (finder-wise, not image), and smaller pixel sizes. The smaller bodies are also a nightmare for me to handle. If it says anything, my "vacation" camera is usually an older H body and back. I don't mind the weight and don't really find the bulk that people tend to complain about.

The biggest issue with higher pixel counts isn't that mistakes appear easier, but rather than the camera is more sensitive to poor technique, lighting, and stability. However, a larger sensor (with larger pixel size) gets around that quite a bit.

The computer side is a poor excuse for not using modern gear and decent resolutions...large drives are cheap, RAM is cheap, and if a shot is captured well ("get the most in the can"), there is actually very little editing needed to prepare the shot for output.

Also, I've printed stuff off the X at 20x24 without any noticeable issues. Well, at least until you put one of the 50mp images next to it. You then can see where it falls apart. But to a client or end user who doesn't see that 50mp, they'd never notice the difference if the lower res image was processed and printed well.

A colleage of mine has the 5DsR and we shot it in studio next to the MF using a studio shot where there wasn't any noticable DOF falloff (to eliminate the optical falloff "wow" of MF) - the tabletop shot was completely sharp with a neutral gray background. It consisted of polished rocks, gems, and metals on a bed of black and white silk and cashmere. It was very easy to tell which one the 5DsR was by the weaker fine detail and poor(er) rendering of colors/textures in black and white fabrics, less "sparkles" in the speculars, and duller color transitions in gradients. Both were printed to 20x24 for this test.

Even when not printing, the higher pixel counts are sometimes noticable, but not as much as with the larger sensors; that's where the tonality and colors are much better with higher MP and sensor size.

I use old stuff. I love old stuff. I know how to maximize old stuff, push it to the limits. Windows XP or 7, not 10. The latest Ubuntu Studio, but on an old small form factor with only 2GB ram, runs like a top. Typing on a 2009 Macbook Pro. The challenge is not to have the latest and greatest, because in time, everything depreciates and eventually becomes affordable.

With that said, I suffer from a certain sense of envy at times. Not because I can't afford the latest and greatest, but I'm just too frugal to spend it on myself that way. So I see gear that is desirable, but priced at a level that makes me uncomfortable. I don't make a living from my camera right now. I'm in experimental mode. So if I don't need it, I don't want it.

There's a sea of tech stuff out there left to still explore that isn't regulated by pixels and vlogging, but by intrigue and mystique and everything wonderful about man and the machine. Much of it's been abandoned or rejected because people think it's not worth it. Most people use social media and check email. They could literally be using Windows 3.1 and that would serve their purposes, they don't need what Best Buy sells them. If anything, too many bells and whistles have confused them, especially with Apple products being so user-friendly that they don't see themselves working with files and folders or comprehend the structure and hierarchy.

I just upgraded my camera game. I looked at the $2000-3000 bodies and chose another route. Discounted gear in excellent shape that lets me adapt my existing gear to it. Rather than z-mounts and competing Canon models, I picked up an old Canon 6D, a Leica Digilux 3, a few lenses and adapters, and am excited about them as new creative toys. For me. So, I'm one of the 20MP guys. Here by choice, not necessity. And part of that has to do with tens of thousands of photos already in the archive to where 30MP isn't going to change the game or its play for me. I have enough to crop for the rest of my life, no need to enlarge that negligence.

I guess to answer the question starting the thread, it's because they're not necessary. They're a luxury. It's a struggle between wants and needs. I don't need, or want, the latest and greatest at the moment for what it ultimately costs. The key for me is to learn to be content with what I have and what comes my way. It's part of the life journey here. Unless I'm collecting, less is more.

We have some good replies here on both sides of the fence. You can see it's very personal and person specific.

The "lower resolution" crowd is as expected (generally) the people who's end goal is a print (and not some ridiculous size like 4ft x 6ft).

The "more is better" crowd is as expected the people who benefit from the ability to crop, often significantly, and still have an image with pleasing resolution/detail.


To quote John Greengo, "Photography is an art that is based on technology". And I'm sure John wasn't the first person to say that. We are supposed to appreciate in it's entirety the image as presented by the photography artist. For me, I also enjoy being able to look closely (zoom in) at a specific element of the image and investigate it separately. Show me a city street walk image that includes a smallish storefront sign and I will zoom on the sign to appreciate fine detail and zoom out to again appreciate the entire image. Capturing the moment a shark breaks the water's surface with a fish in it's mouth is great and dramatic but also being able to zoom in tight to see the shark's teeth adds to the overall experience being presented.

I have old 8MP images that are pleasant scenes but if you zoom in the pixels become blurry very quickly. I have to enjoy those as presented using the artistic side of my brain. Today I can enjoy a 30MP image as is AND enjoy what can be seen in a tight zoom. Going to 50MP, 80MP, 150MP should enhance that, right? That is the scientific part of my brain.


Next question:
Nearly every camera manufacturer is continually releasing new cameras with higher and higher megapixel sensors. Why?? Are they simply pandering to the public perception that more is always better? Or are they doing so because more really is better?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19213243
.
I hate it when one good thing comes at the expense of another. . Reality sucks for a dreamer like me who wants the whole world, but isn't willing to give anything up to get it.


.

That's why I keep in mind "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" is the one unbreakable rule in photography.

Every benefit has a price that must be paid somehow, by someone, at some time.

It's all a moving target.
Last years large image files are this years small ones, etc.

10 years ago the same discussions were taking place, only the "reasonable size" was only about 8MP and the "huge" was today's "small" 20MP.

I realize I am stating the obvious,. but at the same time, it's hard to have the discussion without considering where we've been.

Which brings me to two of the issues that have NOT remained constant as image files have grown.

Speed and Noise.

10 years ago (heck 2 years ago for speed) there were far more reasons to avoid larger image sizes.

- Speed. If you wanted high frame rates, you had no choice but to use cameras with smaller MP count. This is no longer true. that bottleneck is now gone, with Canon's second highest res sensor ever produced having the the highest frame rate ever (20 fps x 45MP)
Just a short while ago the fastest Canon frame rate was 10FPS for a 10MP image in a body that cost $4.500.00, and to get 22MP you had drop down to 5FPs and pay $8K. Now with the R5 for example, for $4K you get that 45MP at 20FPS.

- Noise. In a given time period, the snapshot would often show that the lower res sensor had better noise handling on a per pixel level. The trouble with this observation are twofold.
1- As sensors get better, so does noise handling, so it is rare to find a case where the lower res sensor actually has better noise handling, because the lower res is often the older tech. One has to work hard to actually prove the fact that when all else is equal it's true.
2. Further, even if we were somehow locked into 2007 tech, comparing the measured noise of the 10mp vs. 22mp images @ 100% close up view did not represent the end result of a print made from those same images. In fact, the 22MP image printed to the same size print, would look better/less noisy.

Today, the cleanest image files I have worked with are 30MP and 45MP.

So one can safely cross speed and noise off the list of reasons NOT to want higher MP images.

All the storage reasons are valid when trapped in time, but just like the other bottlenecks, these two are evolving at the same rate or faster than the image files are growing. CFexpress and data transfer speeds in camera = that 20 fps 45MP. (and frankly CFexpress is so fast we aren't even close to saturating it's bandwidth with this already insanely high data throughout. That bottleneck is now open with room to grow) With the right reader and PC, downloading is MUCH faster than back when i was shooting on 4Gb CF cards, with 8MP images.
Storage size is of course only an issue if you refuse to upgrade. At the same time those 4GB cards and 8.5MP images were normal, hard drive sizes were maybe 500GB to 2TB. Now they are 12TB +...

That's a fair and valuable incentive, and should be a strong part of the objective of any new camera technology.

With regard to megapixels and enlargeability (including digital interpolation), a great deal depends on the type of subject and the expectations of the audience for that subject and its purpose.

With most full-length portraits, for instance, audiences will accept the image as sharp if facial features are clearly defined. Yes, we want enough detail to see that big blue mark on wild Aunt Tilly's shoulder is a tattoo, not a bruise. But the audience's expectation for the subject has been met. With head-and-shoulder portraits, audiences will accept the image as "sharp" if facial hair is resolved, but no more detail is needed than that. If you go to "beauty shots," then skin texture is expected...but no more detail than that is necessary. In fact, more detail than expected can be a negativity...nobody wants to see hair mites lurking in the eyebrows. It doesn't matter how large the image has been magnified: The audience has an idea of how much detail they want to see at a particular framing of the human face.

Landscapes present different audience expectations (and, apparently, so does wildlife photography). There is effectively no limit to the amount of detail landscape audiences expect. The more a landscape is enlarged or the closer the audience can get to a physical enlargement, the more detail is expected to unfold. I once saw a guy at a gallery pull out a loupe to examine an enlargement of a barn. I suppose he wanted to see if he could count nails in the planks.

Some subjects lend themselves to digital interpolation. Subjects that are predominantly lines and tones can be successfully interpolated. Subject filled with detail--such as the aforementioned landscapes--cannot. Interpolation cannot create new details, although new AI processes can "guess" at additional details when those details are repetitive. AI can interpolate blades of grass to the image of a meadow, but it can't interpolate words to an image of a book.

That's why a shot of an automobile (easily interpolatable) or a headshot (limited amount of detail expected) can be effective at relatively few megapixels...but a landscape or an eagle on the wing cannot.

So when people talk about how large any amount of megapixels can be enlarged, my question is always: "What is the subject?"

docholliday_sc001 wrote in post #19213377
..

The computer side is a poor excuse for not using modern gear and decent resolutions...large drives are cheap, RAM is cheap, and if a shot is captured well ("get the most in the can"), there is actually very little editing needed to prepare the shot for output.

..

The point about the time/effort needed for processing images is very good! I used to shoot exclusively RAW and the images required (by my own standards) some pretty involved steps to eek out the best quality.
- Shoot RAW
-Massage raw file in RAW converter of choice, white balance, curves, levels, shadow/highlight recovery,
- Output to 16 bit tiff at large gamut color profile and re-open in photoshop
- Duplicate layer, potentially work on color and curves more, etc.
- Adjustment layer for noise reduction mask, and sharpening.
- Re-convert to SRGB for printing, and creation of jeg for web use.

etc..

The image files I am getting from 5D4, R and R5?

- Shoot in jpeg (with RAW as potential but largely unused backup) and minor massaging only.

or

- Shoot in RAW and do everything in batches in Capture One.

Perhaps the answer to all these questions lies in the reality that we have adopted terms like amateur, hybrid, prosumer, bridge, enthusiast, professional et al. into photography nomenclature precisely because of the many diverse wants, needs, and expectations on the part of camera manufacturers and their buying publics.

On another note, poking around with pixels and cropping is a tedious affair, and the bane of digital camera use. The average photographer would rather spend that time taking more photos. If it's one's livelihood, then it's a must, of course. But for the enthusiast/hobbyist, which is my thing now, it's a creative task that can be gently ignored or rejected, depending on the situation. I've pushed many a pixel back in the day and don't so much anymore. Perhaps that's why I don't care to enlarge the matter with higher pixel cameras right now.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19213522
The point about the time/effort needed for processing images is very good! I used to shoot exclusively RAW and the images required (by my own standards) some pretty involved steps to eek out the best quality.
- Shoot RAW
-Massage raw file in RAW converter of choice, white balance, curves, levels, shadow/highlight recovery,
- Output to 16 bit tiff at large gamut color profile and re-open in photoshop
- Duplicate layer, potentially work on color and curves more, etc.
- Adjustment layer for noise reduction mask, and sharpening.
- Re-convert to SRGB for printing, and creation of jeg for web use.

etc..

The image files I am getting from 5D4, R and R5?

- Shoot in jpeg (with RAW as potential but largely unused backup) and minor massaging only.

or

- Shoot in RAW and do everything in batches in Capture One.

Everything I shoot is in RAW (digital backs don't do JPG or at if they do, defeats the purpose of the DB!). I tend to work in C1 more than LR as it's much faster and required for the Phase gear. Otherwise, it's Phocus. With enough power, it's pretty much the same speed to process 100+mp files as it does the 20mp files off the 1DX. I have a lot of automation written/configured for preprocessing. That saves time and makes for fast production images. I'll even build C1 albums with a mix of files from the MFDBs and 1DXs.

I do almost all my work "in the can" and get as much right in camera as possible so that there's very little tweaking required. I have piles of "styles" in C1 that I can auto-apply and get the images 95% done during import or tether. Once out of those RAW processors, it's off to Photoshop for printing, CMYK conversion or separations, and/or compositing. Usually, that's done by somebody else but sometimes I end up doing the prepress work too. As of right now, most of my PS files are somewhere between 1.5GB-3.5GB per image.

The advancements with in-camera processing automation, camera processor speed, and power management/battery tech allows for some almost perfect images to come out of camera if you nail the shot. Metering has advanced enough that getting the shot exposed perfectly, while half asleep, is a high probability. That all makes it easy(ier) for many shooters to work with large files directly from the camera without much post work and staying in a JPG workflow. Even for RAW shooters, the better capture makes for much less work and ability to automate much better than yesteryear.

I'd guess that for most people, the 20-24mp range is "good enough" as hobbyist or even "pro" shooters working in mostly web/screen imaging. Small format film was barely better than that anyways. I look at large files as future-proofing. In the pro audio world, there's a lot of good material out there was once recorded on multi-track tape being digitized and remastered in higher resolution. The original tape contained enough information that many of these songs are able to gain a whole new life after the remaster. There's a bunch of up-res'd crap too and a whole blind audience buying that junk because it simply says remastered and hi-res. But the ones that were captured well and processed using new technology properly are well worth the effort. I see high res image files the same way: shoot the best now and future proof your images, even if you don't need the resolution immediately.

Ditto.

Ditto.