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

Whimsy wrote in post #19213526
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.

It isn't for me. Every time I pick up a new camera, I run it through various IQ tests, at high ISO, etc and build up post processing actions/macros. I rarely ever process an image where I create masks or layers, I have a library of actions, and one of those will likely take care of all my needs. This means I can run 300 images in a folder in batch through Photoshop, go get a coffee, knock off some newbs in Fortnite, and come back to processed files where all I have to worry about now is composition, content, etc.

I am very lazy, therefore I am very efficient.

docholliday_sc001 wrote in post #19213531
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.

I do not disagree with anything you posted above. However, there is the reality that the typical photographer will never exploit the highest levels of resolution to advantage...and meanwhile 50MPixel consumes more space and takes longer to transfer to new media, to what purpose for the average hobbyist, who never prints to larger than 12x19"?! BIF users might use the highest resolution to greatest advantage, but not the average hobbyist.

Finally, many years ago there was an article on diffraction limits of lenses at different f/stops, and how many Megapixels would meet those diffraction limits. Optical design cannot defeat the laws of Physics, and diffraction is the result one one of the principles in Physics. So diffraction is fixed, and do we need higher resolution sensors to better capture diffraction limits?! High megapixels for large sensors makes all the sense in the world, but when sensors are 4/3 format size or even 135 format size, are we gilding the turd with ever higher pixel density? Why did the 5DS not run off the shelf to anxious hands? Because, like audiophiles, the 'best possible' crowd is limited in size and the masses are satisfied with less...and today they listen to MP3 files rather than 44-bit CD audio because they are satisfied with less, and thru 3" Bluetooth speakers.

Wilt wrote in post #19213560
I do not disagree with anything you posted above. However, there is the reality that the typical photographer will never exploit the highest levels of resolution to advantage...and meanwhile 50MPixel consumes more space and takes longer to transfer to new media, to what purpose for the average hobbyist?!

That's why I wrote that 20-24mp is plenty for "most people" . The space part isn't a big deal, as I wrote in a previous post that *storage is cheap*. An enterprise class 10TB drive is < $300, so not having storage isn't much of an excuse nowadays. Transfer time is also not that big of a deal with modern boxes, even with NAS and 10GB networks coming down in price. I'm sitting at a little under 2.15PB of storage right now on my network with 4x 10GB fiber connections out of my main desktop. Network transfers only happen during backup, as "live data" is sitting locally on a RAID 50+1. That, surprisingly, isn't as expensive as it seems nor are the transfer times slow.

For the hobbyist, a simple 2-drive Synology with 2 consumer grade 10TB NAS drives in RAID 1 is < $1000 and would last them a long time. As far as computing power goes, even the most basic Core I3 with 8GB RAM and an SSD would perform quite well on those 20mp files. Transfer times would remain very low if they'd backup/handle the files incrementally during initial dump or processing instead of waiting to do so years later. It's also a moot point if (like a proper computer should be) automated backups were configured, since you'd not even notice the actions being performed.

There's tons of family images and vacation pictures out there which have faded from the shoebox days due to improper fixing, old dye technology, etc. Those are memories that people will never get back. Since people rarely print anymore, the future won't be much different since people tend to neglect their image storage devices. As an IT director, I run across issues a lot from clients and staff who suddenly need an image they had "years ago" stored on CD/DVD, old drives which won't spin up, and media they don't have means to access anymore. If they'd just kept up their storage once a year, they'd still have some of those images. The way I see it, taking time to do digital upkeep/modernization is no different than taking the time to carefully archive negs and prints back in the day. Those who don't have a process in place or want to spend the money probably don't see their images as that important...or do, but will find out later that the few shekels spent early on are less than recovering data later.

docholliday_sc001 wrote in post #19213574
For the hobbyist, a simple 2-drive Synology with 2 consumer grade 10TB NAS drives in RAID 1 is < $1000 and would last them a long time. ..

Agreed. And cheaper yet, a pair of 12TB WD externals is about $300.00 on sale,. I've not come close to filling one. (don't want to get into a debate here about back up strategy, obviously some choices are better than others. But talking about the amateur, just pointing out that the penny pincher can mirror or incrementally alternate backups to two affordable USB drives without any need for more costly solutions.)

Which is why it's been a great time to add dirt cheap additional high quality, lost and unique, recordings to our already excellent CD collections.

Wilt wrote in post #19213560
Because, like audiophiles, the 'best possible' crowd is limited in size and the masses are satisfied with less...and today they listen to MP3 files rather than 44-bit CD audio because they are satisfied with less, and thru 3" Bluetooth speakers.

An MP3 at 320K or V0 would be mostly higher quality than those "golden eared audiophiles" listening to streaming audio via Bluetooth, even with "hi-res streaming" and "AptX HD". It's what's acceptable to the end user, yes. But usually because they know no better. As a former studio engineer, we'd always take our mixes and listen to them on the worst car speakers going to dinner, just to be sure that our mixes would translate well for the worst-case-scenario. BTW, I think you meant 44KHz, 16-bit CD...

"Good enough" should really be "good enough, today". I'd bet that many of those hobbyists who are accepting of their images today will eventually look back at their old shots and cringe. Even as a working photographer, I look back at some of my early work that was acceptable to me (then) and loved by my client, but now I see it and think, "what was I thinking?".

Wilt wrote in post #19213560
Because, like audiophiles, the 'best possible' crowd is limited in size and the masses are satisfied with less...and today they listen to MP3 files rather than 44-bit CD audio because they are satisfied with less, and thru 3" Bluetooth speakers.

And then, my daughter heard one of her own favorite songs played on my 80s vintage stereo system...and was gobsmacked by all the tonality--even additional instruments--she had never heard before.

RDKirk wrote in post #19213588
And then, my daughter heard one of her own favorite songs played on my 80s vintage stereo system...and was gobsmacked by all the tonality--even additional instruments--she had never heard before.

That's hilarious! I have a friend who spent uber amounts of money on a "audiophile grade" system, just to be floored when he heard the same song, but on my much cheaper calibrated studio monitors. Price != quality.

It's Apple's fault, really, for selling them on what is acceptable vs. what is excellent, and because of their superb, superior corporate branding it all goes virtually unquestioned by most of their consumers.

Even in the audio world, there's the same "high megapixel" arguement... except it's the "lossless" 16/44.1 vs 24-bit/96KHz vs 32-bit/192KHz vs DSD argument. It's a narrow path which takes a quality recording, perfect enviroment, good (not golden) ears, and proper (not always the most expensive) playback gear to actually show a difference in the higher resolutions. The master file sizes become exponentially larger as you go up, as well as storage requirements and processing power. With live tracking, you also have to remember that the computer requirements are even more stringent than high MP imaging - the incoming data frames are time-sensitive, so you can't have glitches, stalls, and hangs on the computer!

It's no different than in imaging. Classical music genre people care more about the higher resolutions than metal people, just as studio/product/fashion people care more than portrait/landscape/wed​ding shooters in the working photo world - the formers have higher expectations by their "customers" than the latter.

I represent the casual hobbyist.

My first DSLR was a 20D. I bought it to take on my Honeymoon to the Masai Mara, Kenya. I joined this site at the time, to learn something about photography - indeed, the only photos I have ever shared here we from that trip!

I still have the 20D. The photos I printed from that camera I still have. I made larger canvas prints that still adorn our walls in a room at home.

I've never printed anything since.

Several upgrades later I had the 5DIV and 7D2. Then I moved to the R and much prefer Mirrorless. When I sold those cameras, I had taken less than 2000 shots on each...I shoot far more pics using my mobile and GoPro. I share mostly to social media for my family and friends who live around the World.

Now I have the R5. I prefer more megapixels when I can have that plus fast fps, which I want because I like wildlife photography. Which that camera delivers. I want the megapixels for no other reason than cropability. I never shoot RAW. I just cannot be bothered with post and all tweaks are done on my mobile nowadays. Photos are sent from my R5 to my mobile, tweaked, cropped (which happens lot), sent to Whatsapp and Instagram.

I've enjoyed Photography as a hobby since 2005 but my 'best' camera only really gets used on holidays, day trips etc. When I use it, it adds to the experience of the trip for me. High megapixel for better cropping results + fast fps + greater wow factor images differentiate it from my usual tools, my mobile, GoPro and also my Drone that I sometimes use.

docholliday_sc001 wrote in post #19213593
...

It's no different than in imaging. Classical music genre people care more about the higher resolutions than metal people,...

Just FYI, some of the "classical music people", even those with "golden ears" who have spent decades and dollars seeking high fidelity, are also the "metal people"

This mornings commute,

- Bare Naked Ladies
- Yo-Yo Ma,
- Andre Segovia,
- Billie Eilish,
- Slayer

But yes, exceptions aside, your point is valid.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19213959
Just FYI, some of the "classical music people", even those with "golden ears" who have spent decades and dollars seeking high fidelity, are also the "metal people"

This mornings commute,

- Bare Naked Ladies
- Yo-Yo Ma,
- Andre Segovia,
- Billie Eilish,
- Slayer

But yes, exceptions aside, your point is valid.

Yep, metal people are often as well trained and educated as classical musicians and singers. And occasionally better.

BTW, no Nightwish on your list yet? Symphonic metal band, although they go from hard to ballad to folk and celtic and anything in between, but always with a metal sauce.
About time you start with Ghost Love Score, live, from Wacken 2013 .
And take it from there.

Kind regards, Wim

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19213959
Just FYI, some of the "classical music people", even those with "golden ears" who have spent decades and dollars seeking high fidelity, are also the "metal people"

This mornings commute,

- Bare Naked Ladies
- Yo-Yo Ma,
- Andre Segovia,
- Billie Eilish,
- Slayer

But yes, exceptions aside, your point is valid.

Ha! On deck right now:
- Sarah Harmer
- Andrea Bocelli
- Sierra Hull
- Saint-Saëns
- Patty Smyth
- Megadeth
- Kay Hanley

To the three (so far) eclectic appreciators of music,

Just curious if...

1. your primary listening devices are earphones vs. speakers
   
2. if speakers, do they have drivers <6" or >=6"
   
3. if there is a subwoofer included in the speaker mix
   
4. if primary music source is MP3 or vinyl/CD or broadcast radio (FM/satellite)