Panasonic LX100 How many pixels do you really need ?

LX100. Handheld, edited in Adobe Camera Raw

Canon recently announced  a pair of full frame DSLRs each having 50 megapixels. Presumably this will give Canon a bit of an edge in the Canon vs Nikon pixel race.

It reminds me of the not-so-good old days of motor car marketing when makers competed to have the most cylinders or greatest horsepower.

Eventually car owners discovered that more power does not necessarily make for a better vehicle and might make it worse and that safety, reliability, economy, ride and handling are all more important for most drivers most of the time.

I recently made the photo above with my little Panasonic LX100. After a bit of cropping and perspective correction in Photoshop it has 9.6 Megapixels.

I printed it up to an actual picture size of 390 x 585mm. It looks just fine on the wall, sharp and clear with excellent detail, color and tonal gradation.

Most photographers, most of the time do not need 50 Mpx.

On the day, I shot a series of photos at this location,  hand held,  changing the aspect ratio for different compositions.  I spent about 10 minutes in this little forest and came away with several photos which I find pleasing.

Could I have made a ‘better’ photo with a camera having more pixels ?

Better for what ?

I would certainly have spent a great deal more money on the gear which made the shot and probably used a tripod, thereby slowing down the whole process. That in itself might not be such a bad thing but I was travelling and had a destination to reach that day.

I think very high pixel counts are over rated and are not a good basis by which to compare the merits of one camera with another.