120MP Canon FF SLR showed off again yesterday

[Mikehit]

I take no offense, but my EXPERIENCE is that the larger pixels in the FF camera gave me substantially better image quality than a more pixel dense crop sensor of approximately the same MPs when hand held and using that particular lens. So, no I was not wrong. That was my experience and I reported it accurately.

Assuming you have two images framed the same and at the same output size, with the crop sensor camera you are magnifying the image more which makes it harder to get the same resolution especially with lenses of different generations.
If your premise were true it would fly in the face of people who say their 50MP 5DSR has more resolution than the 5Diii

 

[dak723]

If your premise were true it would fly in the face of people who say their 50MP 5DSR has more resolution than the 5Diii

What exactly is it about my fairly simple English sentences that is causing every person who has replied to misunderstand what I have written. I am not saying you need agree with me. I am not saying that you can't have different results. What I have said is twofold:

1) I think larger pixels in a FF camera will give you more resolution (or perhaps it is merely more sharpness) than the same amount of pixels in a crop camera using the same lens.

2) That, as pixels get smaller with increasing MPs, the resulting gains in resolution will be minimized by camera shake and possibly deficiencies in the lens's ability to resolve the details.

Of course, the 50MP FF camera has more resolution than the 22 MP 5D mark III. What I am saying is that - without using a tripod - you will not get the full benefit of the increased resolution. You may not get very much of that benefit - I am just guessing at the amount of benefit. For example: Let's say that when using a tripod with your 5DIII, you get the full benefit of those 22 MPs. Let's say that without a tripod, the small amount of camera shake might blur the image slightly, thus reducing the resolution to that of an 18 MP camera on a tripod. Now, we take our 50 MP camera and put it on a tripod. Let's say we get the full benefit of those 50 MPs. But now, due to pixels that are less than half the size, the amount of shake has a greater influence. Let's say that the 50 MP camera hand held, only gets the results of a 30 MP camera, hand held. Still more resolution, but not nearly as much as when using the tripod.

Again, this is just speculation, but is based on numerous comments from photographers and reviewers. I remember reading a number of reviews when Sony came out with their 36 MP FF sensor - comments such as "you need a tripod to get the full benefit of the new sensor, otherwise, hand-held, you may not notice any difference between the 36 MP sensor and a 24 MP sensor."

My premise is that as the pixels get even smaller - such as in a 120 Mp camera - the added benefit will also get smaller.

 

[Mikehit]

I fully understand the English you are using. It is the description of your experience that is puzzling me

without using a tripod - you will not get the full benefit of the increased resolution.

I agree with that completely - it is like putting a speed limiter on a sports car. But that does not sotp the 5DSR resolving more detail than the 5D3 or the 5D3 resolving more detail than the 5D2 (accepting this is made more complex by changing technologies between sensor generations).

Where your comments differ to those using the 5DSR is when you said

the larger pixels in the FF camera gave me substantially better image quality than a more pixel dense crop sensor of approximately the same MPs when hand held and using that particular lens.

Which reads to me that higher pixels giving a lower image quality being a simple fact of life.

I think larger pixels in a FF camera will give you more resolution (or perhaps it is merely more sharpness) than the same amount of pixels in a crop camera using the same lens.

I was not denying your experience but what I said was also true - those with the 5DSR have repeatedly said they get more detail out of the 5DSR even handheld.
But this is where there are so many variables. The bit in bold suggests that you have (to pluck numbers out of the air) 200,000 5D pixels imaging the eye of the model and you have 200,000 5DSR pixels imaging the eye of the model and the 5D will give better image quality. I generally agree as there is more per-pixel noise on the 5DSR and in theory this would hold if it were 200,000 5DSR pixels of 200,000 7D2 pixels.

But it also depends on how you use the camera and this is where making bald statements like 'higher pixel density gives lower image quality' seems strange. With wildlife you are often limited in where you can stand in relation to the subject so it is less about 'the same number of pixels' as 'shoot form a specific position' which gives more pixels on a particular part of the image.
In a lot of townscapes or landscapes you are limited to where you can stand to get a specific perspective so you change lens, not change position. Again this gives more pixels on any given subject.

Also, IME of comparing my 6D and 7D2 I have noted something that I have read in some reviews that the 7D2 has a tad more noise but resolves more detail which adds a bit of spice to the definition of 'image quality' and here everyone has their own limits/preferences.