The Megapixel Race: Do We Really Need 100MP Sensors in Consumer Cameras?

How many megapixels is too many? This is the question that both camera manufacturers and consumers have been asking for decades. It is a question that has historically been difficult to answer, particularly considering the rapid pace that technology has made, but thankfully today the answer is not so ambiguous. Modern hardware has allowed us to push pixels into a new dimension, yet for the most part there seems to be a consensus that the benefits of video and photo content captured in resolutions above 4K are marginal at best. Despite this, camera manufacturers have shown no sign of stopping the megapixel train, and the hype around higher resolutions is continually pushed in pursuit of profit. Of course, it was Kodak who got the ball rolling in the late eighties as technology progressed, and while they may seem an easy target thanks to their ever-declining popularity, they are still the company responsible for creating the megapixel race to begin with.
 
In 1986, Kodak announced that development of the world’s first digital sensor had begun, a sensor that would not only be small enough to fit into a handheld camera, but also capable of capturing an eye-watering 1.4 million pixels. That may sound like a lot, but that is less than two megapixels. In the modern world, such a low resolution seems laughable, but at the time it was a significant breakthrough in the evolution of digital photography. Rival companies like Canon and Nikon quickly took note, and the race to reach the highest megapixel count had begun. Today, nearly four decades later, modern cameras are not only capable of reaching 100 megapixels, but some are actively surpassing them. The medium format Fujifilm GFX100 II for example, has a native resolution of 102 megapixels per image, and uses cutting edge pixel shift technology to kick the resolution up to a whopping 400 megapixels. And in the videography department, it can record footage at a staggering 8K 30 frames per second. But unless you plan on shooting a Hollywood movie, there is really no need for that level of clarity.
 
On the other hand, the Phase One XF IQ4 is currently the highest native resolution camera you can buy, with 151 megapixels per image, and whilst this provides some truly breathtaking images, it’s £43,000 price tag is sure to guarantee it will never reach most photographers hands. Meanwhile, the Sony A7R V is currently the highest resolution camera with a full-frame sensor and is also significantly more attainable, costing around £3,000 and boasting a 61-megapixel sensor that again, can be bumped up to 240 megapixels via pixel shift. But with images containing this much information, you will also need plenty of storage space, because high-resolution files are exceptionally large. That goes double if you are editing video files, because a computer capable of editing 4K video without constant slowdown and playback stutter will need to be a relatively high-end one.
 
Clearly then, there is indeed a market for consumers that want a higher pixel count in their cameras and smartphones, no doubt driven by social media platforms like YouTube and Instagram which can now display images in their native resolution thanks to improved compression rates over the years. For many years though, this wasn’t the case. For example, during the early years of video and photography platforms like YouTube and Instagram, lower bitrate codecs like H.264 were used to compress the images being uploaded. In 2003, this newly released codec offered a fair balance between quality and file size, especially as the resolution of cameras and camcorders around this time were significantly lower than the high-end hardware available to us today. As sensor sizes increased however, much of the added clarity in video and photo was lost due to the lower bitrate image compression, which is hwy many videos and photos on Instagram’s early days looks so pixelated and blurry. But in 2013, newer codecs like H.265 were designed with higher-resolution content in mind, offering much better image compression resulting in sharper, stronger visuals.
 
But what about strictly photography? Well, while it is fair to assume that the benefits of a 100-megapixel sensor are predominantly exaggerated, that is not to say that there aren’t benefits to having those extra pixels on hand in certain situations. For example, an image with over 100 megapixels can be cropped, enlarged and printed with significantly less loss of detail when compared to the same image shot at 25 megapixels. This is predominantly why large billboard adverts are shot at around 100 megapixels, but this is a very specific case. So, for the average consumer, a higher pixel count is rarely needed, particularly to those who won’t be printing and displaying their images at five times their original size. There is also a growing number of photographers who have indicated that they would prefer camera companies to focus on other aspects of camera design – such as shutter speed, weight, ergonomics and ISO quality to name a few, as opposed to simply squeezing as many pixels as they possibly can into one device. To many photographers, these are areas where there is still plenty of room for equally sustained levels of innovation and improvement.
 
In conclusion, unless you plan on shooting still subjects that will be framed in a gallery or displayed on the side of a huge billboard to advertise a luxury fashion house, then there is just simply no need to purchase a 100-megapixel camera. Generally speaking, a camera with around 30 megapixels can yield fantastic results when held in the right hands, and keeping in mind that the average smartphone sensor is 54 megapixels, there is a compelling argument to be had for the need for consumers to purchase a digital camera with resolutions higher than this, as we have seen that modern devices are now equally as effective in capturing images in high fidelity. So, does the average photographer require a 100-megapixel sensor? Certainly not, though there’s nothing to stop them from trying.