I have both a 33 MP camera and a 61 MP camera; I am CONSTANTLY trying to figure out which camera to make my main camera as they both have strengths. I am starting to think I like less MP because at 100% I get less motion blur. I have to shoot with a faster shutter speed hand held with the 61 MP to get the same amount of sharpness as the 33 MP camera if I want it sharp at 100%.
I noticed if I took the 33MP image, with less motion blur and used Adobe Super Resolution in Lightroom, it changes it to 128 MP and the image is sharper at slower shutter speeds than the 61 MP camera.
Also, the 61 MP camera seems to only give an advantage in detail if you do shoot at fast shutter speeds, are on a tripod, or under ISO 800 or so.
So, I'm trying to decide when to use which. I noticed this because I bought the A7RIV for photos and later on I bought the A7IV planning to ONLY use it for video, due to 10 bit 4k and 4k 60FPS. But each time I took a photo with it I noticed two things, less motion blur at 100%, (although it has 25 percent less resolution, it looks sharper,) and that my photos seemed to look sharper more often because the AF system seems to be far better. There are other things it has that I really like as well.
Is there any disadvantage in using Adobe Super Resolution? Some people told me it leaves artifacts but so far I have not seen any artifacts. Keep in mind I've only tried it with the newest most updated version of Lightroom Classic. I hear there are better upscale software programs though, does anyone use them?
Of course there is the advantage of 30mb per picture vs 130mb.
I also notice that it seems to be the lens that matters when it comes to details even more than pixels.
When I had the 5D DSLR's, I remember it was a HUGE jump in detail and sharpness when I got better lenses.
Some people say the motion blur thing isn't true because if you put them the same size it should be the same but if you're going to put them the same size, then what is the point in using the high MP camera? If I am using 61 MP I want it to be tact sharp at 100%. And this seems harder to do handheld and the lenses also start mattering even more. Especially because I only have IBIS none of my lenses have IS.
People who shoot birds use fast shutter speeds and have IS on a lot of their lenses working with IBIS.
I'd really like to hear peoples opinions on this and why you choose less megapixels or more megapixels. I have HEARD it's not good to have more than 50 megapixels on a full frame sensor and you should go up to medium format but I'm not a science guy so I've never looked far into those details.
I know that I've had 20 MP before and was able to print extremely large or crop a lot, as long as I was using sharp glass.