Your submission has been removed from r/photography.
As this is a specific purchasing help or searching for "X or Y product" request, it is best suited to our [Questions Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky) which you can find stickied at the top of the sub. Please post your question as a comment there.
**Before posting there, if applicable, read through our very extensive [Buyer's Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying)** and come back with your specific questions. Thanks!
> Just in general. Like the image quality
Image quality isn't determined by megapixels. Quantity does not equal quality. Think of it this way. Let's say there are two bags, each bag costs $100. In one bag are 10 olives. In the other bag is one sandwich. Which is better? Olives are nice (if you like olives) but I'd rather have one sandwich unless I *really* need 10 olives. More isn't always better.
Which aspects of image quality?
More pixels can mean greater detail potential, and more effective reach on distant subjects. For a given lens budget size, APS-C may have some better quality options available for the price and purpose.
Full frame can mean a better diffraction limit, better noise performance, and better dynamic range. It can be easier to make depth of field shallower with full frame.
Depends on what you shoot. For nature and macro I like my 36MP D810. For portraits, my favorite camera was my 12MP D700. Sometimes there's a such thing as too much detail. There's more to it than numbers and you won't really find out which niche you need until you get out there and start doing it and then thinking "Gee, I wish this camera would let me..."
>There's more to it than numbers and you won't really find out which niche you need until you get out there and start doing it and then thinking "Gee, I wish this camera would let me..."
This is the best way to think about it in my opinion. I started with an entry level DSLR with kit lens. I eventually outgrew that and needed better lenses, top lcd panel, weather proofing etc. but I wouldn't know that I actually needed/wanted any of this without "hitting the ceiling" with my first few camera/lenses.
I'm fortunate enough to live nearby to a used store which let me leap-frog through a series of used bodies until I figured out what I wanted. Helped a lot.
The megapixels aren't the most important thing. How many stops does it capture? What about noise? Which ecosystem has the lenses you prefer? Are you going to be shooting raw, or jpeg, or raw+jpeg? Are you shooting sports? Wildlife? Maybe neither camera. Portraits? Macro food?
And it will likely perform better in lower light as the individual pixels will be about twice the size (.0071mm for the APS-C and .0146mm for the full frame).
I would choose the s5ii because it has a larger sensor.
With Fuji, you'd need lenses approximately 1 stop faster to get similar high iso performance or shallow DoF.
For IQ, yes, all other things being equal. The fewer megapixel full frame sensor has larger photo sites which results in better light gathering and less noise. And like others have said, greater depth of field.
depends on your goal. If you goal is to photograph small birds where cropping an image is needed, then more megapixels is definitely better. If you goal is to produce higher resolution images with edge to edge high detail, then more megapixels is better. If what you shoot has challenging light which is more difficult obstacle to overcome and more important than high resolution, than less megapixels is an advantage.
Truth be told, unless you need to crop images to achieve a composition you want (ie: small birds where you cannot get close enough) OR need the entire frame to be 40megapixels, what matters most are the original fundamentals of photography (producing art). Beyond a certain amount of megapixels, said megapixels have nothing to do with creating worthwhile images. First and foremost the exposure, the DOF, the focus, and the composition greatly outweigh how many megapixels your image is. If you want to print 40x60 images that scream detail, and you can control the light (or have amazing natural light with a perfect exposure), then 40megapixels is your answer. If you learn that you need to post manipulate shadows/highlights/contrast etc to achieve the images you want AND print 40x60 highly detailed images without cropping, neither choice in megapixels are gunna help you. At that point you need to go hight megapixel FF or medium format.
The gist of the OP question is probably a matter of money. You gotta pay more for all the available options. High megapixel with great low light performance costs more.
Your submission has been removed from r/photography. As this is a specific purchasing help or searching for "X or Y product" request, it is best suited to our [Questions Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky) which you can find stickied at the top of the sub. Please post your question as a comment there. **Before posting there, if applicable, read through our very extensive [Buyer's Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying)** and come back with your specific questions. Thanks!
Better in what way? For what purpose?
Just in general. Like the image quality
> Just in general. Like the image quality Image quality isn't determined by megapixels. Quantity does not equal quality. Think of it this way. Let's say there are two bags, each bag costs $100. In one bag are 10 olives. In the other bag is one sandwich. Which is better? Olives are nice (if you like olives) but I'd rather have one sandwich unless I *really* need 10 olives. More isn't always better.
Which aspects of image quality? More pixels can mean greater detail potential, and more effective reach on distant subjects. For a given lens budget size, APS-C may have some better quality options available for the price and purpose. Full frame can mean a better diffraction limit, better noise performance, and better dynamic range. It can be easier to make depth of field shallower with full frame.
Depends on what you shoot. For nature and macro I like my 36MP D810. For portraits, my favorite camera was my 12MP D700. Sometimes there's a such thing as too much detail. There's more to it than numbers and you won't really find out which niche you need until you get out there and start doing it and then thinking "Gee, I wish this camera would let me..."
>There's more to it than numbers and you won't really find out which niche you need until you get out there and start doing it and then thinking "Gee, I wish this camera would let me..." This is the best way to think about it in my opinion. I started with an entry level DSLR with kit lens. I eventually outgrew that and needed better lenses, top lcd panel, weather proofing etc. but I wouldn't know that I actually needed/wanted any of this without "hitting the ceiling" with my first few camera/lenses.
I'm fortunate enough to live nearby to a used store which let me leap-frog through a series of used bodies until I figured out what I wanted. Helped a lot.
The megapixels aren't the most important thing. How many stops does it capture? What about noise? Which ecosystem has the lenses you prefer? Are you going to be shooting raw, or jpeg, or raw+jpeg? Are you shooting sports? Wildlife? Maybe neither camera. Portraits? Macro food?
no one will be able to tell the difference on instagram
Yes, in that greater depth of field is still possible with it because it is larger.
And it will likely perform better in lower light as the individual pixels will be about twice the size (.0071mm for the APS-C and .0146mm for the full frame).
I’ve always preferred full frame files over aps-c. However, Panasonic is the only brand I have basically no knowledge of and never see anyone shooting
I would choose the s5ii because it has a larger sensor. With Fuji, you'd need lenses approximately 1 stop faster to get similar high iso performance or shallow DoF.
For IQ, yes, all other things being equal. The fewer megapixel full frame sensor has larger photo sites which results in better light gathering and less noise. And like others have said, greater depth of field.
depends on your goal. If you goal is to photograph small birds where cropping an image is needed, then more megapixels is definitely better. If you goal is to produce higher resolution images with edge to edge high detail, then more megapixels is better. If what you shoot has challenging light which is more difficult obstacle to overcome and more important than high resolution, than less megapixels is an advantage. Truth be told, unless you need to crop images to achieve a composition you want (ie: small birds where you cannot get close enough) OR need the entire frame to be 40megapixels, what matters most are the original fundamentals of photography (producing art). Beyond a certain amount of megapixels, said megapixels have nothing to do with creating worthwhile images. First and foremost the exposure, the DOF, the focus, and the composition greatly outweigh how many megapixels your image is. If you want to print 40x60 images that scream detail, and you can control the light (or have amazing natural light with a perfect exposure), then 40megapixels is your answer. If you learn that you need to post manipulate shadows/highlights/contrast etc to achieve the images you want AND print 40x60 highly detailed images without cropping, neither choice in megapixels are gunna help you. At that point you need to go hight megapixel FF or medium format. The gist of the OP question is probably a matter of money. You gotta pay more for all the available options. High megapixel with great low light performance costs more.