Comments on: How many megapixels are enough?

By: DavidN

DavidN — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:31:20 +0000

Image file size challenges processing power and disk drive speed.

By: Chetaco

Chetaco — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:00:30 +0000

Eventually, cost and time will force a more conservative approach to image size and then the use of skills at the point of capture will far surpass the benifits of bulk. A good photo is a good photo.

By: Don Charles Nebeker

Don Charles Nebeker — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:46:00 +0000

I remember when no serious photographer would use 35mm, It was to small and low quality, a toy format. Later SLR’s would never become a professional product. Later no professional would ever use a zoom lens for still photography, movies, OK, but quality would never be good enough for stills. Digital was just another disaster, a toy for techie nuts, never to be used by any serious photographer.

It is time to admit the truth. Until every camera can be hand held or smaller, produce flawless stadium sized holographic pictures that are life realistic, freely manipulable, with quality that the eye, ear touch or other senses are not able to distinguish from the original, there is room for improvement. Even then, man will doubtless find enhancements to that. Any nabob can complain about the state of the art, pronounce it good enough, or unattainable. I would rather have a few dreamers with the vision and ability to take us to the future; the rest can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

By: DavidN

DavidN — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:58:48 +0000

A bird-spotter friend crops high-megapixel images in lieu of longer focal-length lenses.

But from my experience, without specialist need, 6Mp was the turning-point. I have more than adequate 18″ by 12″ images (definitely better than ‘pretty good’, Tao).

Rather, I’d appreciate development in other areas – noise and dynamic range, mainly. It will be a while before we get that – we’ve got to get beyond the hyperbole of full-frame sensors and fast auto-focus first.

By: Paul Collins

Paul Collins — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:21:32 +0000

hi ,everyone , I’m a pentaxian through and through, I used and still use a pentax film camera,I also have a K100d 6mp and a KM at 10.1 I think, the Km is a very good quality camera, however so is thyhe 6mp K100d, you know the old saying it’s not the camera but the person operating it makes the picture, if you only see snap shots and take them with an expensive camera, all you’ll have is expensive snapshots.
Paul

By: Tao

Tao — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:36:31 +0000

It is really depending on what you shoot for, for the print in 6×4 or 7×5. 6mp can give you pretty good output. But because of some bad skills, a lot people can only use part of that shot as final. In this case, no matter how much mp you have, it wont be enough. So just improve the skills, not rely on mp.

For mid print, like 30×20 inch, 12 mp can give fairly good result, but quite soft. 24.5mp is more prefered if I can afford Nikon D3X

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:22:05 +0000

Oh! I forgot to actually ANSWER the question as posed by the title of the post. I think for that average point and shoot consumer, 6mp is more than enough to take great pictures of friends and family, even vacations and have enough headroom to make that occasional 8×10 print.

For DSLR shooters, who tend to take more artistic photos’….10mp and the ablility to shoot RAW should satisfy most.

Just my opinion though! Definately the best pictures are made with creativity from a great photographer, I dont care if he’s using a cell phone camera. If you understand your equipment you can come up with a great image. Just like a great musician can make songs with sticks and rocks……

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:17:03 +0000

I love this topic because I feel that it is something that WAY to many beginners (and some NOT so beginners) get hung up on. The truth is as many have said here already, that megapixels DO matter, but more is not always better! It’s all about print size for most people (sure there is the density issue for the peepers) and size of print is generally dependent on the subject of the photos!

I have a short tip aimed at beginners on my blog , that advises to crank DOWN the megapixels for shots that are just going to land on Facebook…..it just makes the whole process faster and easier. You gotta think about your end use of the photo….. If you want to make huge prints then sure, you need the megapixels….but I would not advise printing an 11×17 of that shot of you doing beer bongs at frat parties… ;)

By: David Davis

David Davis — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:40:29 +0000

Thanks for the information, was needed!

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:49:57 +0000

smatt talks about great glass, then buys a Nikon… ;o))

BTW, I dragged my new 5D2 through all the shit, snow and rain we’ve had here in the last couple of weeks and it has worked without fail. Are you picking up on the story of the four 5D2’s that failed in Antarctica? Please note the location – ANTARCTICA – not exactly the normal shooting conditions one might expect to find, is it…

And you NEVER post process and ALWAYS have the right lens available ALL the time and manage to frame every shot perfectly.

Blimey, you must be the greatest photographer of all time. Well done.