Comments on: How many megapixels are enough?

By: Bozo

Bozo — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:02:17 +0000

Tonight, I feel the need to reply to an almost 2 year old thread …

All cameras come with the ability to shoot jpg with a lower setting

Funnily enough my canon a2200 which is 14 mp (to satisfy marketing) has a ‘medium’ setting which is 7mp. Funnily enough the IQ of the 7MP is about 99% the 14MP, so you can probably guess which size I use

My 14MP D3100 is also on medium setting – 8MP. This time again it’s about 98% of the IQ. You’d need to print this thing at least A2 and look at to see any difference, so I don’t bother and leave it at 8MP

At 100% the 14 MP shots just don’t look great, theres a degree of fuzz with both cameras. Those extra MP are generally not good pixels At 7/8 MP there is no fuzz and they look beautifully sharp at 100%.

Things like subject, lighting, composition and colour are a about a bajillion times more important to making good images than MP

By: Kort

Kort — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:24:36 +0000

Great article and loved reading through the comments. Sorry to find and comment on it so late.

Back in 2006 they thought the MP wars would come to an end, but it is still raging with tiny Point&Shoots churning out 14MP files. IMHO, unless you really need to print at a large size have some other specialized need, excess mega pixels just get in the way and sacrifice image quality and ease of file handling. My largest sensor is 10.1 MP and I am very happy shooting with an 8MP C8080wz. Like many others, I wish manufacturers would focus (pun intended) on dynamic range and higher ISO quality. And sooner than later I hope.

By: Sime

Sime — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:28:31 +0000

“How many megapixels are enough for what? The question is incomplete”

You answered it yourself – When you use the 30D for something that warrants it, it’s fine. So, I have that 5DMk2 now and like you, sometimes I still use the 30D.

–Sime

By: Jerome Paladino

Jerome Paladino — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:20:47 +0000

How many megapixels are enough for what? The question is incomplete. I have an 8 mp Canon 30D as well as a 12 mp 5D and an 18 mp 7D. I don’t hesitate to use the 30D when I know it will do. It’s still a fine camera and I have some fairly large prints from it that look fabulous. Camera’s are tools and the one you choose should be based on the job at hand. I would say at this point most of us already have more pixels than we really have a need for. Or maybe it would be best to say that more is better as long as image quality doesn’t suffer and you can select a variety of sizes to use?
Technology is great so long as it doesn’t get in the way of creativity.

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