How Many Megapixels Are Enough?

[Chaney1970]

I also remember reading commentators like Thom Hogan saying that upping megapixels demands more rigourous shooting technique (e.g. more use of a tripod) to get optimum results from a higher megagpixel camera.

It is more forgiving to shoot with a lower megapixel camera: common errors (camera shake) don't show up nearly as much.

I'm sure Thom also said that to get the optimum results from high megapixel camers...you need to be using much more expensive, high end lenses. Otherwise the camera will show all the kit lenses flaws, and not resolve as much detail as the sensor is capable of.

This kind of backs up what I said earlier, that high megapixel DSLRs (12 mp plus) are fine for professionals with the genuine need and for them. They will also be using the right technique and expensive lenses...but are not necessary for the average amateur/enthusiast photographer.

 

[TechOutsider]

Ideally, manufactures would stop advertising the actual pixel count of the sensors - e.g. 16 MP - and apply some adjustable noise reduction in camera and then downsize the 16 MP image to something manageble such as 10 MP in the end.

Adjustable as in the option of extra smooth images for certan consumers or a bias towards detail preservation for other consumers .

In current cameras, the 14 or 16 MP aren't being put to good use. They quite frankly don't look appealing at 1:1 ratios in poor lighting, but with noise reduction and downsizing, the output can be much better.

Noise reduction beats bigger pixels, and downsizing so consumers won't open up a 16 MP file, blow it up to 1:1, and be horrified by the noise without understanding that if they blew up their previous 4, 8, or 10 MP camera's output to the same size, it would look even more appalling.

I agree. Manufactures are still fixated on pixel counts. Give us a 16 MP camera, but have it only produce quality 10 MP images. Put the extra pixels to use!

My whole argument is that more MP provide more "IQ Options" in the words of Joseph James/"Great Bustard." Current cameras' output can be worlds better with effective noise reduction tunable to a consumer's needs and downsizing so people can readily visualize the improvements from one sensor generation to the next.

That sound like a good idea?

For 99.9% of users, a ridiculous strategy singling out mega pixels as a camera's key selling point is making photography less...not more convenient for ordinary users.

Why should I have to keep upgrading my memory cards, computer hardware and software to process ever increasing file sizes, when 6 MP in a compact and 12 MP in a DSLR was all I ever needed?

Keeping down visual noise ("hey, why are my pictures all speckly and weird?) is a key part of getting quality images. Why should I have to downscale images to view them, or go to all the trouble of having to apply noise reduction? The average person will just look and see more noise, and enjoy their photos less. And heavy noise reduction can give an artificially 'shrink wrapped' look to images.

The fact that for their premium compact line, Canon went down from 15 mp with the G10 to 10 mp with the G11 speaks volumes. I hope more manufacturers will follow this sensible philosophy and end the mega pixel race.

Yes, I see the need for the D3x and it's successors. But only a tiny fraction of professionals need that high mp capability.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider

 

[RobertSigmund]

I have seen that 12 MP (EOS 5 D) are sufficient for 44 inches prints.
I do not consider Megapixel count anymore since.

 

[lightmagic]

I had the 1DII for 5 years and very happy with it. Like you I have 20x30 and even larger prints from this camera. But I was originally started out with Nikon. so when D3, 12MP came out, I jumped for it and never regreated it. I do shoot Wildlife but deep down I prefer landscapes. If 1DII gave good prints 20x30, D3 give me great ones, even bigger, specially when you have to crop abit. I am so much happy with D3 that I am ready to buy D4 with 30MP? Why? so that I can get even greater prints.

--
The Lightmagician
Sun is my eye
Winds my breaths
Sky my open Mind.
MTFBWY
http://www.lightmagical.com

 

[TechOutsider]

The above the posts relate more megapixels with high-quality prints at greater sizes.

That is one application, however more megapixels have other applications too.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider

 

[Roger99]

I took a 3.5 MP Canon A75 up to 34" one time out of curiosity with great crisp results. I wouldn't recommend it all the time as it was a perfect file as far as the camera went but I haven't been quite so precious about pixel counts since. Still it is easier to reduce your needs from what you have than try to stretch data that you have to invent. (pardon my convoluted perspicacity :| )

I have seen that 12 MP (EOS 5 D) are sufficient for 44 inches prints.
I do not consider Megapixel count anymore since.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

The one serious conviction one should hold is that nothing should be taken too seriously.
...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

 

[pjw32]

Over the years I have gone from canon S40 to pentax Optio555 to Ricoh CX1,ie from 4 to 5 to 9 mega pixels and with each camera I have produced excellent (at leased in my opinion) !9x13 prints. So to me the question of Mega Pixels and print size, surprisingly, is irrelevant

 

[Laurentiu Todie]

shoot fine lace
(you don't have to, but some people do)
the OP doesn't mention your needs by name : )