Please comment briefly on the megapixel horserace as you see it.

Please comment briefly on the megapixel horserace as you see it.
I don't see the need for such large file sizes.
65% (251 votes)
The more MP the better.
24% (93 votes)
I am not sure how many MP would be right for the work I want to do.
10% (40 votes)
Total votes: 384
Share | |
COMMENTS
Gene Sellier's picture

My current 12MP seems more than adequate. Still using 6MP camera also.

Ron Smith's picture

Camera manufactures are changing the way their eqipment porcess the image. This quite evident in the last year with Nikon,Canon, Sony and Pentex. All have improved the PROCESSORS. Those of us who shoot raw will be over loaded with 70mp and todays software that is used to process the images will not handel the increse in the mp load, let alone the hardware. I see camera manufactures improving the processing of the information and stopping the mp rise. Optimum MP should stop between 21mp and 26mp. Increase in the MP means increase in the cost of the camera beyond the pocket book of most photographers, even the professional.

Ian Lozada's picture

At this point, the only winners are the hard drive manufacturers.

Robert J.  Cardone's picture

Am I shooting billboards? No. It becomes a gimmick for most photographers. How much horsepower is enough? For most it's bragging rights. Are there projects that MIGHT need 20+? OK, I'm sure there are but unless you have someone else paying for your equipment...I don't think most folks need anywhere over 10 to 12. Just my humble opinion.

Steve Sackmary's picture

The number of MP - for me - has to do with the size of prints that I wish to make. As one scales up to - say 30" x 40" - 20+ MP makes sense, but only if the resolution of the lens and image capture chip and software are compatible for high resolution.

John Frost's picture

More is always better assuming that noise is kept in check. The higher the MP, the greater the crop factor.

Smokey's picture

There is always a trade-off in every engineering design feature.

Rod Shoemaker's picture

14 MP is plenty. More would be useful if I were shooting for outdoor roadside billboards

Jim Heath's picture

Up to the point that more MPs won't give me more resolution.

Woody Stephens's picture

If I made my living with photography, I might need 20+MP, but as a hobbyist, travel photography mostly, anything more than 8-12MP seems to be over doing it.

Robert Kaye's picture

My most used digital cameras are 10.1mp. I usually downsize to 5 or 7mp. Specialty cameras probably need to go into the 30s and 40s mp but for general photography 10 0r 12 mp seems to be sufficient.

Joel Pope's picture

At what point does the resolution of the sensor surpass that of the very best lenses?

Raymond J.  Heemstra's picture

Image stabilization would be key to enlargements of crops, which could take advantage of the larger MP cameras. At 82, the handheld lens is not quite so stable lately.

D.  A.  Hefler's picture

The processing and editing would be much slower and production times need to increase. The question is would it make a difference in the finished product? I don't think so.

Wally Lubzik's picture

I did photos for billboard use using 3 and 6 megapixel cameras (Canon).

Thomas's picture

I think consumers are getting killed on depreciation when we don't need any bigger chips. Companies keep making bigger newer camera at to fast a pace.

R.  A.  Suomala's picture

More MP probably means more noise in the sensor. A scanned LF film image is a better choice if extremely large prints are required.

Fred Hutchinson's picture

I made this selection because "More" is always better, right??? I can see the difference between 3MP and 10MP, but I'm not sure about the difference between 20MP and 25 or 30MP.

Ken Porter's picture

Less noise & 10MP would benefit me much more than the current MP race. I'd also like to see a standard RAW format.

L.  MacIntosh's picture

Its the old story , My gun is bigger than, Yours , So now I have to build a larger gun ?? Darn few people will benifit from this larger , for the rest of us we Learn to use our cameras and equipment to its fullist and get the most out the equipment :

Bill Romano's picture

The only problem is the time it takes to process these huge images in today's computers. But all the bodies I work with give recording size/quality options and it's easy to set the camera to record about the number of pixels you need. Every once in a while I'll take a shot that I wished could have been at a higher resolution but that's life. Five (two?) years ago, a 5M pixel image would have been tough to handle. Now it's a 20M pixel image. In 2 years we'll be about to work with much larger images, the best of all worlds.

Chuck Cressman's picture

If two aspirin are good, are twenty aspirin ten times as good? How many people today will ever have the need to make a 20x24" or larger print? Let the horse race end and let the manufacturers take up the noise reduction race.

John's picture

The best answer is yes and no, because it really has to do with what the particular end result is for the shoot. Also how good the RAW files hold up under PP. Some RAWs you can enlarge very well, other brands seam to begin to fall apart early. It isn't currently needed by me for most of my shoots, but 20MB would be outstanding for my landscapes and some portraits.

Jeff D.'s picture

Depends on how large you want to print or if you do a lot of cropping. With the continuing lower cost of memory and storage I guess the bigger the better. The way the image is processed by the camera is probably even more important than the pixel count.I'm still happy with the results I'm getting with my 10MP Nikon, for now anyway.

Doug Wigton's picture

I think there are various "sweet spots" for cameras with different sensor sizes. APS-C cameras may have hit the "sweet spot" at 8-10 mpix. Full frame probably has a "sweet spot" at 12-16 mpix. Look at the popularity of the Nikon D3/D700. People are buying them because they have a "sensible" number of mpix, along with stellar ISO capabilities and fast shooting rates. Mpix need to balanced with sensitivity and noise issues.

Rex Jordan's picture

I have two 3mp cameras, one 6mp dslr camera and one 8mp camera. All three make great 8x10's. If you want 20x30's or larger than 10 or more mp's is better but 11x14's or less the lesser mp cameras are all you need.

Jack H.'s picture

10-12 Mpx is enough to make quality 12 X 12 album prints, or 11 X 14 framed prints. I don't see any need beyond that.

Tom F.  Bryant's picture

I don't need more than 12MB. I compose conservatively and thus, usually avoid cropping.

James S Mattson's picture

I have not purchased a digital SLR for at least two reasons, the first being lack of resolution. I can get much better res by scanning film. So, more pixels would be an improvement. That still leaves inadequate color depth (8-bit is silly; 12-bit is better; 16-bit would be better yet) and inadequate contrast range. Given the astronomical prices "high-end" digital SLRs sell for, I can shoot a lot of film with my old cameras and lenses. (Digital is good for birthday parties and Halloween, though.)

William Baker's picture

Except for those photographers who may need a lot of megapixels for extra-large photos, I really don't see the need for more than 10 to 14 MP or so. Hey, I've seen some really great photos taken with 4 MP point-and-shoot cameras. As I always like to say, it ain't the camera or the megapixels, folks, it's the personal eye of the person taking the shot that makes for great photographs.

Pages

X
Enter your Shutterbug username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Loading