Please comment briefly on how much resolution (in terms of megapixels) you think you'd need to get quality that matches your best present film camera.

Please comment briefly on how much resolution (in terms of megapixels) you think you'd need to get quality that matches your best present film camera.
6 megapixels
31% (30 votes)
8 megapixels
31% (30 votes)
10+ megapixels
39% (38 votes)
Total votes: 98

Neal Whitaker's picture

I have the Kodak DCS Back for my Contax 645 and the resulting prints from the 16 mega pixel chip are supurb.

D.  Miller's picture

6 MP is more than enough for me now since I don't make prints larger than 9x13.

Peter Eikenberry's picture

More than adequate for high resolution 8 X 10 and for publication.

Don Haines's picture

My clients aren't looking for huge enlargements but I'd still like to approach medium format even though most of my output only NEEDS to equal 35mm.

Jim Owens's picture

8 megapixels is enough to get the 8x10 (and larger) print quality I want. But 10 or more would allow better quality crops as well as 14x16 prints for those special keepers.

Wally Lubzik Photographer's picture

I just bought an 8MB camera. I got excellent results with 3&6 MB cameras. I shot billboards with both 3&6 MB. They are all Canons.

David G.'s picture

I can wait an extra day to get my negs scanned to get "digital". Do not need the quick turnaround like a photojournalist right now. If I need something bigger than an 11x14 no sweat. I'll keep film for now, the longer I wait the more for my money later. Anyone check out the price of a used D30? and how much did it cost brand new? Things are changing way to fast right now.

Scott H.'s picture

6 megapixels makes a great 8X10 and the file sizes are not outrageous. Having said that I have looked at the out put from a friends 11 megapixel Canon and the improvement in texture and detail is impressive. Cost is the big factor for me, as much as I would love to have the quality of the large sensor I need to learn the craft first and justify the higher end tools later.

R.  Stanley's picture

I've got a Canon Dig Reb & can easily make prints that rival film. Granted, I cannot make adequate wall-sized prints, but I also save a bundle on film & processing. That point alone is worth the film to digital switch.

Ed Sward's picture

If I could compose to full-frame I think 6 would do the job. However, when cropping, sometimes significantly, I would feel more comfortable with 8.

Maubo's picture

I think 6 is fine but the extra 2 from using the 8 affords me a crop option.

Mark's picture

Yeah, every pro DSLR shot I look at, is ok. Every pro film SLR shot, especially chrome, is outstanding.

Azrifel's picture

The quality of your image depends more on the quality of the lens used and the quality of your lighting.

Larry O'Shaughnessy's picture

Actually 6-8 mps would be OK because I rarely have enlargements over 8x10 to 11x14.

Krzysztof Borzycki's picture

Approximately 12 megapixel will be sufficient. I am scanning at 20 Megapixel now (35 mm film, 4000 DPI), but the actual capability of even the best 100 ISO films is somewhat lower.

Vincent Verno's picture

No matter how you look at it more megapixels is always better!!!

Grant Dickins's picture

I can get great 8x10 prints with my 5MP camera (Coolpix 5700)so thats all I need.

Buddy Jonkers's picture

Basically I like to print on large formats. These start at 20x25" but bigger is better. Well, not always, but certain photographs just look better when printed on large sheets of paper.

Rhonda's picture

Shooting in RAW mode and programs like Photoshop negate the need for anything larger than 6 megapixels.

Don Dutkowski's picture

A high quality 8X10X300ppi thats all I need for my Glamour Photography!

Anonymous's picture

Even though mine is only 6.1MP (D70) I would prefer 8 MP DSLR to match 35mm film photography that I do.

Vivid Impressions Photography's picture

Taking images in raw mode and using professsional quality optics have given great enlargements up to 8x10 and 11x14 in wedding work. Interested now in the lower priced 8 mega pixels from Canon.

Edgardo Real's picture

Using more than 8MP is an overkill and wastes so much space.

Ryan's picture

For most jobs, 6 is perfect, but occassionally more can be needed.

Tim Lemley's picture

I have a Fuji S7000 right now and the quality is excellent. I haven't had any printing done above 8x10's, so I haven't been able to check the quality with larger formats. I guess it's just like the computer push for faster and faster chips and larger memory.

Andrew Pike's picture

I'll likely be the last person on the face of the earth to change from film to digital. As far as I'm concerned, quality is paramount, and I feel that the quality of the slow slide films (Velvia 50, for example) is higher than that of digital.

Ed Truitt's picture

To replace my medium format cameras, I would estimate I would need 10-16 migapixels. Currently, I have a 6 MP camera, and it is OK for most of the work I do -- when I need higher resolution, or when I just feel like it, I use the med format camera and scan the film.

Ed Slanina's picture

I love digital because I learned more in 1 year then I knew in the last 20. You can teach an old dog new tricks.

Duane's picture

28-32 I need a FULL frame, 6 x 4.5 format with no magnification factor on my wide angle lenses. And I don't want to pay more than $5,000 for it! The digital rebel is about $166/Megapixel....

Robert Compton's picture

Shoot for magazines and need to do a fair amount of cropping. The output needs to be 300 dpi. Can get by with 8 megapixels, but prefer more.