How many megapixels would be enough for you?

I know we say megapixels are not all that - but, how many would you actually like

Well - we have 14.2 on th a350, and I am quite happy with that....but I am looking to upgrade to the a700 (5fps instead of 3fps) I didn't look at the mp to be honest, but I did notice the a900 has 24mp!

its all relative to the size of the sensor and what type of sensor it is. So pixels don't matter unless in the right configuration to the sensor used. It's that simple? No, no really, there are many other variables to consider.

A very good example of the problem with megpixal chase is the Canon 40D & 50D. the canon 50D has a greater megapixal count than the 40D but the noise shown in the image is less in the images taken with the 40D than the 50D.

So the chase for megapixals can, and does, result in more noise.

BUT go to FF and the 21 megapixals are spread over a far greater area and therefore have to be amplified less resulting in less noise.

So my answer to the question would be, depends on the size of the sensor.

Steve

Agree with the above - If I'm being silly though - I would like one of these - so it's not good at high ISO - but damn it takes some good photos <3:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...nnounced.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...us-field.shtml

Oh yes I would. With one of these (to make the fabulousness above even better! ):
http://www.mamiya.com/products/default.asp?ID=34

Of course, that's just being an idiot - because I will *never* have that sort of money to spend on photography, unless I become the next Annie Liebovitz or Nigel Barker perhaps

Sooo... being realistic - I would like an upgrade on the D700 - and for it to have about 15-20 MP. I'm happy with that, that's as many as anyone needs really. The main thing is, it depends on the sensor.

xx

I don't really understand what this pixel thing actually means lol! Can someone explain please
Becky

Pixels are the receptors of light, the tiniest elements of a picture. The sensor of a camera has millions of them all recieving individual light values as focussed on it by the lens. So effectively the picture the camera sees is focussed on the millions of pixels and the camera stores all the individual bits of information each pixel tells it it has.

Early digital cameras had maybe .5 million, then 1 million, now most compact cameras have around 8 million, many digital SLR's have 10, or even up to 24 million. Generally the more megapixels you would argue the camera is capable of resolving finer detail, i.e. more pixels packed into the same surface area you would get finer detail as the pixels would be smaller. However it's not as straightforward as that, smaller pixels bring their own set of issues, usually something called 'image noise', and the overall sensor size makes a big difference. So, as an example, 12 million pixels crammed into a 'half frame' sensor may not perform as well as 12 million pixels in a 'full frame' sensor i.e. a larger area. Again there are issues as increased pixel density can also have advantages.

Megapixels aren't everything, if it was you still wouldn't be seeing professionals happily walking around with aged Nikons like the D2H/D2X etc. and these are still sought after cameras. You will find people quite happily making A3 prints off these cameras and selling them for library and newpaper work and would sooner have them than a D300. These are people that make their livelihood from photography. At the end of the day it's what suits your need, what you are happy with. I was considering a change to a D700 but it's not for resolution or more megapixels. However, I wouldn't really want to change and find I was already outdated as such. The 24MP sensors are catching on and the new 5D seems to be setting a standard and noticeably better resolution (and maybe quality, but I am not saying that) over the D700.

This is the very first digital image I snapped with one of the first digital cameras available (Kodak DC210) Only 1.3 megapixels

A similar thread from Oct 2007

http://www.yophotographer.com/page.p...ht=mega+pixels

To answer the question though - I'm more that happy with what my 40d produces.

Perhaps I should have included this in the post about 'full frame' DSLRs but I thought it worthy of it's own thread as it was a good example of why more mega pixels isn't always best.

The new Canon EOS 1DS MarkIII is a mind blowing 21MP and about £6500

I was one of those folk that subscribed to the more MP the better however having spoken to a Pro photographer friend of mine (and then seen this article) I thought it worth a mention.

Quote from the mag.....

"A benefit of having fewer megapixels is the increase space available for each pixel on the sensor. Each 'light well' (whatever they are) can collect much more light which will result in much better low light performance.

So - it's horses for courses I guess but it's nice to be told that sometimes less (cost) can be just as good for certain things.

When DSLR's got to 6 MegaPixels I think we achieved an equivalence with 35mm Film in terms of resolution (although Dynamic Range still has a way to go)

I upgraded from my 300D to my 30D purely for three reasons.

1. Functions, they left a lot of stuff out of the 300D.
2. Speed, man the 300D was slow, zooming in photos was sooo slow, and after taking 4 or 5 images you would have to wait a while to shoot again
3. Screen Size.

Increased MP was not an issue. When I upgraded to the 5DMk11, again it was really for one reason, Full Frame, it's cheaper to upgrade to a FF body than it is to buy stupidy wide lenses

Again, MP was not an issue. For most people, 6-8 MP is more than enough, and with modern printing techniques you can still print bigger than you are probably going to need.

An DSLR you buy now will almost certainly have more MP than you probably need, so don't go buying x over y just because of MP count.

Alan.