How many mpixels is enough?

When is the megapixel battle going to end, and does it serve the photographer or the camera companies. I think too many of us fall into the trap that the more the merrier, when in reality, 20 mpix does not lead to a better photo than 10. The human eye cannot appreciate more than about 275 megapixels per inch, more than enough for an 8x10 image. Any larger print will be viewed from a further distance and therefore require even fewer ppi. National Geographic told there photographers they can use any digital camera they want, as long as it does not exceed 6 mpix. All that is required to produce quality photos is an 8 to 10 mpix camera with with only three settings: manual, aperature priority and shutter priority. The rest is fluff that only lines the pockets of Nikon, Canon, etc.

Do you mean does not exceed or is not lower than?

"275 megapixels per inch, more than enough for an 8x10 image"

It depends on your circumstances, your products and your needs. We've used nothing but digital for the last 10 years in our studio and other commercial shooting. We completely wore out four Fuji S2's in the first six years, regularly producing prints up to 30" with great success (in $$$ terms, not pixel peeping). That was a 6mp camera.

We went big time four years ago, upgrading to the Nikon D2X. Similar results with files that were roughly twice as large. It's 12mp.

If you're shooting wildlife there might be a huge advantage if a 20+ mp camera allowed you to "magnify" images for 8x10 repro via crops, rather than stretching lenses. If some clients specify a minimum file size in native capture, you might be aced out of those market simply because too small files come off your 12mp or 6mp camera. No reflection of image quality, but of market requirements. And if there was anything innate in the larger sensor that provided improved low light function or other image characteristics not achievable with smaller sensors- without respect for the eventual print size- the 20+ mp camera would keep you in the game.

Let's face it. For most casual uses a 6mp pocket camera would serve all of us very well. But extreme conditions or extreme output requirements can overwhelm the capabilities of a small pocket camera. It's a question of whether you want to prepared for those conditions and turn out files that won't be precluded from some markets. That's part of the dream for many folks, rather than any realistic hopes of photographing snow leopards in the wild or winning the Pulitzer with their photos.

Besides all that, you look really cool and are the envy of fellow photo geeks when carrying the latest, most expensive models!!!!

I don't know where you think you are going, with this post, but let's just stick to the facts. In general, how large you wish to print, at what resolution, and taking into consideration the viewing distance generally dictates what size source file is best. 6 megapixel rezzed up and on a billboard from 1000 feet away, great. 60 megapixel source file printed 40x60 inches and viewed from inches away, also great.
Different horses for different courses. There is no "enough". I photographed wildlife (birds) for a while with a 1Ds3, because I wanted "throw-away pixels" to crop with. I hadn't counted on the noise that camera would give at ISO 800 in low light conditions, so I changed back to a 1D3. (21 Mpix>10Mpix). In this case, less was more.
If I could have shot wildlife all the time, at the shutter speeds I required but in low ISO, I would have kept the 1Ds3....

On a more quantitative level, there are possible advantages to going to ever higher pixel counts. Whether or not anyone really needs more pixels is a subjective thing though. Here's a good little article by Ctein on The Online Photographer about why digital camera will likely go to hundreds of megapixels.

And aside from the resolution points Ctein makes, there are also a lot of interesting things you could do with lots and lots of pixels, like binning, and different types of filtering (non-bayer array), and super high speed at high res, etc.

Last year I went to a lecture by a National Geograhic photographer. He used a Canon 1Ds Mark III - 21.1 MP.

All I want is for Canon to maintain one single line of pro or pro-sumer body that continues to upgrade pixel technology without adding more and more pixels. The 5D would have been the logical line there, since its noise performance at 12 Mp on a full-frame sensor was wonderful, but Canon already screwed that up.

So take the sensor of the 1D3 and for the 1D4 incorporate the pixel/sensor/processor advances since then (like what's in the 7D) and leave it at, say 12 Mp, a very modest pixel increase that, with the newer pixel techs, should produce files with about as much (or less) noise as the current excellent 1D3 files. Since the 1D3 was essentially developed for fast-action such as sports, where burst rate is often key, smaller files will also allow the camera to continue to make advances in burst rate.

Sure, let the ever-increasing megapixel world be your oyster, and I fully agree there are some really big advantages to big Mp counts, and Hank's points are well taken. I just spent two weeks with the 1Ds3 and was thrilled by the ability to crop away a lot of pixels and still end up with pretty large files. But there's plenty of room in the Canon lineup to serve both masters. Since Canon listened to a lot of consumer feedback in weighing which options to put on the 7D, maybe they'll respond to concerns about noise.

Maybe.

"National Geographic told there photographers they can use any digital camera they want, as long as it does not exceed 6 mpix"

I have never heard of such a thing and have trouble believing there is any validity to that comment.

I guess I'm thinking further ahead than the next couple of generations of cameras with my last comment. When you eventually get enough pixels and good enough surrounding components, you'll be able to do cool things; You'll likely be able to have your, say, 100 MP sensor, produce a noiseless ISO 51200 12 MP image. The freedom to choose things like that is what will be gained (I hope).

"The human eye cannot appreciate more than about 275 megapixels per inch"

Maybe pixels per inch is what you meant? And maybe dpi would be a better way to say it.

In any case, what if you're not shooting for the human eye, but for some greater purpose?

I'm a strong believer in good enough, but I appreciate the visionaries. Without them, I'd be scratching pictures in the dirt and saying, "good enough."

Pete D.

I'm a strong believer in good enough, but I appreciate the visionaries. Without them, I'd be scratching pictures in the dirt and saying, "good enough."

I think that's a good point Pete. From the current standpoint, cameras like the D3 are great, with "enough" resolution, and fantastic other attributes.

But I'm guessing that in a few years people will be saying "remember when we thought we only needed 10 or 20 megapixels?" And beyond that, people may be saying, "remember when you had to worry about how many pixels you had?"

I really don't know where that National Geographic quote came from, assuming that it is even vaguely recent. From what I have seen, there hasn't ever been a true 6 megapixel DSLR on the market with better image quality than anything currently made. It is not just pixel count but also pixel qualilty and we have come a long way in the latter in the last 6-7 years.

From what I have seen, there hasn't ever been a true 6 megapixel DSLR on the market with better image quality than anything currently made.

Agreed.

Megapixels seem to be easier to increase than it is to increase something somewhat more useful such as dynamic range. It's also a concept that the general public seems to easily grasp. Me, I'm wanting ever more high ISO performance & increased dynamic range.


Kent in SD

I agree with Kent - I'd be happy with 10 MPs for my use, but would surely appreciate lower noise at higher ISOs. Seems like (unfortunately) that when it comes to digital cameras, "progress" is measured primarily in megapixels.

I agree with Kent - I'd be happy with 10 MPs for my use, but would surely appreciate lower noise at higher ISOs. Seems like (unfortunately) that when it comes to digital cameras, "progress" is measured primarily in megapixels.

Agreed (though I do like my mp's... printing big is nice). Hopefully canon's backward step in mp's in the G11 and S90 are signs of change!

I've found the Canon 1D Mark III to be an excellent cam with respect to noise levels.
The APS-H sized sensor has a lot to do with it I suppose..So I'm always suspect when they try & cram 18 + into a APS-C size..
I shoot regularly up to ISO 1600 for my wildlife (I attached a ISO 1600 shot), where the noise just becomes evident.
But easily managed.
Sure, a few more mp's would be great..But for my purposes, it has served me very well over the past two years.
I've printed GF images up to 16x24 with excellent results. The best results when resampling, come from images that have good original sharpness, and the lower ISO range of course..

Besides, I paid so much for the darn thing, can't afford to upgrade right now if i wanted too

I enjoyed reading the debate,
Have a great Sunday everyone!