How many Megapixels do you need?

[savagesax]

I did it with the 20D About $400. No problems making enlargements providing you try to stay under an ISO setting of 400. 24x30 enlargements look fantastic. You can go bigger if you wish.

[dan_south]

The "how many megapixels do I need" question remains one of the great imponderables of the day. There's no objective

standard for what constitutes a sharp print, so we base these decisions on our own preferences and perceptions.

 

The results will vary based on viewing distance. 6 MP can be used to make a billboard as long as the viewer agrees to

view it from afar.

 

Other factors come into play as well. There are some very high MP cameras in phones today, but I would not expect

sharp results from them. Pixel size, lens quality, focus accuracy, and camera stability are critical to sharp output, and

none of those factors will be optimized in the body of a smart phone.

 

If you are willing to use good lenses on your 6MP camera, shoot with good technique, ensure proper focus either with

micro tuning or live view or tethered shooting (older camera models won't have these features), and apply skilled post

processing, you can achieve very nice results up to a certain size. However, I don't know why anyone would choose one

of these older models over one of the inexpressive 16-24 MP bodies available today. Digital technology is advancing

rapidly, and it doesn't cost much to take advantage of the most recent developments.

[dan_south]

Correction: In my last response, I meant to type "inexpensive" where it says "inexpressive". Camera bodies are neither expressive nor

inexpressive. I would like to express regret for the typo. :-)

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been wondering what kind of person prints 40x60" and puts their nose against it to critique it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br /><br />It needs two people. A photographer and another photographer!</p>

[natures-pencil]

<p>Accidental double posting</p>

[natures-pencil]

<p>My main "all-purpose" camera is an EOS 1D mk ii N with "just" 8.5 Mp. It produces wonderful images for any purpose other than enormous prints. And for those you can always up-res. Of course that does not put in the missing detail, but that is not the point - it is to prevent jaggies and individual pixels from becoming visible in the final print.</p>

<p>My backup camera is an "ancient" EOS 10D. These days you can buy one with years of life left in it for less than $100. It is not tough enough to survive a drop onto concrete from head height (as the 1D series can) but it is still pretty tough, and quite light for the level of build quality). By present day standards it is rather slow handling, with a small buffer that (again by 2014 standards) takes ages to write to. Nevertheless it is a nice-to-use camera and it is possible to get superb prints up to A3 size from its RAW files. They may be only 6 Mp but they are high quality pixels.</p>

<p>The resolution and other aspects of technical quality from digital cameras, and especially digital SLRs has been good enough for most purposes for years. Of course camera makers like to make us feel that our cameras become obsolete and hardly worth using after 2 or 3 years, because otherwise they'll be back where they were with film cameras, where you buy a Nikon FM2 or F3 or Leica M6 and use it for the next 50 years.<br>

But it just ain't true.</p>