Is more pixels better???

Rhonda is correct in her number analysis...if you don't plan on PP and cropping and that sort of thing. Yes...

There are folks that take and create superior images with a cell phone, but you've got to ask yourself "am I that good".

For the vast majority of us prosumers, more MP means a better camera and better images.

RhondaRae wrote in post #6139518
Hi, Dick.

I see you're a new member, as am I. Welcome!

I think I can answer your questions "Is more pixels better?" and "is there a discernable difference to the naked eye...?"

I wrote an article that covers just those concerns ("Megapixels - What are Megapixels and How Many Do You Need in a Digital Camera?"). My article includes a MP breakdown and what the results will be using a digital camera that falls within the certain MP count. Have a look and hope it helps answer your questions:

http://www.brighthub.c​om …graphy/articles​/1000.aspx

Cheers!

Rhonda

Good article, however, the one thing you didn't really mention is that the larger you print, the less PPI you actually need.

The larger an image, the farther the optimal viewing distance, the less PPI needed to convey sharpness.

But since we're on a digital SLR forum, everyone here probably has more than 8MP, which ,uncropped, is enough for poster sized prints with a viewing distance of 6' give or take.

As I mentioned at the end of my article, you don’t need to print at 300 PPI, you can still achieve great results printing at 200-250 PPI. Anything much less than this, for photographic purposes, can result in grainy looking photos – assuming the prints will be displayed in the home, gallery or printed in magazines or other media (IOW, not viewed from a great distance).

Fair enough, a photo that is viewed from 5-10 feet away can be printed at 150 PPI. So you’re right, the further distance the image is being viewed from, the less PPI the photo will need to be printed with, since our eyes will naturally blend the pixels together.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I'll consider revamping my article.

I often get the feeling that "more pixels" is for salespersons in camera shops - the dumb ones that is.

My son has a Canon P/S with ten MP; my 30D with 8.1 or so will beat the crap out of his camera - badly.

Surely the most important thing is composition. Using any camera a photo will look great if the composition and exposure are spot on. The megapixel factor only comes into play when determining print sizes and manipulation eg cropping.

Glenn NK wrote in post #6141758
I often get the feeling that "more pixels" is for salespersons in camera shops - the dumb ones that is....

I agree. People should be more concerned about pixel density rather than sheer numbers of pixels. Some people don't understand that even if you can cram more pixels into a small sensor, the price you pay for lower dynamic range and more noise more than offsets any advantage you might gain in cropping. Those are the people who will buy a stereo receiver because the volume knob goes to 11 rather than 10... One louder, right?

Our 1D @ only 4MP is still an awesome camera for anything you need including posters.
More MP != better.