Megapixels or Resolution?

Some say they don't need more than 10mp, others say they need 21+mp. Some say that at the end of the day the resolution is what makes the difference (which is why the 7d for instance is so close to the 5d2 in IQ).

Please feel free to share your thoughts, offer explanation as to which is more important to you and why, etc.

I think there are more than enough threads about this.

It really depends on the final use of your image and how you prep it for that use. If you crop a lot, more megapixels are good, If you only post on the web or print moderately sized prints, you can get away with less resolution. There's no single definitive answer, but a broad generality can be made that it's better to shoot at the largest resolution you have available so that you have the most possible options.

Pixel count is more important than you think: The understated utility of smaller pixels

...but at the end of the day, if all you do is post images on the web, it doesn't matter.

RDKirk wrote in post #10978314
I think there are more than enough threads about this.

Link one, Read one, Ignore this one, or do something else with your 20 seconds besides being snarky and unhelpful. Those are your choices.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #10978318
It really depends on the final use of your image and how you prep it for that use. If you crop a lot, more megapixels are good, If you only post on the web or print moderately sized prints, you can get away with less resolution. There's no single definitive answer, but a broad generality can be made that it's better to shoot at the largest resolution you have available so that you have the most possible options.

Well I was looking more for different opinions. The 7d v. 5d2 comparos of the past few weeks brought up valid points. The 7d really changed very old trains of thought in digital photography, i.e. that you need full frame..

toxic wrote in post #10978505
Pixel count is more important than you think: The understated utility of smaller pixels

...but at the end of the day, if all you do is post images on the web, it doesn't matter.

Thanks for the read.

Link one, Read one, Ignore this one, or do something else with your 20 seconds besides being snarky and unhelpful. Those are your choices.

My other choice is to advise you to do a search. Or, heck, you could just look at the bottom of the screen for "Similar Threads."

Michael, it is kind of simple, but there has been a huge amount of discussion about this all, so sorry if you have missed out!

Basically, you choose between a camera like the 7D (or 50D) which has a close view/crop of an image, and a 5D2/!Ds3 (or the upcoming 5D3/1Ds4) which has more pixels that are "cleaner" than the earlier cameras. And, in the process, you can print larger pics that are cleaner and have more detail.

If you only want to print an 8x10 without any cropping of your original image, there is no difference in the quality you get.

In "real life" examples (not internet theory banter), I can't tell photos from an 8MP sensor from a 21MP sensor on 11x14 prints and smaller. The funny part about MP's is that so many people use that as an excuse to upgrade and then rarely (if ever) print anything larger than an 8x10....if they even print anything at all.

I suppose somewhere around 12-14MP is plenty for what I do. There have been several occassions where I needed to downsize photos to fit a print since the original image would had to have been cropped to fit if I didn't. The 15MP I'm at right now produces very good IQ and I'm hesitant to say MP increases are necessarily good because of the resolution demands on the lens at a certain point. Higher grade lenses could aways be bought, but there's always a point where the lens demands push the lens requirements into a range that's far higher than you need and that could push some people away from photography.

Pixels lead to resolution, but alone are not resolution if the lens and image sensor are not up to the task.

And Image Quality is not related to resolution. You can have great image quality at low resolution and great image quality and very high resolution and the addition or reduction in resolution does not affect image quality, e.g. a 50 MP image with poor color accuracy and noise levels does not have "higher" image quality than an image with great color accuracy and very low noise levels that happens to be just 3 MP.

The argument that only good lenses can take advantage of high pixel count is simply false. Cheap lenses wide-open still record a higher MTF (which measures resolution) when using a higher MP sensor - just look at the Photozone MTF numbers between the same lenses on a 50D and a 350D. If we were outresolving a lens, the MTF would stay the same.

We're still a long way off from the outresolving any modern lens.

Those amazing covers and center spreads you see in national publications are most likely from a Nikon 3Ds--12mp on a full size sensor,

It never ceases to amaze me that for Pro's published on a regular basis 12mp on a full frame pays the bills day after day--but for a soccer mom they need 18mp plus on a crop for decent results.

More versus better--give me better any day.

I would take a camera with a 720mm zoom and 10mp(Fuji HS10) over one with 560mm and 12mp(Canon SX20). 2mp dont really make a difference, but 160mm(5x) does.
You need to x4 to double res. Thus double res of 4mp is 16mp.

More megapixels will stop being useful as soon as one of you can point me in the direction of an affordable EF 18-1000 f/1.4 lens so that I never again need to crop to get the composition I want. Until then, having an 18mp sensor means that I can get a vertical crop from a horizontal shot that can be printed 8x10@300ppi without any upscaling.

At the end of the day it all depends on how large you are going to print. If you are printing 20 x 30 at the largest, 8 MP is more than enough....given it is 8 MP on a good sensor. For example, 8 MP from a 1D2 vs 8 MP from a Rebel XT. There's no comparison, the 1D2 is head and shoulders above the Rebel XT....despite the fact they both have the same number of MP.

Now, if you lack having a long enough lens to get close enough and you are constantly having to crop in to get the best composition, then maybe you need more MP. For me it is simple, if I can't get the shot, I can't get the shot. I see a lot of people shooting subject's that are just too far away and then getting upset because they can't get a sharp image from their 100% crop. LOL Buy a longer lens!

I have seen images printed up to 40 inches from 8 MP cameras. So, unless you have a high demand for 60 inch prints, I personally don't think you need more than 10 to 15 MP. But, that's my opinion. I would rather buy a good body in that range and then spend my money on glass.