Enter the ePHOTOzine Christmas Prize Draw extravaganza!
How many megapixels is enough for you?

Several companies over the years have declared that 12 or 16 megapixels is enough... and then gone on to release 24 or 20 megapixel cameras at a later date.
With the release of the 20 megapixel Canon EOS 1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 - we're wondering if this is enough megapixels for you? Or would you prefer 50, or 100 ?
With the release of the 20 megapixel Canon EOS 1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 - we're wondering if this is enough megapixels for you? Or would you prefer 50, or 100 ?
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

What I've currently got (21.1) is more than enough for me. I always thought it was more to do with the sensor anyway and how it records the pixels, rather than the pixel count itself? I suppose more pixels would enable larger prints to be made, without a huge loss of quality, but it's still just as easy to take a cr*p photo with 100 megapixels as it is with 12 


It's curious that as time goes on photographers tend to adapt to the increasing technical capabilities of photography hardware. Re. pixel counts we all, or nearly all, 'go with the flow' What would happen should there be a calamitious failure and we were all forced to go back to film?
Would our world end? Certainly not. Those wanting high quality would use medium or large format cameras, the rest would be eventually content with 35mm.
I believe that nearly all the world's most famous photographs were shot on film - either medium format or 35mm.
The need for more pixels is, in reality, a fallacy foisted on us by camera manufacturers and the media.
I'm given to understand that 16mp is equivalent to 100 ISO film, by the way
Would our world end? Certainly not. Those wanting high quality would use medium or large format cameras, the rest would be eventually content with 35mm.
I believe that nearly all the world's most famous photographs were shot on film - either medium format or 35mm.
The need for more pixels is, in reality, a fallacy foisted on us by camera manufacturers and the media.
I'm given to understand that 16mp is equivalent to 100 ISO film, by the way

Is it not true that in the days of, say up to 12mp we would all be most cautious when framing a shot, knowing that cropping to half frame, for instance, was fraught with potential loss of quality?
36 or 50mp has taken care of that but, does it not make us possibly lazy photographers, as will all large image cameras.
Also I believe that, for those who print up images, the human eye is incapable of discerning pixels, and the print incapable of showing them on even the very largest of blow ups even from many of the smallest original files - from say 6mp. I know that on screen this is not true, nevertheless......?!
36 or 50mp has taken care of that but, does it not make us possibly lazy photographers, as will all large image cameras.
Also I believe that, for those who print up images, the human eye is incapable of discerning pixels, and the print incapable of showing them on even the very largest of blow ups even from many of the smallest original files - from say 6mp. I know that on screen this is not true, nevertheless......?!

I have cameras with 10' 16 and 22 megapixels- the later of which I do often change to shoot at 10 anyway. Whether it's because I am tight and dispise filling up hard drives but find I don't need to shoot above 10 on most occasions. When I shoot weddings and provide an image only package I provide all images at 12mp size. I do also agree with other comments that the huge MP makes you shoot loose knowing you can crop. Some of my best images I have printed at A2 from a 1D mk3 framed right in camera. Why would I want more MP's than this I ask?