Howie1a Loc: st pete fl

I have used the following all worked good and gave great pictures a, Nikon D 40-50-70-80-100, D 40x-60-200-, and D 3200 as well as a D300 all with 6 to 24 MG pix why do you need to go with a larger Megpx Ken Rockwell say's 6 is enough. What is your thoughts ?? I could be happy with my D 100 with a larger screen Howie1a

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Simply said, if you do larger print sizes or want to crop your images, more pixels matters.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Back when I was thinking of going from film to digital I had a professional scan some of my Kodachrome 25 slides. The 6MP images he created included all the detail that was on the originals {yes, I set up a projector and compared image against slide, detail by detail}. Kodachrome 25 was recognized as the finest color media of the time. In some sense, everything better than that is "gravy", but we've become so detail oriented that I use the term "needle sharp" to imply a form of addiction. So 6MP should be enough if you sit at a distance where you can see the entire image at once, but people don't and they do like to crop.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Exactly!!! The smallest print I make is 12x18. Therefore, more is better.
--Bob

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

I am thinking Ken Rockwell made that comment quite a few years ago and would be hard pressed to find a camera he would recommend today that has only 6mp.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This is one of the few times I agree with KR. He is absolutely correct. I've printed images from a Nikon 70S, a 6.1 mp camera, to 40x60, and sold them, with zero complaints about loss of resolution

The rationale is easy to understand. You've been to a multiplex theater. The Sony 4K screening rooms are about as good as it gets, other than IMax. Your typical screen could be from 40 ft to 60 ft wide. The 4K standard for resolution is 8.8 mp. You don't need a lot of pixels to print big - that is a myth. In fact, your ppi requirement diminishes as the print size gets bigger, because a larger print (or projected image) implies a greater viewing distance, and your eyes can only resolve so much detail, and that diminishes as the viewing distance increases.

You must have seen the iPhone 5 and 6 billboards around town which displayed an image taken with the phone to billboard size. There was no software magic used to do that. It was pure physiology. Our vision can't see minute details at a distance of 30 ft or greater. But there is a great impression of sharpness. A 40x60 image requires 32 ppi for the appearance of acceptable sharpness. The 6 mp camera, if you use an image uncropped, will give you 75 ppi at that print size, about 2.5X more resolution than is actually needed. So for the obsessive photographers in the crowd who insist on taking out their loupes and examining the dot pattern on a print, 6 mp may not be up to their standards, but certainly you have more than you need.

This site explains how this all works, and provides the mathematical formulas to figure it out, or a quick calculator if you don't want to do the math:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

The primary benefit of having more pixels, provided you lenses are sharp, is to be able to crop more without too much loss of image quality.

So, without a doubt, Mr. Rockwell is 100% on target. You don't need more mp to print larger, you need enough, which is 6mp, and some good technique and sharp lenses.

Hope this makes sense to you and answers your questions. Most follow the herd and buy into the notion that you need more mp for bigger images. You don't.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

Thank you Gene, I enjoyed your post very much since I think the same way, totally agree.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

ELNikkor

I still have my D40, and get great shots with it. I also note that the mighty D3s with a sensor almost twice the size, has 12mp, so the pixel size must be nearly the same. My D5100 with "only" 16mp, has all the resolution I'll ever want.

cdayton

Thanks to Gene51 I now understand why the 12x15 prints I made years ago from D50 shots look so darn good.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is an interesting discussion Two things that help guide me are the knowledge that for many years after they converted to digital format, the beautifullly detailed images provided by NASA astronauts were produced using 6 MP Kodak digital cameras. Also keep in mind that there is a tradeoff between resolution and dynamic range for a particular sensor size, which is one of the big benefits of FX (full frame) sensors over DX crop sensors. Technology improvements have helped this somewhat, but not eliminated it. That said, it is a truth of life that significant cropping after exposure has the same effect as using a smaller sensor.

HallowedHill Loc: Chattanooga, TN

[quote=Gene51]This is one of the few times I agree with KR. He is absolutely correct. I've printed images from a Nikon 70S, a 6.1 mp camera, to 40x60, and sold them, with zero complaints about loss of resolution...




I have a Nikon D50 and have used it as my main camera until three months ago. Never printed larger than 8 x 12 and no one, even pro photographer friends, commented on a lack of sharpness or need more detail. Now that I have retired I want to print up to around 20 to 24 inches and I need more so I bought a 20 mp camera. It will do fine and will likely be the last camera I ever buy. Even this was likely over kill, but even the best of us can succumb to GAS!

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

On the other hand, many a camera with 36 megapixels is used to take snapshots. While poster sized prints can look very crisp with 16MP. This fanatical devotion to resolution is fairly irrelevant to good photography!

canon Lee

How many cameras now a days are 6MP? Time to upgrade if you have an old one!