Dully noted and I guess my humor is really funny only to me. On the subject at hand however I believe Mr. Rockwell is just trying to come up with something to say in an attempt to remain pertinent. There are many many blogs now on photography equipment and technique that he has to keep it fresh or else he will lose his audience. I have been using digital cameras since the very beginning with Kodak and Canon before the DSLR craze. I intend to agree that there is minimum effective number and beyond that may not be necessary to achieve any improvement.

However, with a higher pixel count the density of the pixels improves and like film the texture of the image is improved. After reading the reviews of the latest DSLR cameras including those with extraordinary high pixel counts, I have come to the conclusion that more is not necessarily better and that image buffering and compression within the camera have more to do with the quality of the final image. I cite as an example the recent Digital Photo UK article that rated the new Canon 5DMK111 over the Nikon 800.

Ken says that all most people (common folk, not professionals) really need is a camera that has 3-6 megapixels for their photos. Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Also, for my own understanding of these kinds of things, if I am considering purchasing either a Nikon D5100 or the new D3200, does the D3200 have any advantage since it has 24 megapixels as compared to the 16 in the D5100? In other words, what differences would I notice in my photos between the two? If you can provide a photo of a lower pixel camera and a higher one to show any differences, that would be appreciated.

Does anyone give any credibility to this individual's ravings? I suppose I must admit to being guilty of the foregoing accusations - in spite of my Honorable Discharge and service ribbons. Wabbit's humor is (usually) funny. RixPix needs professional help. Was this an anomaly or is inividual always like this?

He was joking.