HallowedHill Loc: Chattanooga, TN

Exactly.

In 2006 I bought a Nikon D50 which was 6 MP. used it until this past summer when I replaced it with an Olympus OM D E-Mark 1 II. With the D50 I never printed over 8x10 and it was way more than sufficient. Now that I am semi-retired I want to do more, but likely will not print beyond @ 20 x24. Unless you pixel peep the human eye will never know thee deficiencies. Can you recover more in post? Sure, but there are ways to get waht you want otherwise by various exposures. Unless you are a pro or VERY sophisticated enthusiast most of us, includint me, have way more camera than we need.

But battling GAS is so much fun.

bowserb

I think the real answer to pixels is "it depends." In fact, there is a huge difference, but whether that matters depends on subject material and ultimate use of the picture. In between, there is cropping and editing. Two or so years ago my wife bought a Canon 5DSR 50 MP full frame body to replace/supplement her 5D MkII that had served long and well. My job as chief technician was to micro adjust the autofocus of the new body and lenses. I used the long corridor at my wife's office to do the calibration, since Canon advises using a target at a distance 50 times the focal length. I had both the 5D2 and 5DSR there, so after I finished, I took them out to the parking lot to shoot some tests of how much detail was really gained. I shot the same scene--parking lot, slightly distant crapemyrtle trees, a dumpster, and a Shell station just beyond. Used the Canon 24-105 on both cameras on the same tripod at various focal lengths. My friends, I was frankly amazed. I had been for several years impressed with the detail captured by the 5D2's 21 megapixels, but holy cow, this was almost unbelievable. So unbelievable, in fact, that I rechecked the micro adjust AF settings on the 5D2. I didn't retain those test pictures, as the hard drive on the old laptop I was using has since failed, but it doesn't matter. The difference in detail is etched in my brain.

Of course, in this case there were two technology differences at work. One is the difference in 21 and 50 megapixels. The other, though, may be less obvious--the 5DSR has the antialiasing filter effect removed, so the pixel blurring that has been standard forever on digital cameras, is gone from the 5DSR. I don't know how much detail is lost in the antialiasing process, and I know that process has been considered essential forever, to prevent jagged diagonals and circles, as well as moire effect. With 50MP on a 35mm sized sensor, though, the pixels are small enough and close enough together to make jaggies a non issue. As to moire, we haven't seen it in two years use of that camera.

So, is a 50 megapixel camera really necessary? It depends. If you think you might want to make really big prints, then 50MP gives you 16x24 at 360dpi as it comes out of the camera. With a high quality lens, steady tripod, ISO 100, and a good shutter speed, you can have large prints that rival medium format, if you need that capability. The rest of the time, you still have 50MB RAW files, and minimum 240MB PSD files, or with a few adjustment layers, PSD files that are half a gigabyte each! For everyday use, I stick with my Canon SL1 with 18 MP and a nice small body. For something serious, though, like family portraits or potential enlarged landscapes, there is no question. 50MP is it. Five years from now, we may well have the same conversation, but about 100 megapixels.

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

This is a good read, not based on uninformed or poorly informed opinion, myths or urban legend - it uses the scientific rationale that takes into consideration the acuity of human vision at various distances, will tell you what you "need"

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

Everything else is, well, uninformed or poorly informed opinion, myths or urban legend.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

I wouldn't necessarily bet that the 5mp setting would've been better than 3mp. I had a camera years ago (I think it was a Kodak, but can't remember now) that had better clarity at 3mp even though the camera could go up to 6mp. The pictures at the 6mp setting just didn't look as clear and sharp. I read an article once that tried to explain that perhaps at the higher megapixel setting, it was more data than the processor could really handle properly, so it ended up making things worse with all that extra data. Anyway, my experience was that they looked better at 3mp than at 6mp.

ron0987

Nice shots. But like said it depends on what you need the photos for, personal use these are great as the are, if printers are needed it will depend on what size is needed.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

I always print 16x20.

classic320

Agree with most of this posts--it really depends on the use of the photos. For an ebay picture or a Christmas newsletter a picture of 100k is adequate, 1 to 2 m seems good for viewing on my computer, while I'm worrying if 13 m is good enough for a large display panel....

Like your pictures!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

As one who regularly uses a view camera, along with another view camera user friend of mine, our approach is go large or go home.
--Bob

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Fine images. For most of us, I think the use of a 3 magapixel camera is a moot issue. What's the point?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I wonder if we had understood what the OP really wanted to convey. He shot those images with a 3 MP. camera and except for the softness of the last one which I blame on hand movement at a low ISO setting all of them are perfectly useful for the Internet and for small enlargements and not all of us print often or enlarge to 20x30 that often either.
Yes, a 5 MP. sensor would have been better but you shot with what you had and if you ask me you did a superb job considering you were using only 3 Mp.
How many Mp. do we need? Well it all depends. Photographers do not seem to get satisfied when it comes to Mp. I understand that many photographers need more and better Mp. in their work but, how much is enough?
I am not a professional or a fine art photographer, I am a simple amateur that enjoys photography. My needs are obviously different than those of a professional that makes a living from photography. I have found that 17 Mp. are enough for my needs and even when I was using a D2H with 4.1 Mp. I was able to make the same enlargements I make now without issues.
Derek Forss, the Olympus visionary and mentor from England is a professional that uses the Olympus EM1-Mk II with 20 Mp. which is not much more than the 17 Mp. that I use now. Look for his Olympus tutorials in You Tube and enjoy the clarity and sharpness of his images along with his excellent tutorials.
How many pixels we need? Tell me what you do and your photographic expertise and I will be able to tell you exactly what you need.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

My first ever digicam was the Oly 3300 which sported 3.3 MP... I bought this camera back in 2000 when a coworker showed me 8x10 prints he made on his Epson printer. I was amazed at the detail - pocket cams back then were 1-3 MP and climbing (and no smartphones as of yet)...so I decided to give it a try. I sold my film camera bodies - a bit prematurely - which helped pay for the camera which was near $900 at the time.

The need for more MP only becomes apparent for larger prints or viewing on large screens/ billboards. Of course as the MP climb to 46+ MP even on a FF sensor, noise and IQ become a factor as ISO goes upward....so top of the line pro cameras such as the D5 are "only" 20 MP for better high ISO IQ and faster processing time.

anotherview Loc: California

Yes: "it uses the scientific rationale that takes into consideration the acuity of human vision at various distances."

rocar7 Loc: Alton, England

Just as an aside, Edinburgh is spelt thus, but pronounced “Edinburrer”.

thewags Loc: Phoenix

The same question can be asked in a slightly different way. I am currently shopping for a new camera and reading about all the great new offerings. The D850 is a monster at 46 mpixels. But as you ask, how many pixels do I really need? The conclusion I am coming to is that features and ergonomics are more important.

williejoha

If all you print is a 8x10 of seems like what you show, you won't need more than what you used. If you shoot animals or birds close up you will definitely need more resolution in order to get a good picture. iMHO.
WJH