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

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

The number of pixels is important for print size, but if you edit your pictures, it is really important in relation to crop size. For example, if you take a group picture of 20 at a family reunion you willl likely have no problem printing an 8 x 10 of the group with just a two megapixel camera.

But, if Aunt Meg later asks if you can isolate Uncle Ralph and print a large portrait of just him, the answer will likely be no if the picture is 2 megapixels, yes if the picture is 24 megapixels. This also effects cropping out just a bumble bee on a sunflower photo to display on your big screen TV and so on.

I have a 2, 8 and 24 megapixel camera's. For me, the 8 meg is a nice size, the 24 is a bit large, but, I like a bit large. If you are like me, and keep tons of not so great pictures of pets, kids, family, it's not very efficient keeping 24 meg files of pictures you will never edit or print. I don't mind much with the 8 megs, but the 24's I have added an extra step and reduce the size in a batch process of all the ones I deem not worth keeping in large format. It takes a second to do, much longer to decide which ones I'll never want in large format.

Also, the larger the format, the more processing power it takes to work on the photo's. So, other than a little space, and some computing power, there is no downside to more megapixels.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Good point. From now on, based on your advise, I will use fewer mega pixels. It is so nice to be able to say no to aunt Meg, that old so and so. Uncle Ralph was trying to avoid being th shot to begin with!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The real question is about the 'general use' not the average 'hog'.

Just consider landscape. There is a real competition on who can capture the largest most detailed image. This led to an industry both hardware (camera, pano heads...) and software. Megapixel cameras answer some of the detail wanted but are far from being satisfactory.

Now consider the other extreme, macro. Here too there is a rush for greater details as an ever increasing magnification. Again megapixel cameras offer part of the solution but are just not enough.

I agree with you about the engineer point of view yet if limits were not pushed all the time where would be the need for engineers as we could just copy everything and 'be happy'?

It always about progress, pushing the limits. That is why we have airplanes now spacecraft and submarines who explore the depth of the ocean.

This is not really about pixels but about progress going forward learning, understanding and questioning what has been acquired. The moment we stop, we die.

Are megapixel cameras overrated? Those who question the research and use usually do not understand what is behind. A mere point of view based on falsehood, misinformation and 'good enough mentality'.

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

:shock: :shock: :shock:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

All of this has been very informative. Thank you all very much. I have thought I would be content with the 510 and what it can do ( I am too) but seeing the shots that could be better with a " normal" camera makes me want to step up some. If some of you have the ability too can you post the same shot with bridge camera and your " normal" camera as a comparison. Not just for myself but thismay help others as well to see the difference.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Which is all very well but in this case the designer has no idea of the intended use of the final output. Will it be a 1MPix output for the Internet, will it be 2MPix for HD Display or will it be 24MPix for a quality inkjet print etc. etc.

There again, improvements in chip technology mean smaller components which leads to lower power consumption and battery technology also moves forward. I don't recall asking for infinite MPix but where's the harm anyway, down-sampling is pretty well non-destructive but up-sampling always leads to image degradation.

I don't see your point, satellite photography can resolve down to 25cm which has little significance to a DSLR users. Whilst our eyes have an inbuilt limit on resolution it's also of little significance when it comes to required Megapixels; obviously it has an impact when it comes to printing an image which is why we would downsample to 3MPix for a 6x4 print but would prefer 24MPix for a 16x12.

High MegaPixel count Sensors allow for losing the AA filter which is a very good thing for IQ. Sony and Nikon have already done this with the 36MPix Sensor without any major issues and the upcoming 50MPix Sensors will no doubt be better still. I can envision a time when it may be possible to do away with the Bayer Matrix and use all those extra Pixels to record RGGB so that a 100MPix Sensor would render a 24MPix image without the need for demosaicing. Another use for a HighRes Sensor around 100MPix applied to a camera like the Sony RX1 (the RX1 is a fixed lens camera where the lens and Sensor combination is optimised to produce really good results in a small package) and this could be further refined by using the new "Curved Sensor" technology. Pixel binning would render 24MPix images at FLs between 24mm and 50mm (an optical zoom with no loss of quality).

No doubt there are more uses for very dense sensors and they are definitely on the horizon despite the naysayers.

Racin17 Loc: Western Pa

So if I understand this unless I turn pro (haha unlikely) and have my work posted in galleries I dont need 24+ mp.

jfromla Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Another way to look at it: I remember the old film days quite will. working with a 120 neg. over a 35mm neg. was night and day even using the same film type. And the best was 4x5. There was just was just so much more more information or in our new age speak pixels.

The more information we have to work with the better. Of course there are trade offs like cost, size, weight etc.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

14MP is more than enough for all but the largest prints. Once you are at that level other things having to do with "which"camera is chosen are much more important. As others have said chasing mega pixels is a fools errand.

rebride

Mega megapixel cameras might not be in 1st place, but sure are way ahead of whatever is in 2nd.

AZ Dog Loc: Peoria, AZ

Unless you are a serious amateur or pro, go for the D3200. Now that the D3300 is out the price has dropped a bit for the D3200. I moved up from a bridge camera to the D3200 and it does everything I want it to and more.

amehta Loc: Boston

The megapixels are not a huge difference, but if you can get the better sensor for very little extra money, I would do that. The biggest advantage is when you want to crop your image.

The actual lens on the P510 has a 4.3-180mm focal length, and there is a crop factor of about 5.5x. With the D3200, you could put a 55-300mm lens on and get about half way to the angle of view of the P510 extended. Then if you crop by 2x, you get to about "900mm" with 6mp, which is still enough for a very good 8x10" print.