Ronald540 Loc: Sandy Utah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8aQqJYI8xA
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1.html/
Don’t know if this was ever posted here before, but I thought this was interesting not trying to start a debate. Just useful info, it comes from the internet where everything is true right.
Seems to be a bit different here.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/how-many-megapixels-you-need,review-1974.html

Just trying to avoid GAS.
Cheers Ron

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Whatever the topic, more is generally better. : )

DesT

I think any discussion that doesn’t mention lens quality is incomplete. For me, the practical difference between using film vs digital has to do with the lens you use. The kit lenses that most people can afford, and use, are inferior to some of the really high quality lenses developed for some film cameras. That mainly affects color rendition though, not resolution in my experience. But of course color rendition is part of the aesthetics of a good color image. With monochrome it matters much less. I think this analysis in the article must assume high lens quality, which isn’t always available at an affordable price.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

What is the point? You probably can get a good print from lower megapixels. A bigger print with more detail probably want more pixels.
Film was great to all of us. But the cost of film and processing was staggering. Documentary filmmakers even with 16mm were hard put
to find enough budget to just buy film and process. This sort of argument that film is better and more pixels is not necessary is old.
Why not have a picture with a 42 megapixel digital camera especially if you might want to print large. And where do you even go to get
film processing today. There are places. Buy mail? Fedex?
I have the Sony a7s II which is widely used for photos and very much for video. 12 megapixels and it works fine.
And the camera needs good quality lens. It depends what you are using the shots for. A national ad campaign?
Fine art display?. Product pix for a commercial job? What if you are me and decide you would like to print some of your
images maybe for sale. Pictures have potential but a lot of the good ones are low res.Looking for techniques to upsize old pix.

billw39 Loc: MARIETTA, GA

However, if one is shooting raw, then color rendition takes a back seat to sharpness since subtle color differences can be corrected in post processing. Not only is the lens important, but the aperture, shutter speed and ISO sensitivity settings are also important variables. Some "kit" lenses are soft (particularly at the edges) and some are very sharp. The use of the term "kit" does not necessarily mean inferior image quality.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To answer your question, as many as I can get. However, there are inherent issues as the count goes higher.
--Bob

Rongnongno Loc: FL

As Bob answered there are issues with high density cameras DSLR sensors.

Many will cite light IQ and the like. That is a red herring, nothing more in 99% of the case.

One major issue is the camera/lens combination. As mentioned by someone else lower quality lenses kits and other do-it-all from many manufacturer are at the end of their usefulness with high density sensor. Not that their are bad, just not precise enough as they are not made for high performance.

The second issue is often not discussed by those who owns such a camera. Because of the high density the camera register more details. It is a good thing, do not get me wrong, but at the same time these sensor register any and motions when taking an image, just like a tele objective would. This means in turn that these cameras demand a higher speed than 'lesser cameras'. Basically you can forget low speed unless you use a tripod.

I have a D850 and some things I do with the D500 are not possible with the D850 due to the 'minimal' speed limitation.

In this post the issue of motion is visible. DL the image and magnifying. Note: 1:1. D850, 105 macro, ISO 200, f/11, 1/200s. The speed should have been sufficient to freeze the turtle.

BebuLamar

I need about 12MP. That is something I determined that I need back in the early 2000 and a decade before I bought my DSLR.

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

Been trying to save people money for years with the information in those links, and this which actually quantifies the mp requirement, resolution, vision limitations, viewing distances, etc.

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

No one needs to print a 24x36 @ 300 ppi.

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Other factors not considered, I think the desired size of the resultant print would dictate the number of pixels. I have a photo in my current exhibit that I took with an iPhone 6s (I'm not telling which one). The print is 8" x 10." I'd question the quality if printed larger (say, 16" x 20").

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

You don't need to - bigger prints are viewed at greater distances, and at greater distances the human vision system cannot see the detail of a 42 mp image on a 40x60 when viewed at 9 ft.

Keep in mind that iPhone images are printed to billboard size with only 8 mp.

As far as intended use - high quality publications - gallery and museum photo books come to mind - will require 300 ppi or greater for their images. This is because they are viewed up close, and lack of detail and sharpness will be easy to see at a distance of 18".

The biggest advantage of a camera that captures more than 12 mp would be the ability to crop an image for a more meaningful composition.

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

It would probably surprise you at how good it is.

therwol Loc: USA

Clicking on the tomsguide link doesn't work. I'll try to paste it in again. Looks like it won't work as well. This does not like commas in URLs. You can copy and paste the whole thing into another web browser window. That works.

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/how-many-megapixels-you-need,review-1974.html

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

When I first saw the Nikon D700, with 12.1 megapixels in 2008, it was king then, for a full frame DSLR camera. Then came the D750 with 24 megapixels. The D750 is a very popular camera today. While today's FF cameras are now in the 40's, they are still making good very good FF cameras, still in the 20's megapixels category. The Nikon D5 and Sony a9 are examples. Where speed in needed with a higher fps rate, such as action sports. One may want a D5 or a9. Otherwise go for the gusto with a high megapixels camera, such as the Nikon D850 with 45.7 megapixels. Most crop sensor cameras generally have 24 megapixels or less. I have a Nikon DSLR with 24 megapixels, a Sony pocket camera with 20.1 megapixels, and a Nikon Bridge camera with 16 megapixels. All are enough to take decent photos. At least to my satisfaction. Another thing to consider, is that the previous Nikon FF cameras also came with aa filters, such as the D700, D750, and D800. Nikon has since removed the aa filters from their FF DSLRs. Starting with the D800E. And having quality glass matters too. Regardless of how many megapixels you have?

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

I have 3 Canons I shoot with.
A Canon 1D Mark III with 10 mega pixels
a 1Ds with 11 mega pixels
a 1Ds Mark III that has 21 mega pixels
I have L glass, with a couple of the new G2 Tamron lenses.
I have printed 11x14's from each camera. And every lens.
Nobody and I mean nobody, can tell which camera I used.
The more pixels and the higher ISO wars, are a way for companies to sell cameras.
I read almost every word printed, about every camera and lens I bought.
In my reasearch, I found that 8 mega pixels is all the average photographer needs.
As far as a camera with a 2,785,643,096,037 ISO. My guess is, unless you are a Vampire it isn't all that important.