nickd406 Loc: West (By Gawd) Virginia

I have a Nikon D3200 and a Nikon D7000 and am just gettingmback into photography after a long laypff. My question concerns Megapixels. Both cameras have different MP's but just what is enough MP's.

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

Good that you are getting back into active photography. You ask an opened question which you should clarify for responses to be meaningful. Good enough for what? It would depend on your intentions for the photos. If you are going to print them, the print size matters etc.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Depends.....
Usually the more the better.
My cameras are 5, 8, & 15.....
My 5 makes a nice 8x10. The more pixels you have the larger you can enlarge them and have it look nice. You can also crop more if you have more pixels.

le boecere

I, too, am a rookie ~ and I suggest you look no further for answers till you seriously contemplate and answer Country Boy's question: "Good enough for what?" It is seldom asked so candidly on forums, yet may be the single most important.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

For a frame of reference, current HD TVs and computer monitors are 1920x1080 or about 2 megapixels. The big 4K screens you see in the store (or may own!) are 8 megapixels.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Your D3200 has a 24.2 MP on a DX (APS-C) sensor and that is plenty of Pixels for almost any photo. Your D7000 has 16.2 MP also on a DX format sensor and is again quite capable of fairly large prints.

BebuLamar

I would say either of your camera has enough pixels.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

18 seems to be a good number from observation. I have a 6.5 mp and an 18 mp. The 18 makes great 24x36 prints that my wife won a contest with against D850's and other higher mp cameras.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You should know your newer D3200 has about 24MP but your much older but higher featured D7000 has about 16MP. Enough usually only relates to how large you want to PRINT images from your cameras. Virtually all digital cameras today exceed the resolution of your computer monitor. Absolute resolution is not the only property of image quality. Most APS-C cameras on the market right now have 20 to 24 MP so you really don't have to worry about it. Both your cameras are (Nikon) DX format.

I have DSLRs featuring approximately 6MP, 14MP, 16MP, and 24MP. I also have other types of digital cameras with 7MP, 12MP, and 16MP as well. They all can produce nice images. For Prints over 10x15" I would stick with using a camera with 16MP or more today. But that is just me. Some people make fairly large prints from 5MP old cameras. Just over 24MP seems to be the upper limit for APS-C sensor cameras. Cameras with 36MP, 45MP, 50MP, etc. or more MPs are larger format, larger sensored cameras. Even some current Full Frame (FX) Nikon cameras having larger ~24x36mm sensors have 16MP (Df) or 24MP (D750), not all are 36MP (D810) or 45MP (D850).

Your two cameras are a bit of a strange dilemma for you. But there is probably no reason for you not to use either. Keep 'em both.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It varies according to the end use. SMALL prints and "Retina" displays need more pixels spread over each inch than larger prints.

Smartphones need about 8.2 MP after image cropping

4x6 and 5x7 need about 6 to 7 MP after image cropping

8x10s need about 5 to 8 MP after image cropping

For prints larger than 8x10, the viewing distance AND the subject matter affect the "from-the-camera" pixel dimensions needed. A head and shoulders portrait viewed from the diagonal dimension of the print can usually scale to any size from about 8 MP. But a 24x16 group scene of 250 people, or a 24x16 landscape photo that will be examined with a loupe by the photo nazis at the local camera club, will need MUCH more resolution... About 32 MP would be ideal. Less works well if you keep those clowns away from the print!

Oddly, you only need about 2.2 MP for an image displayed on a 1080P monitor or TV... That's 1920x1080 pixels.

Really, if 95+ percent of your images will be displayed on the Internet and seldom printed, you can probably stay in the 16-24 MP range. If you want or need to make 40x60 inch prints on a regular basis, get the most you can afford. Just realize that with large pixel counts come steep computer processing, display, network bandwidth, and storage requirements.

A lower pixel count means each sensel* sucks more photons to turn into electrons, which means better color and less grainy noise in the image at high ISO sensitivities. (*It takes information from 4 to 64 sensels to make one file pixel, due to Bayer algorithms used in raw data conversion to a bitmap image.) A 50MP full frame sensor reveals a ton of detail (with a great lens on the camera!), but isn't a great low light performer. A 16MP full frame sensor reveals richer colors and more subtle tonal gradation at higher sensitivities.

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

I had a 6 mp camera that made very good 40x60 images. Six mp is enough, but the more you have, the greater the amount of detail you can capture, and at close viewing distances the images will look better. For large prints at "normal" viewing distances, 6 mp is more than enough.

(Secret - the cinema screen at the local multiplex, you know, the Sony 4K one - that is only 8.8 mp).

HardwareGuy

You've got plenty of megapixel power in either camera. Megapixel counts can and frequently are overrated.
I have an "ancient" Nikon D300 that I keep around for old times sake. It was the cream of the crop, top-rated DX camera of its day...the pixel count is under 13 MP.

le boecere

Oh, my! What a clear and concise essayette. I'll put this one in my files, as I've not seen better explanations in as few words.

nickd406 Loc: West (By Gawd) Virginia

Thanks for all the responses. I think I have a much better handle on this issue. Thanks again.