How many megapixels do you need?

[ecphoto]

I've been wondering how many you actually need? I currently shoot with a D3200, lots of megapixels with out a lot of advanced features. I wanted to pick up a used camera body from KEH for cheap, maybe a D90 or a D200. Those don't have a ton of MP, but they have a lot of good features and are dirt cheap used.

Any thoughts?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

 

[jaomul]

300 pixels per inch gives magazine quality at close range. Now maths will solve your problem

 

[Mach0]

300 pixels per inch gives magazine quality at close range. Now maths will solve your problem

X2. It's going to depend on how large you would like to print

 

[robbins.photo]

I've been wondering how many you actually need? I currently shoot with a D3200, lots of megapixels with out a lot of advanced features. I wanted to pick up a used camera body from KEH for cheap, maybe a D90 or a D200. Those don't have a ton of MP, but they have a lot of good features and are dirt cheap used.

Any thoughts?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

The two areas were a high mp count will make a big difference are cropping and printing.

So if your not printing large prints or needing to do a lot if cropping or resizing of your final image you probably wont see a huge difference.

The one big caveat there is lowlight performance. The older sensors in the cameras you listed don't perform as well in lowlight as the newer sensors.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[petrochemist119 144]

It very much depends on what you're using the photos for.
5-6MP is enough for high quality A4 prints. At least if from a good camera, I've seen 20MP images from compacts that had far less detail than my old 6MP K100d would produce.
If the photos are just for use on the net, and won't be cropped, even 2-3MP will likely be enough, however if you need to crop heavily and leave enough detail for an A3 exhibition print or poster you'll need lots more.

 

[Braineack]

The one big caveat there is lowlight performance. The older sensors in the cameras you listed don't perform as well in lowlight as the newer sensors.

This. MP count aside, I don't think I could go back to an abject poverty sensor ever again.

 

[runnah]

The one big caveat there is lowlight performance. The older sensors in the cameras you listed don't perform as well in lowlight as the newer sensors.

This. MP count aside, I don't think I could go back to an abject poverty sensor ever again.

Then why do you shoot nikon? oooo burn!

More the better I say. If I could have 100 MP I'd take it.

 

[Braineack]

The one big caveat there is lowlight performance. The older sensors in the cameras you listed don't perform as well in lowlight as the newer sensors.

This. MP count aside, I don't think I could go back to an abject poverty sensor ever again.

Then why do you shoot nikon? oooo burn!

Honestly, I have no idea:

View attachment 70461

 

[runnah]

DxO is racist.

 

[Braineack]

rofl.

 

[480sparky42 41]

23.394585 mp. Exactly. No more, no less.

 

[runnah]

rofl.

Intolerance is funny to you?

 

[pixmedic]

rofl.

Intolerance is funny to you?

sometimes yea...
i mean, it shouldn't be...but..
come on man...sometimes you just cant help but chuckle.....when you see someone shooting Canon.

 

[astroNikon]

I love my Canon. It sits elegantly and unused in a drawer due to be outshined by the NIkons. Of course, it is a film camera too, but have they progressed beyond that yet ?

I thought 16mp was good from my d7000
now I love the 24mp from the d600

but then, I end up exporting images anyways at a certain size to JPEG ... so ....... the bigger image allows me more cropping & detail in general.

 

[pixmedic]

im just a sucker for upgrading electronics whether I need to or not....
that's why i have a new smartphone every year.
all they have to do is cram more MP's, gHz's, or Gigs into it and im sold.