what?



This post was edited by Antichrist- on Feb 2 2010 10:40am

You're joking about the megapixel thing right?

Well, it does matter to an extent, but it's not all you should look at. That's probably what he meant.

That I agree with. Unless you're planning to use your pictures for signatures (where 7 mp would be sufficient) or for personal 4x6 collections, if you are planning to go professional, you ought to be shooting at 21+ MP.

Unless you're printing poster size of your images. MP doesn't really matter.

Take a look at the 1D classic and it's mp size.

Anyway.. good chart to look at here.

http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Yeah, agreed there too :).

5d or 1d mkIII isnt good enough for pros?

21 MP is definitely the wrong number. The new Canon 7D has 18, which is a lot.

From research it has shown that the two major selling points on cameras are: amount of megapixels (everyone assumes more is better) and the size of the LCD display (hence it has grown drastically over the last few years). Both are basically worthless though. As was said here: MPs only matter when you're printing on large formats and the size of the LCD is pretty unneeded as well: it only matters for composition (as the only right way to check your exposure is through the histogram).

Fortunately, you actually see a decrease in MPS nowadays. The Canon Powershot G10 had 14,1 MPs. The new G11 'only' has 10,1 MPs. This has the added advantage of less noise at higher ISO values. I have the G10 and the amount of noise at 400 ISO is unacceptable for me. Even ISO 200 is pushing it, meaning I pretty much walk around with a small tripod at all times (yes, even during bright daylight).

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662

mark II has enough.

ok, so before 20+mp on dslr the only cameras that pros were able to use were digital medium format backs or film?