Originally posted by benjikan What I find fascinating is that RH doesn't really understand that when almost all images whether shot with a C, N, S, L or what ever at anywhere from 6 to 16 megapixels, they all translate quite well in to the print media. As I said, I once did a shoot with my old circa 2002-3 Canon G5 5 megapixel camera for a pro-shoot. What I have seen of his work, mirrors that which all of you have so deftly identified. He really is quite disconnected when it comes to the creative aspect of photography. That is what most of us are expressing when using our tool. How unfortunate. None the less, I do know someone else who runs a very successful forum who suffers a similar malady.
Different cameras produce different images which are with different characters and different pros and cons - no doubt - but whether one cares about the differences or not is another issue and is irrelevant here.
As for prints, it is about simple maths, I don't think it is something arguable afterall. A 6M pixel image has about 3,000 pixels at the long side, if printed in 200 dpi, the maximum size of the print can be 15". When printed at a better quality at 300 dpi, the maximum length is only 10". Of course, one can always interpolate/up sample for a larger print, but then with those *guessed* picture points will never look as good as *true* ones if these could be recorded.
The same simple primary school maths applies for any cameras, of course includes 10MP to 16MP ones. Actually, a 13MP camera will be enough for a 14 x 11" at 300 dpi without interpolated pixels or dots.
Well, don't tell me that one will not look at so close such that 200 dpi is adequate because it is irrelevant here since a 300 dpi print does make a difference when we look *closer* and it is *always* better.
Btw, what's the disadvantages to have a better print with more picture information? What's the disadvantage to have more detailed picture with more data? Unless the higher pixel count images are noiser, there will be no disadvantage. That is, when both pixel count and noise level are better, the results will clearly be better.
Finally, don't tell me about creativity and contents of an image or creative arts or etc. again in the end when we are discussing about technical aspects of camera gear. That's what a gear forum is for. For image critique or so, I think photo.net or other places should be the right place. Just look at the simple maths and note the simple difference.
p.s. Measurbators don't take pictures, nor they can take any good pictures even they attempt - they only manage to make sucking ones - Ken Rockwell