[cateto]

Akira Watanabe, head of dSLR development in Olympus, declares in an interview for CNET News that "12 megapixels is enough".

It was about time to hear something like this. I hope the rest of the bunch, and most of all, us consumers, will pay attention and realize that going every season for 5 more megapixels is plain madness. Instead of this crazy computers-like competition, where more is supposed to be always better, we should go back to take pics, forget pixel peeping, and enjoy photography.

Then let the peepers of the world enjoy their little, boring world by neverendingly discussing their last-of-the-bunch, newly purchased, highly specced new camera.

[losecontrol]

Akira Watanabe, head of dSLR development in Olympus, declares in an interview for CNET News that "12 megapixels is enough".

It was about time to hear something like this. I hope the rest of the bunch, and most of all, us consumers, will pay attention and realize that going every season for 5 more megapixels is plain madness. Instead of this crazy computers-like competition, where more is supposed to be always better, we should go back to take pics, forget pixel peeping, and enjoy photography.

Then let the peepers of the world enjoy their little, boring world by neverendingly discussing their last-of-the-bunch, newly purchased, highly specced new camera.

This was the best thing said about DSLR in all time...

12 is endeed enought. My k20d produces good result with 14.6 but Im sure it would be as well with 12.

APS-C really have a wall around 14MP.

Just look canon. 40d was exellent....and the high ISO was wonderful.
The 50d did promise the same, and canon primised that the ISO noise would be lower then 40d...
I tell you folks.....it's not!

On the other hand....a Full-frame sensor allows more resolution. and a medium format sensor even more.....so size does matter

But for us "normal" humans that will not print above A1+ size....or even A0.....
The APS-C sensor and a 10MP camera will fit our demands...

[StephenG]

Then let the peepers of the world enjoy their little, boring world by neverendingly discussing their last-of-the-bunch, newly purchased, highly specced new camera.

is it really necessary to have such a negative, antagonistic tone towards those people who would seek to upgrade their cameras?

its not just about pixel count, but a host of other features inside a camera, the processors being one, that would entice some one to upgrade their gear.

faster autofocus, more frames per second, better low light noise... these features may be found in a model that also happens to have higher pixel count... surely that does not make everyone wanting those upgraded features 'pixel peepers' who are living in little boring worlds?

[cateto]

is it really necessary to have such a negative, antagonistic tone towards those people who would seek to upgrade their cameras?

You are getting me wrong: nothing against people who seek to upgrade cameras, if needed.

its not just about pixel count, but a host of other features inside a camera, the processors being one, that would entice some one to upgrade their gear.

faster autofocus, more frames per second, better low light noise... these features may be found in a model that also happens to have higher pixel count... surely that does not make everyone wanting those upgraded features 'pixel peepers' who are living in little boring worlds?

I have nothing against fully specced cameras, and I'm fully aware that some people truly need them. And in that respect is fine that cameras like the D3X exist, or the upcoming 645D, or any other flagship.

My point is that for 98 % of photographers, and I would say even 99% of participants in forums like this, 12 Mp is more than enough. Furthermore: in many cases, the people suffering the worst ways of pixel peeping illness are barely enabled to make average photographies, which they will never print: just have a quick look at pixels, then save it in their HD forever. The fact that some of these people need to make big noise about their supposedly huge needs for full frames and on and on is what is frankly disturbing, because it is a disease, nothing else.

Then, let me say that I deeply admire the work of people who make stunning work with high spec cameras: that's entirely another business. But they are like 1 % and they usually don't spend countless hours pixel peeping: they are too busy making wonderful pictures which constitute, in many cases, their job.

[Kunzite]

<Evil mode: On>
It's not common sense. They realized they can't increase the pixel count over 12MP without drastically increasing the noise - due to the smaller sensor size.
<Evil mode: Off>
IMO, the resolution should be further increased - there is still more to get from APS-C; but this must be dictated by technological advancements and not by marketing. Other directions, e.g. Foveon-like sensors or methods for extending the DR (Fuji?) should also be explored, of course.

However, the K20D with good lenses is more than enough for me. I won't upgrade for resolution alone, that's a given.

[er1kksen]

Good god people, how many times are we going to have to go over the fact that higher pixel density DOES NOT degrade image quality/high ISO performance? When I joined there were a number of knowledgeable people explaining just exactly why that is around when I joined, due to discussions on the erroneous idea that the Canon 50D's 15mp sensor had somehow "hit a limit" for APS-C performance.

I guess they must have quit. I guess I will too. Yep, all we need is a 3mp sensor.

[whatever7]

12MP it IS enough, but ISO 800 is not enough. cough cough.

[StephenG]

My point is that for 98 % of photographers, and I would say even 99% of participants in forums like this, 12 Mp is more than enough.

agreed.!

i'd say Nikon has proven that 12Mp is more than enough for 100% of people - alla D3..!! a camera that is regularly rated as the best performing camera of all dslr's..
clearly proving that 12MP is enough for whatever you do!

but thats where all the other parts of camera come into the play to give you a quality print at the end of the day... no matter what conditions you shot under.

but the marketing guys shout at the techie guys to give more MP's as that what sells...

Pentax's 14MP is more than enough for any shooting, its just those other parts that need a few tweeks and twists for an upgrade..

[asdf]

It depends on what size and resolution prints you want. If 12 megapixels is enough, then why do people buy digital medium format systems? Increasing pixel count without increasing noise is desired by those who want larger prints at a higher resolution. If you make, say, 300 dpi 8x12" prints, then 300*300*8*12 or around 8 mega pixels is enough. At 600 dpi 8x12", you want 34 mega pixels. Also, a higher pixel count allows you to have larger prints of cropped images.

EDIT: I was thinking of dye sublimation printers here (ppi=dpi in this case).

[pingflood]

It depends on what size and resolution prints you want. If 12 megapixels is enough, then why do people buy digital medium format systems? Increasing pixel count without increasing noise is desired by those who want larger prints at a higher resolution. If you make, say, 300 dpi 8x12" prints, then 300*300*8*12 or around 8 mega pixels is enough. At 600 dpi 8x12", you want 34 mega pixels. Also, a higher pixel count allows you to have larger prints of cropped images.

Honestly, who the hell prints 600dpi? People keep tossing around numbers like "oh, I can only print so by so size print at 300dpi" but when's the last time you printed a poster sized print at even 300dpi? Go take a look at some actual prints and see how nice they look, then see what resolution went into them -- you might be surprised.

No doubt, there are people who need and use enormous resolution. But to OP's point, that's a small minority of those clamoring for higher MP count.

Can't say it wasn't expected though. If it's digital and can be measured people will always be looking for more. I know folks who've spent thousands upgrading and overclocking their PCs to the extreme, and ironically all they do is run various performance tests... not far removed from pixel peeping eh?

[opfor]

Excuse me for probably being wrong, but printing at 600 dpi?
What kind of printer do you use?
I was under the impression that 300 was pretty much the limit for most printers.

[falconeye]

"12 megapixels is enough".

Wrong and right at the same time.

Right, because it obviously is.

Wrong, because it addresses "for most application for most people". Excluded are: People wanting to crop, particularly when using a prime lens as would be very popular with a Pentax camera; people shooting gigapans; people printing A2+, e.g., for their walls at home; people shooting for paying pixel peepers (Hegre Art and the like sell 24Mpixel images only); etc. pp.

Also wrong because a FF camera would have 4x the pixels of FourThirds using the same pixel pitch. So, this statement is basically driven by marketing, not insight.

[cateto]

^ Yeah, all the kinds of people you want, but frankly, how many of those people exist in the REAL world?

Not sure if my point is getting accross: I mean that we, people interested in photography, are getting involved (sometimes against our will, and certainly against our interests) in a permanent competition to get higher and higher featured cameras. But if you analyze quietly your needs, I am honestly convinced that current APS-C cameras reached already the level where no more resolution is needed for 99% of us. I own a K10D which does way more than I need to. And I am sure that if I had a K20D or a D700, I wouldn't ever need another camera, because the only additional feature I would require in the K10D is better ISO abilities.

So, fine, there is maybe 1% of us (I'm sure it is much less) that actually need a D3X, or a Hassy: fine. But what is the point of making a consumer dSLR with 25 megapixels?

I tell you: the only point is to get more money from the consumers, not at all fulfilling their needs. Because they don't need those pixels; maybe they need to proudly state that they own a 25 megapixels dSLR in front of their friends to feel better, but not for their actual, real world photographer needs.

And if you ask me, if they need all those pixels to feel better, but nothing else, then maybe they should go to a psycologist consultation instead of spending huge bucks in things they will never use.

[ogl]

For crop 2 forever - 12 MP is limit. Of course.

[jeffkrol]

Akira Watanabe, head of dSLR development in Olympus, declares in an interview for CNET News that "12 megapixels is enough".

It was about time to hear something like this. I hope the rest of the bunch, and most of all, us consumers, will pay attention and realize that going every season for 5 more megapixels is plain madness. Instead of this crazy computers-like competition, where more is supposed to be always better, we should go back to take pics, forget pixel peeping, and enjoy photography.

Then let the peepers of the world enjoy their little, boring world by neverendingly discussing their last-of-the-bunch, newly purchased, highly specced new camera.

That's roughly 17.5MP in an APS-C sensor.. based on equal pixel density.
I think it's more like 12mp is good enough for the cheap circuits we put in these cameras. Weak processors, noisy ADC's small buffers ect.
Take a 1/2.5 chip at 10MP.. the APS-C equiv. would be 131.6MP So you could probably cram 30MP APS-C and get 2x the picture quality of a cheap P&S
325mm squared/225mm squared X 12MP
325mm squared/25mm squared X 10MP

864mm squared/225mmm squared X 12MP = 46MP