I'm happy with what I have, I guess I'll buy what I have to.
I've printed 10 MP to 30x20 and sold many of them.
I'm happy with my gear right now, and feel sorry for those who don't.
---------- Post added 03-03-21 at 09:07 PM ----------
Originally posted by yucatanPentax I find the remarks about the need for more and more pixels interesting. I think I've commented before about a friend who does city / urban landscapes, natural landscapes, specific buildings, etc, and uses a Nikon D810 with 36 mp. Occasionally, he wonders about upgrading to a D850. His two or three lenses work for him (no need for a cabinet full) and on rare occasions when a certain lens need comes up, he rents it.
These are prints which are feet in dimensions, not inches. Paper prints, acrylic, metal prints at sizes like 5x8 feet. Buyers for large prints are lined up and the images are all from a 36 mp camera that's around 6 years old.
You need 50 mp for a 24"x36" (50cm x 90cm) print? Even for larger? I'm unconvinced.
Here are a couple I grabbed from his FB page (so, jpgs, facebook 'handled', etc, etc), but the point is that his prints are regularly produced at quite large sizes. And, most importantly for a photographer: sold.
First image is 60 x 96 inches (150 cm x 240 cm)
Second image is 40 x 60 inches (100 cm x 150 cm)
Just what I've always said..... the idea that there are a lot of images that need higher res than 36 MP is seriously delusional.
Given that Canon printers print at 300 DPI, if you print every pixel you'd be printing 24x16. But you'll lose a lot of detail because it's too small to see or degraded by splotchy ink. Printing at 72x48 will still appear sharp.