At what point do Megapixels become irrelevant

[rumbliegeos]

I'm very far from a digital photography maven, but I certainly agree that the way a camera turns an image into a file seems more important than the gross number of pixels it can record. I have owned two 16 mp point and shoots and both consistently produced images that were far inferior to my old D200, at virtually any equivalent print size. I think the marketing of point and shoots by pixel count is particularly misleading to mainstream consumers, who as pointed out above, rarely print above 4X6, if they print at all.

 

[mfogiel]

The "negative format" becomes irrelevant, beyond a point, at which you blow up your image to the largest size you are ever likely to print in, and then look at it from a 20cm distance, and still see all the detail as detail, and not as grain or pixels.

 

[David Hughes]

I wish! 🙄 The images in my Digital Archaeology series were initially printed 5 feet tall ... and on the day I saw them, everyone who looked at them did indeed stand back, but then they all without exception went in to a few inches!

So viewing distance = great theory that fails when you add human nature to the equation!

Hi,

Yes in theory and for a specialised audience but for the usual/average sort of photographer on a forum, well, I have my doubts.

I like testing theories; I have a large (16" x 20") print made from a 5 mp camera, and printed on four sheets of photocopy paper that are mounted to overlap. So the edges can be seen. It's positioned where it's brightly illuminated and you can only see it from 2 to 3 ft away. People like it and I ask them about it and no one yet has spotted the joins or anything unusual. Even when I point out the joins running top to bottom and side to side I still get doubted.

And look at monitor screens, no one complains yet most of the time we look at 1 mp pictures at 72 or 96dpi. Suggest printing like that and you'd get thrown out in a lot of places.

I think composition, subject, exposure and focus are noticeable, and subject most of all as it stops people looking further. As for composition, who really notices?

Regards, David

 

[jsrockit]

Even then, a great deal depends on subject matter, viewing distance, and who is doing the inspecting.

Cheers,

R.

I said personally Roger.

 

[Buzzard]

I bought a Lumix FZ8 around 2008 for family get togethers. 7.3 megapixels and its cost was under 200.00. At the time I was also looking at a more expensive but discounted Fuji S9000 for around 500.00 dollars. Around 9.0 megapixels.

I remember when researching back then that most agreed that for 8 by 10 prints, 5 or more megapixels was sufficient. The most debated topic was how much for larger prints.

8,9,10, and maybe 12 MP was where most high end cameras where in 2008 if I remember right. Funny but now all of a sudden we need at least 16 and would prefer more.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I said personally Roger.

Sorry: I misread you as talking about "producing the print" not "inspecting the print". The construction sounded to me as though the print might be inspected by others as well as yourself.

Cheers,

R.

 

[lam]

When a manufacturer of not a taste suitable to yours produces one higher. 😉