How many megapixels is 'enough'?

[Polaris]

Originally posted by ua549
The digitals will never match the quality and variety of film especially when shooting at night in the dark.
A digital camera can't produce infrared shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak HSI film.
A digital camera can't produce night street shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak T-Max P3200 speed film can.

If one is simply going to take snapshots to put on a computer, a digital camera has some advantages because a computer video (even the best) can't compare to high definition film. There is a reason the medical imaging still relys on film.

*edit* The above shots look OK on a computer screen, but I'm sure they don't when printed at 11x17.

First of all, my Canon 10D through S-Spline looks better at 20x30 than my EOS-1n does with 100 speed film. Same lens, same developer.

Infrared effects are quite easily replicated in post processing with a couple different plug-ins. Not cheap, but if you like infrared, they're the ticket.

The new 1D Mark II does amazing work at high ISO's, and certainly is less grainy than TMAX 3200.

Medical imaging isn't relying on film anymore. Much of it is going digital, and only going to film when absolutely necessary.

[rhettro]

Originally posted by ua549
The digitals will never match the quality and variety of film especially when shooting at night in the dark.
A digital camera can't produce infrared shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak HSI film.
A digital camera can't produce night street shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak T-Max P3200 speed film can.

If one is simply going to take snapshots to put on a computer, a digital camera has some advantages because a computer video (even the best) can't compare to high definition film. There is a reason the medical imaging still relys on film.

*edit* The above shots look OK on a computer screen, but I'm sure they don't when printed at 11x17.

Right you are. I meant to type "can't" instead of "can." Shooting pictures at night is a good reason to have a nice film camera. But if you are an amateur, you can save a lot of money by not having to develope pictures by going digital.

[ewitte]

Originally posted by ThemSkillz1
so, where do you guys see the sweet spot at in today's market? everyone's needs are different, but where do you see the divide between enough, and too much?

I shoot for 200dpi or more. The max I would go to is 180dpi. Also 8x12 is the real 35mm standard. With 8x10 part of the picture is cut off. Its fine if you account for this in Photoshop first and pick what you keep/discard. With the original cameras 3x5,5x7,8x10, etc were standard. They just move a LOT slower than the computer industry. I have a really nice 8x12 from a 6.3mp Digital Rebel. The same camera gets great photos at night. Especially manually adjusted with a tripod and a good lens.

Eric

[ua549]

Originally posted by Polaris
Medical imaging isn't relying on film anymore. Much of it is going digital, and only going to film when absolutely necessary.

I have yet to see a DMD or MD in private practice with other than a film based imaging device (xray machine). This week I had 8 images made of a broken heel. All were to film. Even my last cat scan (2002) was done to film. Perhaps large research hospitals are bypassing film in some cases, but I'm sure they have not eliminated film for still images.

[ewitte]

Originally posted by ua549
I have yet to see a DMD or MD in private practice with other than a film based imaging device (xray machine). This week I had 8 images made of a broken heel. All were to film. Even my last cat scan (2002) was done to film. Perhaps large research hospitals are bypassing film in some cases, but I'm sure they have not eliminated film for still images.

I would think it depends. There is at least one dentist office we worked with that went completely digital over 5 years ago. It is a larger office with about 20 chairs in the Medical center.

Eric

[SkyDog]

I take almost all of my shots nowadays with my Canon PowerShot G2 digicam, but I still keep the ol' SLR around for the occasional task the digicam just can't handle.

The SLR has its advantages in certain circumstances: no shutter lag, different film types, the fact I've got different lenses for it, etc. But the convenience of the digicam and the fact that it costs me 0¢ per picture (before prints) usually win out. And the PowerShot G2 has enough "real camera" features to get me by most of the time.

[machinegun_gotti]

3.2 MP is plenty for most uses. I have a Canon PowerShot A75 with 3.2 MP, and it takes excellent pictures.

[PCJ]

I use my camera for random snapshots, so I don't care too much. I have a noname 4mp camera and My dad has an old Canon 2.1 as well as one of those super expensive analog cameras.
I like my 4mp digital most of the 3, cause I just have to turn it on and press a butto to take pictures. The analog camera has about 300 billion settings, and the 2.1 mp just isn't enough in some cases.

However, I'm not very picky when it comes to cameras.

[skoechle]

I would say 3 Megapixels is enough but I definitly need 4 if I'm gonna be printing

[machinegun_gotti]

Originally posted by skoechle
I would say 3 Megapixels is enough but I definitly need 4 if I'm gonna be printing

What size prints would you be making?

[richardginn]

Originally posted by machinegun_gotti
What size prints would you be making?

At 3MP you would get good 8x10 print

at 4MP you are moving up into the 11x14 print.

[mikeysg]

I have a Nikon Coolpix 3200, and I'm plenty happy with it. It comes with a 64mb SD card, mini tripod stand and case....went out and got me a 256mb SD card. So, I'm good to good for a few hundred shots at max res, I'm real happy. IQ's great, and it's damn easy to use - always a plus for a camera noob like me.

[Transfurzz]

In the end nothing beats it better than real film photography.

[zehubert]

It all boils down to what print size you want out of your pictures. I have had 4x6 prints from 2MP images and they look beautiful. Unless I wan to go beyond 8x10, I think that 4/5 MP is good enough. The next thing I want badly is fast start and fast automatic focus. I don't want to wait 1-2 sec before snapping a picture.

[ewitte]

Originally posted by Transfurzz
In the end nothing beats it better than real film photography.

At least with medium or large format. My digitals look way better than standard 35mm.

Eric