DSLRUsers.com

I've seen pic's blown up to A2 size with a 10mp SLR and a 15mp SLR (in a DSLR magazine) and cant really see any differance in them. So if i wanted to blow a pic up to poster size (& i have 1 shot i want to do this to).
So my question is how much MP is enough? With all you guys advice, I'm saving for a D700 but should i wait for the D700x?

V-man wrote:I've seen pic's blown up to A2 size with a 10mp SLR and a 15mp SLR (in a DSLR magazine) and cant really see any differance in them.

To a large extent, megapixels simply do not matter. Unless you happen to believe in marketing-speak. More megapixels will do nothing to enhance your ability as a photographer: attention the basics will.

The real issue comes back to you, the photographer. Nail the exposure, nail the focus, create something with good composition, and you simply won't worry about megapixels.

I'm saving for a D700 but should i wait for the D700x?

Why would you wait for a camera that's not even been announced? It may never be announced: how long would you be prepared to wait?

gstark wrote:Why would you wait for a camera that's not even been announced? It may never be announced: how long would you be prepared to wait?

Fair enough, but I'm still 2 months away from paying for it. Plus i'm trying to get a nikkon 24-70mm F2.8g as well.

V-man wrote: but I'm still 2 months away from paying for it.

Well, when you're ready to pay for .... it .... at that time, consider what the "it" might be. That is the only time when your choices will be relevant.

I print photos from my 6MP D70s at A2 on my Epson 3800 with no problems.

While I largely agree with Gary's comments there is ONE advantage to more megapixels and that is there is more crop latitude - should you need to crop the image before you enlarge it then there is more margin for doing so without noticeable impact if you have more megapixels.

Because everything good is so expensive i was just trying to get some new gear that wouldn't date to quickly (I should know better). My D200 is still fantastic, but the low light capability of the D700 is what i want.
Stubbsy i do crop a lot as i cant afford the big lens. But Gary is right, forget about the MP.

i wouldn't say forget about it per se, not sure thats exactly the context gary was speaking in. it kinda goes along the lines of "if yiou have to ask, you dont need it". but its certainly not a deal breaker to most peopl. but at the end of the day, more MP's does mean more resolving power, particularly evident in fine detail. that's not a marketing myth, that's just the way it is. i must admit that there are some macro shots i've taken were perhaps i would have liked a little more more resolution of very finer detail. but its also a trade off with noise at higher iso's.

gary's comments otherwise are spot on, nail all the important stuff and your golden. and why worry about a new camera that hasn been released, nor are you ready to buy ! lol

I bought the D3x a number or weeks ago to compliment my two D3's as a wedding kit. I didn't think it'd make much of a difference in terms of photographic output and print but boy was I wrong.

The one biggest factor is the ability to crop. In a wedding environment when you're forced to take a shot regardless of composition, a 'moment' they call it, is invaluable as you simply use the main cross hair focus point and fire away wihout missing the shot and worrying it won't focus as the centre focal cross hair is the fastest and most accurate. I have found that even though the D3/x has multiple cross type focal points, it seems the centre ones work with much better speed and accuracy than the others. The ability to post crop vertically, essentially leaving you with 12mp image, means there's no longer a need for a flash bracket and messing around with bouncing light in a different direction every time the camera is rotated, is very handy.

Another thing I have found myself doing is duplicating the same image and creating another totally different composition altogether. This could be making the frame a 3/4 or headshot from the original full body shot.

I would agree with the others that if you have to ask a general question, then it probably doesn't matter. If you ask a specific question like "Whether 4 MP is enough to print to 4 feet by 6 feet" then I am sure someone would be able to answer that...

Hi all,

when i switched from my beloved old D70 (which I hope is stiil in use with the person I sold it to)
to my D200 - the major improvement was as members have already said:
more megapixles - more real estate - much better capaility for cropping.
However Gary rightly says that if you get everything (framing, exposure etc) right at the time you take the photo,
the amount of megapixles is not an issue.
Some years ago, when I was doing a DSLR course at the ANU we had a fellow student who did not have a Nikon DSLR but a Nikon camera which model I forgot is was. (it had less than 6 megapixels)
It was one with a fixed lens - quite a bulky one. (almost the size of a dslr - it was also black).
He did a photo of a young lady (whole body shot). He then increased the size of the photo in several steps of 10% each using Photoshop.
He did a print, size being 80cm by 150cm - the result was really, really good - no pixelisation whatsoever.

HTH,
CD