cjcampbell wrote:
Greg Campbell wrote:


You're looking at 15% greater linear resolution. With all the other
variables that affect image sharpness, that doesn't amount to much...

Indeed. You need to quadruple the number of pixels before you make a
noticeable difference for any practical purpose. Camera manufacturers
would like to have you think that a Canon 1Ds Mark II takes better
pictures than a Rebel XT because of the difference in number of pixels.
Nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually, I agree that the difference between 6 and 8 MP is for all
practical purposes close to meaningless outside the marketing office of
the particular company, but quadrupling of the number of pixels is not
necessary to get better quality in photos. Doubling does nicely for
some things, and, if Pentax produces a 12 MP camera in the next year or
so, that's what I plan to do.

After that, I'm probably done buying cameras. I kept my Olympus OM1ns
for about 18 years. I figure the Pentax should last out the rest of my
days, even if MP counts blow up to 30 or 40 or more.

Oh. Someone else commented on cropping being because of poor technique
(using the wrong equipment): not really, or not always. My printer for
a full bleed print has different crops for 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 and 8-1/2x11,
while my editors may choose to crop a shot to fit on a particular page
space. When any of that happens, it's really, really nice to be able to
chop off a piece and blow up the result and still have a sharp picture.