Tue 25-Dec-12 12:40 AM | edited Tue 25-Dec-12 12:44 AM by nwms
I don't print very big that often, but when I do 12mp has been good enough for me. I think this question also depends on what type of photography a person does.
For example, most of my professional work is photographing people and I've noticed that the crispness from higher megapixel cameras aren't too great for portraits. It's the same problem we are seeing with high definition televisions that can also show every flaw or pore on a person's face. This crispness and detail is great for landscapes, but in my opinion it's terrible for portraits.
It's kind of hard to explain to anyone who hasn't noticed the difference. My D700 images have a sharp but smooth look to them whereas images I see from the D800 and other high megapixel cameras have that high definition crispness that can look overly sharp at times.
Ideally I would like to have two types of cameras. One low megapixel camera that specializes on that sharp but smooth look I'm talking about and just specialized on a higher image quality in general. For example, I keep waiting for the day when my ISO 6400 image looks as good as my ISO 100 images.
I would then get a second camera that specializes on high megapixels and pixel peeping crispness for when I need to do landscapes or anything else that requires a lot of pixel detail. Nikon started to do that for us when they had the D3 and D3X, but now with the D600 and D800 it is like we are forced to have the higher megapixel or don't buy an upgrade. At least the D4 only went to 16mp.
I'm just worried that with Nikon and Canon's race for more megapixels they're overlooking what happens to the look of images when they keep adding megapixels.