Do you think there is any advantage to 21 MP?

I've seen 12MP shots blown up to A0 on a LightJet printer it looked great.

I can only guess that you might be better to be able to crop more.

Marten, what happens when the New York agent calls and wants to print that 12 MP (megapixel) image 20x30 feet, to hang on the side of a building? Most professional photographers view their images as assets, so the long-term goal is to have those assets be as flexible as possible. The 21 MP Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III may be overkill for most photographic projects but if you are thinking about future sales, bigger is better. -Ken Geiger

I think its awesome that Nikon's decisions had more emphasis on what's truly needed for a photographer. 12 MP in my opinion is fine, while breaking into the higher MP's would somewhat touch base with medium format quality and yes, you'd probably be able to better crop more. Looks like i'll be saving my lunch money till November!

If my math is correct, a 12 MP file (if you shoot full frame) is perfect for a two-page National Geographic magazine spread. -Ken Geiger

Have you ever seen a billboard up close, say from two foot away. you could get away with a 6mp or smaller, no problem. It's an illusion of sharpness.

This is definitely an exciting time, with all these cameras released!!!

Yes, the 21 megapixels VS 12 megapixels is going to make a difference for close-viewed "measured in feet insead of inches" type prints. But don't forget, a Nikon D3X (rumored 24 mp) is probably only 6-12 months away!

Personally though I'll be getting a D300, because of it's incredible combination of portability and professional specs. That, and how small / light lenses like the 12-24 DX are compared to the FX lenses like the 17-35, has convinced me to stick with DX for travel / adventure photography. I'll be ready to start doing NG assignments in no time! :-P

=Matt=

concerning the megapixel output, i think that finally gives the detail definition is the lens. Many tests have proven that a lens resolution is not infinite, and there are few very high quality ones that can surpase the resolution of a 12 Mpx sensor. So, scaling up an 12mpx image with the proper software and good optics involved should compete with a 21 mpx shot with no major issues.

I've been shooting with the 1Ds MkII since it first came out and many of the lenses out there (even Canon's L series) can't make full use of the 16.7 megapixels. I would have rathered Canon improve noise performance than up the pixel count. That just increases my file sizes. And speaking of which, I wouldn't be too quick to buy into the 14 bit hype. Adding bit depth to the A/D conversion doesn't do you any good unless you got a clean signal (low noise sensor). This marketing trick has been pulled on photographers since the scanner days.

Speaking of print size, is there an analogy to film here? Compare a 16x20 printed from a 35mm negative (fine grain film) to one printed from a 6cm x 6cm, and then compare that to one printed from a 4x5, etc. Putting aside the content, most of the time the larger the negative the better the print - more detail and better tonal range.
Still, the 35mm print may be good enough (for example Galen Rowell's large prints). So when you take into account the size and weight difference between 21mp and 12mp cameras, let alone the extra thousands of dollars the 1Ds costs, the choice becomes interesting.

The 21mp is gives you no advantage in terms of image quality. If you are going to go with 21mp than you should go into medium format digital cameras instead of canon 21mp. Precisely because a 21mp medium format has a better image quality attached to it, it is as if the subject almost comes out of the picture. If you like pixels, I suggest you shell out $25K and get yourself a real 21mp quality camera.

Oh nikon is coming out with D3x, which should double the pixels of D3, but for what?

The 21mp is gives you no advantage in terms of image quality. If you are going to go with 21mp than you should go into medium format digital cameras instead of canon 21mp. Precisely because a 21mp medium format has a better image quality attached to it, it is as if the subject almost comes out of the picture. If you like pixels, I suggest you shell out $25K and get yourself a real 21mp quality camera.

Oh nikon is coming out with D3x, which should double the pixels of D3, but for what?

Great information and tips about digital photography, Looking forward to learn more from here

The size that a picture can be blown up to is commonly misunderstood by those who talk about megapixels with digital photography.

It matters most with offset litho printing and this is really the basis upon which to judge how the photo looks when enlarged.

A 10 megapixel camera would typically cover an A3 litho printed process colour sheet without any problem.

Michael.
http://CamerasAndCamcordersUK.com

The number of megapixles is commonly misunderstood by people who say they can blow up a picture on their home printer to a specific size and it looks fine.

That's all well and good, but the actual test is how that picture will look when printed using the offset colour litho process. That's the test that matters.

A 10mp will give you a good A3 size (2 x 8.5x11) and a 21mp should give you up to A2 size (twice that of a 10mp).

Michael.
http://CamerasAndCamcordersUK.com

And they say size doesn't matter, I think it does!!