Found this on the NY Times site...interesting perspective on the megapixel issue.

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/?mkt=techlink2

You shouldn't need to log in - I'm viewing it right now signed out. Very interesting perspective.

Very interesting article Greg.
HCS

I think there may be some truth to the point- more pixels is not always better but it's not that simple.

I agree with many of the comments- there are other variables involved that are not disclosed.

What camera was each of the ones used- this could have an effect. What type of lens was used, etc.

I'm not sure you can take out all the variables but you need more information than is given to make a conclusion that more pixels is not always a good thing.

Bottom line- megapixels are only one of the things to decide a camera purchase on.

Dennis

Yep, like did they use Photo Shop or some other program which add's pixels to an enlargement. I print 16x20's off my 2.5 megapixel Sony all the time and I can tell you there is a difference between the 2.5 Sony and my 6 megapixel Canon. Both are enlarged using photoshop, the 2.5 has more artifacts and less resolution. All sensors are not the same either. A 6 megapixel sensor in a point and shoot is not the same size as a sensor in a pro or prosumer SLR nor can it hold as much information per pixel.

Go to The Luminous Landscape if your a real techi and want to know more about Understanding Digital Camera Resolution !

Sean

I am not a real techi and still have not bought a new digital camera. My little Kodak does fine for every day photos but I can not get good distance pictures. I am looking at sending $300 or $400 on a camera and can not chose with one. I want one that I can get good pictures of Lighthouses and at Nascar races. My camera takes good pictures but the cars look like ants and you can't tell want the cars are when you look at the prints.

Most of the stuff you guys talk about is beyond me. All I know is the more megapixels the better the enlargement by my experience.

I have gone from somewhere around a 1.2, to a 3.2, to a 4.0, and now have a 8.0 megapixel Olympus Evolt 300. If I crop and zoom on the old pic files from the smaller megapixel cameras, the pics blur real fast. If I do the same with the 8.0 pic files I see a tremendous amount of clear detail and no blurring. Does that makes sense to anyone? It does to me and I feel the more megapixels the better the enlargement. The only other factor is what an individual photo-person does with those files. If they never do any cropping or enlarging, megapixels really don't matter that much. Most every camera will give you a decent 4X6 print.

Bob

I agree more mega pixcel are better BUT If you buy something new (I did 10.1) be prepared for a little frustration. My photoshop raw did not work on this new camera and it took someone that knew what to do to upload software for me. Also it is a little slower. Had to update my Computer. All in all I love this Nikon D80 and will keep it a long time.

I have a Kodak Easyshare DX7630 with a maximum of 6 megapixel. Most of the time I have it switched to 5 so I can fit more pictures on the chip.
I have taken lighthouse pictures from quite a distance and loved them.
(I shall put my money where my mouth is and post some later on today! )
I agree with the argument that more pixels is not the absolute end-all. But I don't think I would like to go below 5 megapixels. I have tried my camera at 3 and 4 ... and found 5 is better!
That is of course just my preference. And it all depends what you want to do with the photogrpahs.
How often do you want to enlarge one to poster size?
And, if you buy a digital camera for the first time, be prepared for some whole new learning. It behaves very different to "normal" cameras. But the good thing is, you can try and try and try and don't have to waste money developing and printing "mistakes"

You can do more with more megapixels, such as higher quality crops. The main drawback to more megapixels is it requires more PC power to edit it.

Not everything is megapixels. The quality of those pixels counts. I shoot with a Nikon D2H (4.1 mpxl). I try to fill the frame with every shot. Cropping can be painful. High ISO shots are noisy. But, when I do everything right... Magic! A number of my lacrosse images have been published. One of my cropped images was used to make a 40 ft high banner. Another is currently being used for a lacrosse helmet ad. You can do a lot with a little. In the end, its not the amount of pixels, but what those pixels make that counts.

I take it all back... My wife just bought me a Nikon D2Xs (12 mpxls) for Christmas (whatta woman)!

Hehehehe!

Wow ... you got some wife! Brilliant camera. Sadly I only ever "played" with one... dream on Margret ... sigh....