I have a 20D and I'd much rather move up to a 5D and relegate the 20D to
"backup status."

(In a perfect world, of course...)

Jay B

The increase from 8 to 10 MP is far to small to make it worthwhile
upgrading, at least for me.
I am looking for something closer to 16MP for my next body, if this
takes a few years for an affordable 16 MP body I can wait.

At this time I would much rather put the money into lenses.

Scott

I think I really have a comfort level with the 10+ megapixel cameras. I
have several others at 5 megs, but sometimes they let me down on
resolution and saturation.

I guess over time the megapixels will keep increasing, but at 10+ I see
the results I want on a more consistent basis.

Don Harper
The Edge Photography Studio
Leesburg, Virginia

Why would anyone worry about the difference between 8 and 10 meg?

According to RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>:

    Not a less-expensive one.

    I am considering moving from the Nikon D70 to the D200 -- but
for other reasons than the 10MP "upgrade".  I would love to be able to
switch it to use only 6MP except on a few rare occasions -- but that
would probably either increase the crop factor, or introduce artifacts
into the image.

    Enjoy,
        DoN.

Let's go back in time a bit.  Isn't that a bit like asking a 35mm owner if
they plan on getting a 2 1/4 camera?  As long as the 6 meg continues to
serve me I see no reason to upgrade.  I've seen some decent 16x20 prints
from 5 meg cameras, using software.

When I had a Hassleblad the images were nothing short of phenomenal, but for
most purposes my Nikons were just fine.

The D70 is the best camera ever made with the worst viewing system: dim,
impossible to manual focus.
The main reason for me to consider the D200/D80 is not the sensor its the
viewfinder.

I intend to move from my D70 to a D200 as my primary digital body.  I may wait
for the successor to the D200, purely as a matter of finances and a lack of
"need" to update.  If I desire higher resolution, I just shoot slide film in
my F100 and scan the results.

Nope.  I shot 35mm film before moving to digital.  My 6.1MP Minolta 7D
can do everything I did in my film days, so nope I'm quite happy where
I am.  I'm not sure why you make a distinction between the 6 and 8 meg
cameras however.  The actual useful resolution difference is so small
as to be inconsequential in my experience.

I've seen pros get amazing results out of lower MP cameras and dabblers
get horrible results from expensive higher resolution MP cameras.  Once
you reach a certain number of MPs the person behind the lens becomes
much more important than the MP number...

Christina

I have a Nikon D70s, which has 6 MP.  If I upgrade, megapixels alone
will not be enough to justify the upgrade.  If I was worried about
enlargements or if all I did was crop all the time, then maybe.
Otherwise, no.

Kevin

I have a 5 meg prosumer (Oly 5060) and 8 meg dslr (Oly E-300) and get
just about everything I want from them and associated lenses. Given
that I rarely do prints larger than 11x14 I see no reason that megapix
would determine a new camera. Sensor with less noise (quite manageable
on these cameras) perhaps, maybe a live lcd, maybe something a bit more
waterproof, but that's about it.

RichA skrev:

No. I feel no immediate need for a backup DSLR body. Eventually I may
go FF, but then it won't be a distinction of "firsthand alternative"
and "backup" between my 30D and a FF camera, but rather different
firsthand uses for the two bodies.

Jan Böhme

I have a 1DMKII which I use about 80% of the time.  A 30D which I use
about 5% of the time and a Elan 7NE which I use the remaining 15% of the
time for wide angle shots on Prova 100 film. Transparencies are then
scanned into my computer, using my Minolta scanner.  Generally, my
camera pairing has been the 1DMKII and the Elan 7NE. These three cameras
more than adequately cover all my photographic needs, which includes
print sizes.

Safe to say, I have no need to go ballistic over dslr's that are full
frame or have much higher pixels counts.

Even @ 6mp the glass (for most lenses) has already become the limiting
factor.  The only advantage would be having a quieter and / or
physically larger sensor.  Maybe, even more choices as far as ISO
range.  I like the fact that the 5D does ISO 50.  Even 25 would be
nice.  That way, you can take shallow DOF shots in bright light.

Ok, my two cents.

It's more than Megapixels, especially more than two (from 8 to 10).

It's about more features, lower ISO numbers, bigger CRT screen on the back
to review pictures, ability to shoot B&W, all those little things.  My D70s
shoots great pictures, but the other things in the D200 make me want to move
up, not the increase in MP's

Old Man River

If...when it shows up in a 30D-class body...it retains 5fps, then yes.  I'd
add that to my 5D, and let my 3fps/6MP 10D rest in the hands of a family
member.  If I had the 8MP 20 or 30D, then no.

5fps with room to crop (10MP) would be very useful to me.  I have seriously
considered the 30D for 5fps and concentrating the MPs around the center
portion of telephoto shots.

Hi,

I have a Minolta 7D (6+ MP), and I am very happy with it... with one major
drawback that is common to all current digital cameras, and I will only
change for a camera that solves this problem.

This problem is the way too limited sensor dynamics. It is impossible to
shoot an outdoor pic in sunny conditions, without either burning the lit
areas to white (and retaining some details in the dark areas), or the
opposite (nice sky, totally black in the dark). In the same conditions, any
film would do much better.

I have challenged other digital cameras on this, they all end up failing the
same.

As many know, there is a very simple explanation of that problem (linear
photon flow into CCD/CMOS cells versus logarithmic quantization of that
photon flow, combined to 12 bit only for quantization).

The Sony A100 tries to address this with variable sensor gain on various
picture areas, but this is like putting a dish below a hole in the roof,
instead of fixing the roof.

I am eager to see next generation digital picture sensors that really
address this problem (though there is no technology announced at that point,
that I would be aware of).

Now, if that was to come, I would seriously consider changing my otherwise
very satisfying 7D, only for a camera that retains the real major advantages
of mine, which are features I really couldnt live with:

- "a feature = a button" ergonomy. This is underrated, and probably way more
important for me than any other selling point of a camera : I would not dare
spending any time navigating in menus, to change ISO, MF/AF, etc etc. It
makes the 7D a bit hairy in terms of buttons, but I hate for example Canon's
all-in-menus approach, and I regret that Sony went half that way with the
A100 (admittedly, Minolta had done the same with the 5D too, which served as
the A100 base).

- stabilization (either sensor or lens, I dont really care).

- neutral default picture processing (no sharpness enhancing, no gamma curve
tweaking).

All the other features are common to all cameras anyway, in one form or
another.

Bottom line : for me, MP count is absolutely not relevant in as to what
would make me switch to another camera.

Regards,

10 MPix makes only sense if the lens is more expensive than the camera.

-Michael

From 8 to 10 Mpix, there is only an 11% increase in resolution making
it a small luxury better spent on lenses, flashes or tripods.

From 6 to 10 Mpix there is a 29% increase in resolution so somewhat
more tempting, but not a slam dunk.

Re-stating the obvious (to most): To double resolution, the number of
Mpix has to go up 4X.