I recently read an article that suggested that my camera’s 24 megapixel count is outrageous and completely unnecessary. Naturally, I need to come to my camera’s defence.
The article does have a point though – my first camera, a Canon 3.2 megapixel point-and-shoot, took some very nice pictures. Many of them have been printed in 4×6 and 5×7 size and never once did I bemoan their quality. Still, it was nice when I upgraded to my 6 megapixel Pentax K100d D-SLR. With that, I can make good sized prints and not notice that it is not a film camera – it really is a good piece of equipment in the hands of a good photographer. Now that I’m a Nikon man, I’m shooting with 24 megapixels, and I use them.
It is often suggested that high megapixel counts are simply a marketing ploy. This is partly a valid point, as many people entering into digital photography equate megapixels with quality, and this is certainly not true. My D-3200 shoots in 24 megapixels, but performs a little less well than the D-5100, which shoots at 16 megapixels. The quality of the sensor is important, as are the optics (the lens) filtering the image. Professional photographers have been managing quite well with fewer megapixels. Nonetheless, it is better to have more than less on the market, so it is a smart move by Nikon.
Now, I am not brand new to the world of digital photography, though I have a lot to learn. So why do I like having such a high megapixel count? It is because I use them. We no longer live within the constraints of film photography, not should we act as though we are. I have a great deal of respect for photographers who shot in photo-chrome leaving no room for darkroom magic. My father did this for a while and got some great images, but he is now using a mid-range Olympus D-SLR. He still gets great shots, but he also has embraced Photoshop.
I use the megapixels because I crop many of my images. This is sometimes because I need to modify my composition, indicative of my inexperience, or because I do not have sufficient equipment to zoom in. Sometimes I like the perspective that wide angle provides, but am unable to physically move myself close enough to the objects I would like to isolate. My last argument in favour of megapixels, and I believe the most universal, is convenience. For common photography purposes, I do not have to changes lenses as much as I used to. If I am driving and see something, I can pull over, release the shutter with a lens at 35mm, and be on my way. I can get away with carrying less equipment and I can get away with changing lenses less.
I should note that this is purely for convenience – if I were making a billboard, I would not be cropping as much as I often do. However, for 8×10 prints, I have printed images that maintain print quality in spite of having been cropped quite significantly, in some cases losing more than half of the frame.
This is why I like megapixels – it frees me to do more with less equipment and with more room for error. Ultimately, I aspire to be able to shoot as though I were using photo-chrome film, but will never regret having the flexibility and convenience of more megapixels, harddrive space permitting.