Hi-ho,
If you're just taking photos for display on screen, then anything bigger than 4Mp is probably academic. With good light my 2Mp Coolpix2500 creates really nice images for on screen use.
Given that most PC's are 1024x768 or less you technically only need .7Mp but that's over simplifying it. To get a sharp image on screen you really need a bit more data than required to apply sensible post-processing etc.
For large prints the more Mp you can get the better, but you can get excelent 8x12 prints from 6Mp, and I've done poster (A1) prints from my 20D (8Mp) with really great results. I've seen some A0 posters done from a 300D (6Mp) which look stunning. Equally I know a chap who has a 1DsMkII (16.7Mp) who has trouble with the quality of his 6x8 prints because he insists on using cheap lenses, and hasn't learnt the basiscs of photography (light/focus/composition)
But.. For larger prints just having a high MP camera isn't the only thing that gives you the quality. Lens, sensor technology, noise, post processing, lighting, and the phase of the moon all contribute. :-).
Just my 2c worth. |
