Quality Vs Value discussion

[Bsmooth]

I must say this is very interesting indeed.Especially about the G10,as I have been looking for ages for something to keep in my truck at all times for photo ops.I have owned since new a Canon 20D.You all know the camera very well.Its one of those which probably quite a few have moved up and onwards from.Its not pro caliber,and by todays standards its "only" 8 MegaPixels.But, and this is probably the most important question,what do you need?
 If your into 20x30 prints read no further.But for the rest of us,who make say no larger than 11x14 prints,its perfect.IMHO you don't need more megapixels.What you do need is the ability to capture more latitude as far as contrast,but even the newer cameras aren't much better than the 20D in that respect.I also don't need huge files,the ones I take now are quite large and need to be backed up,so smaller in this case is definately better.
 I've seen some the larger images and there great for cropping especially,but I'll just do that in camera If I can,besides that it saves me even more processing work.If your an amatuer,and I hope I can even make that category you just don't need more, but better yes.Its another race,not in space but in megapixels.Everything is about more these days ,but not necessarily better.HDR is often talked about and every camera should have the ability built right into the camera,as well as multiple exposure capability.The new Olympus E-30 is  great for putting the fun back into taking pictures,as well as some great features as well.They take some chances,but not just add more megapixels,like the big two are constantly adding on.Cheers for Olympus,almost makes me want to switch from my Canon,but thats almost
 If you really want better pictures,you need better lenses and better technique.But more megapixels? You can keep them,give me quality not quantity.

[fike]

This is a topic that never dies...and it probably shouldn't.  

It sounds like you know what you want and what you need.  That puts you in a very good position to make a good decision about a new camera, should you feel the need to upgrade.  

At Luminous Landscape, I think you are going to find more people who will argue for more: more quality, more pixels, more dynamic range, more color depth, more ergonomics, more features.  All of these areas are places where improvements can be made.  For you pixels don't do it.  I print large panoramic work that tends to range from 13x30 inches to 24x48 inches.  I like to print big.  So, I need lots of good quality pixels.  

I agree that Canon and Nikon have become kind of risk averse when it comes to features.  In-camera HDR is certainly a cool idea.  Rotating, pivoting LCDs are great.  Canon and Nikon don't do it in the DSLRs.  I think one manufacturer has even designed in-camera panoramic stitching.  That is great.

Canon and Nikon don't need to push the envelope.  They own the market and they don't want to take risks.  Panasonic, Olympus, and to a lesser degree Sony all need to find differentiators.  While the quality curve has leveled off, the features curve, particularly where in-camera processing is concerned, still have a long way to go.

[dalethorn]

How many pixels is enough?  Enough so when I make a 4x6 ft. poster print, I can see the same detail as I can looking at the original scene.

I must say this is very interesting indeed.Especially about the G10,as I have been looking for ages for something to keep in my truck at all times for photo ops.I have owned since new a Canon 20D.You all know the camera very well.Its one of those which probably quite a few have moved up and onwards from.Its not pro caliber,and by todays standards its "only" 8 MegaPixels.But, and this is probably the most important question,what do you need?
 If your into 20x30 prints read no further.But for the rest of us,who make say no larger than 11x14 prints,its perfect.IMHO you don't need more megapixels.What you do need is the ability to capture more latitude as far as contrast,but even the newer cameras aren't much better than the 20D in that respect.I also don't need huge files,the ones I take now are quite large and need to be backed up,so smaller in this case is definately better.
 I've seen some the larger images and there great for cropping especially,but I'll just do that in camera If I can,besides that it saves me even more processing work.If your an amatuer,and I hope I can even make that category you just don't need more, but better yes.Its another race,not in space but in megapixels.Everything is about more these days ,but not necessarily better.HDR is often talked about and every camera should have the ability built right into the camera,as well as multiple exposure capability.The new Olympus E-30 is  great for putting the fun back into taking pictures,as well as some great features as well.They take some chances,but not just add more megapixels,like the big two are constantly adding on.Cheers for Olympus,almost makes me want to switch from my Canon,but thats almost
 If you really want better pictures,you need better lenses and better technique.But more megapixels? You can keep them,give me quality not quantity.

[KevinA]

How many pixels is enough?  Enough so when I make a 4x6 ft. poster print, I can see the same detail as I can looking at the original scene.

I bet we all think we see more than we do, a print you can walk upto it stays still, in real life we are not still and our brain is selective when we look at a scene. If you walk closer in real life you see more detail. We expect the same from a print and to a certain degree we do get that but it's a finite amount, you come to a point in a print where you don't see anymore detail, more pixels gets you in closer. That's how I see it.

Kevin.

[Plekto]

IME, most of the limitation is now the printer.  You can have a 25MP image, but by the time it gets through the process of printing it out, it might as well be a 10MP image.(unless you have a digital lithography setup or similar.

[dalethorn]

I bet we all think we see more than we do, a print you can walk upto it stays still, in real life we are not still and our brain is selective when we look at a scene. If you walk closer in real life you see more detail. We expect the same from a print and to a certain degree we do get that but it's a finite amount, you come to a point in a print where you don't see anymore detail, more pixels gets you in closer. That's how I see it.
Kevin.

There is no doubt that a large print, say 24x36 inches, shot with a good quality 40+ mp camera, and a same-size print shot side by side with any 10 mp camera will look very different, as long as the printing is top quality.  If you don't notice the difference, or don't care much, then you're in luck, because you'll save a
lot of money.

[Bama_Panda]

Canon and Nikon don't need to push the envelope.  They own the market and they don't want to take risks.  Panasonic, Olympus, and to a lesser degree Sony all need to find differentiators.  While the quality curve has leveled off, the features curve, particularly where in-camera processing is concerned, still have a long way to go.

You are absolutely right. We might thank Oly for having brought much innovation to the forefront for the average photog. After all, liveview, dust removal, and overall light weight in a quality, highly customizable camera with lenses made for digital are some of the things that Olympus pioneered.
Many of these things were pooh paahed by the big boys, but now they use them, some not very well. I will never forget quotes that popped up about live view ...like " an answer in search of a question".