How many megapixels?

[Myka]

I need to buy a new camera (the G9 didn't like the swim in the reef). Considering all my cameras seem to meet their untimely demise in approximately 2-3 years, cost is a concern. I don't see the need to buy a 25 MP camera if I don't need one. The only reason I blow photos up is just to frame them and put them on my wall for a year or two. I will be buying another Canon camera.

So, simple question. If I never blow a picture up bigger than 16x20" (which is a rare occurrence anyway) and usually 8x10" is the biggest, what megapixels range should I be looking in?

[globaldesigns]

Unless you want to print a billboard size photo, you really don't need to have 25 MP... Most cameras have way more than anyone would need, especially when consumers tend to print 4X6 prints, maybe the odd 5x7 or 8x10.

I would look at a camera with a better processor, focusing, etc. I myself have a 30D, at the time, more camera than what I needed, and even today still has more than what I need at 8mp... But it was the guts of the machine I wanted, the focusing, processor, and features.

Not sure what MP is offered in consumer line cameras of today, but 8-12MP is more than enough for image information.

[MarkoD]

Don't go over 10. You don't need it and the more megapixels you have, the worse the low light performance is

[Myka]

Thanks globaldesigns! Do you have any specific recommendations on features and "guts"?

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Don't go over 10. You don't need it and the more megapixels you have, the worse the low light performance is

Really? That is good to know! Do you have any comments on "the guts"? Maybe that is what I should look at more...

[sphelps]

I think 10MP would be lots for 8x10 and 16x20. However I'm pretty sure when it comes to these compact cameras pixels means very little as the sensor size never increases and sometimes even gets smaller. Typically the density increases and from my understanding is that rarely means much more than a number used for marketing. It's why you can look at full frame cameras which have large sensors yet usually only around 12MP while the latest and greatest tiny compact has 25MP on a sensor a fraction of the size.

[sphelps]

I also have a G9 and love it so if you're in the market I would consider something similar, maybe G10 or even the 11 or whatever number they are at now. Just be sure to check specs and compare, sometimes the new cameras are worse than the older ones.

Cannon also makes an underwater case for the G cameras, I'd highly recommend it

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by MarkoD

Don't go over 10. You don't need it and the more megapixels you have, the worse the low light performance is

Do they still make cameras with less than ten?

[Myka]

Ya, thanks Steve! I didn't mind the G9 (I had a G7 before it)...I got some pixelation when trying to capture lower light photos. I'm not sure what specs would affect that.

I was looking at the Canon underwater cases, but was also considering the much cheaper DicaPac cases since I have to buy a whole new camera right now (trip to Kauai coming up in April). I'm thinking and underwater case would come in handy when taking macros of corals that are not near the glass and may prevent another swimming camera death!

[scubadawg]

You won't need over 10 meg, I still have 2 - Nikon D200's which are 10.2 meg cameras, that are from 2006, I have no choice but to keep them, I have 2 underwater housings for them. I also have a D700 12.2 meg, and just ordered the D800 36.3 meg. With the newer technology, you get faster focusing, lower light capabilities, faster processing times. If you are shooting underwater, make sure you get external flashes, it will reduce the scatter in your photos.

This is what scatter is:
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/ba...ter-underwater

[MarkoD]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Do they still make cameras with less than ten?

i dont think so... but i just shoot everything at 10mp. SRAW on 5d ii