I just read, Is Bigger Always Better, where the author brings up an excellent question: Do you need a camera with the most possible megapixels? As the author finds out, no.
If you are someone that merely post your photos online or print small sizes (8x10), then a 3.1 megapixel camera is likely to be just fine…from a pixel perspective. However, just because I never print billboard size photos doesn’t mean I don’t want the best digital camera on the market. And no, not because I can then take small portions of the photo and still print large (as the author points out), but because something even more important to me: the keeper ratio.
What in the world is the keeper ratio? I currently have a Canon 5D and I love it. However, some of my best photos were taken by older cameras like the D30 or 10D. BUT since getting the 5D the percentage of photos that are worthy of keeping have greatly increased (keeper ratio)...not due to megapixels, but due to camera capabilities. Noticed I said capabilities, not features. While going from a consumer to prosumer camera gives you more megapixels, the best thing for me was its ability to awesome photos even if I wasn’t a perfect photographer. I’d notice the same type of jump moving to a pro camera body as well (I’ve used the Canon 1Ds Mark II on a few occasions and was amazed by the photos I got).
So while it’s true that a pro photographer can capture stunning images with nearly any camera…for amateurs like me I’ll take all the help I can from the tools…after all on the rare occasions that I actually get to shoot I want to come back with as many keepers as possible.
