So the point of the article is that there is an absolute limit to the number of megapixels that are useful. No kidding. What would have been more interesting would be to know where that limit is.

The article goes on to talk about how cameras will instead get more features. No kidding.

This is the worst part about digital cameras now - everybody has a 10 megapixel camera, or something huge like that...and virtually none of them know how to do something as simple as reduce the size of the picture once they copy it to their PC before they try to email it.

Then you have your mom or dad trying to email you 10 pictures they took...and it's a 100Mb email - and it doesn't leave their outbox right away, so they do it again..3 or 4 times, then get frustrated and do something else. Overnight 400Mb of email get sent to you, and you spend the next 3 days trying to download your new messages.

So on and so forth. Virtually nobody needs to get photos from a camera at more than, say, 1600x1200. Realistically, 1280x1024 is more than plenty for the vast majority of PC operators in the world. Having huge ass picture sizes just makes everything worse for the unwashed masses who don't know what to do with them.

A couple of other helpful articles.

Giz Explains: Why More Megapixels Isn't Always More Better: [gizmodo.com]

Giz Explains: Why Lenses Are the Real Key to Stunning Photos: [gizmodo.com]

@tekmiester: There is no set limit. It depends on the final use of the photographs. You don't need huge megapixel counts for 4 x 6 inch prints or online usage but it makes a big difference for pro photographers who often print 16 x 20 inch or larger. WIth film cameras most people only need 35mm cameras but some have a real use for medium format or view cameras.

@tekmiester:

Well then, here's your answer, summed up in a neat little chart...

[www.design215.com]

This chart assumes a print quality of 300dpi (standard for prints)

@Dooley:

Other vital factors are:
* Image sensor size (not only the number of pixels, but their physical size and spacing on the sensor)
* Lens size/aperture(s)

This is why phone cameras continue to be complete and utter garbage - tiny sensors and lenses.

Instead of gimicky crap like swivel screens and face recognition, how about larger sensors, or a greater dynamic range from sensors?

i have a olympus e-10 digital slr one of the first to come out its about 8 years old i can shoot in it's highest Resolution 4.1 megapixel tiff it gives me a file size of 14 meg i can make 8.5 x 11 with no problems and have got some blue ribbions at shows and i have made 36 x 42 prints with verry little processing i have not seen anything that makes me want to run out and buy a new camera if you knowi how to take good photos you dont need 8 zillion megapixels

@tekmiester: Here's a link to an article by someone who knows what they're talking about that may help you understand why Consumer Reports didn't go anywhere near the "how many is enough" issue with sensors and why the question doesn't really matter anyway.

[theonlinephotographer.typepad.com]

@YouDidWhatNow?:

I guess you don't own a large computer monitor.

Oh sure, the casual small photo is fine for viewing and playing around, but when I want to make a screen saving out of a pic of the grandkids you better damn well send a picture large enough to fill my 30" monitor.

BTW, that would a 6mb picture. Anything bigger than 6mb is a big waste of pixels because my monitor is maxed out.

I'll stake my 21MP camera against yours ANYDAY.

You also have to take into account the limitations of the viewing media. If you're printing your photos, the camera can be a gadzillion megapixels but if your printer can't print that fine, it won't matter.

FWIW, I shoot mostly 4x5 and spend disproportionately on the lenses and the paper. Digital cameras are generally for 4x6 snap shots.

@Vanilla5:

Ah yes, all of us amateur photographers pray to the lens god Carl Zeiss.

@YouDidWhatNow?: "Overnight 400Mb of email get sent to you, and you spend the next 3 days trying to download your new messages."

It takes you three days to download 400mb? You need a new Internet connection.

@yagisencho:

Most DSLR cameras (which is where higher megapixels still have some meaning - see the chart) use a "crop sensor" or a sensor that is a "crop" of "Full Frame" (full frame being 35mm film size) -- The frame is 1.6 crop (so that the full frame is actually 1.6 times larger than the crop frame)

But when you get into the happy-snaps, these cameras have such a small lens and such a small sensor that the larger megapixels just have no meaning at all.

Even on DSLR's -- There is a point where increasing the megapixels without increasing the sensor size becomes detrimental - in that the pixels have to be so small to fit on the sensor that they don't capture as much light based on their compressed size.

@YouDidWhatNow?: Pop quiz hotshot: If your camera takes 1600 x 1200 image, how big of an image can you get at 300 dpi?

Actually Dave Pogue has been explaining why megapixel counts are unimportant for over two years. See [www.nytimes.com] and [pogue.blogs.nytimes.com] for his expose on the matter.

I forgot where I saw this fact, but I know the eye cannot interpret a difference in a picture if it is over a certain amount of megapixels. I forgot what that number is, but I think it's between 5 and 6.

@balls187: If you have a large image, upload it to photobucket or facebook or something and show it off to someone from there.

It's true the 4.1 MP Canon 1D is better than most cameras that offer 3 times the effective resolution.

But there are a number of high pixel count camera that do way better than your low pixel count ones. They're all just marked for the enthusiast/professional.

@almightytora: "I forgot where I saw this fact, but I know the eye cannot interpret a difference in a picture if it is over a certain amount of megapixels. I forgot what that number is, but I think it's between 5 and 6."

*Sigh*

Okay. First, it all depends on what you're doing with the photo. Professional photographers will always shoot at the max their camera is capable of. Usually that means RAW format. And you should too. Why? Because unlike a vector based graphic which can be sized up to infinity without losing any detail whatsoever, a photograph has limitations. It can only be sized up to a certain point before it gets fuzzy. This is why people get frustrated when they have a 4x6 vacation photo and they want to "blow it up" to poster size and are told it's not possible.

The other side of that is, what if you want to crop and take out just a small piece of the photo, let's say a couple's heads in close, and discard the rest, but still have it sized for a 16x20 frame without losing quality? Like I said, it all depends on what you're going to do with it. If I need to make a batch of trade show posters I need the biggest and best quality shots they can provide me with, because the posters will be huge. (and preferably clean and clear). If all you're ever going to do with it is post it on Facebook, then by all means, take a low grade crappy pic and be done.

The eye may not be able to interpret 40 billion megapixels in a postcard, but if you need to do something else with that photo, it's kind of helpful to have them there to work with. You can't ever replace what's not there originally.

Sorry, I must be tired. I shouldn't have said photos have a sizing-up limit. You NEVER size up a photo. Only down.

@balls187: I got 4"x5". Unfortunately, I am no hotshot.

From what I understand its all about your cameras software. The first thing your average camera does is lose about 1/3 of the information that the sensors could have received. The software then has to interpolate what information was lost and add it back in. So.. cheap camera = crappy software = crappy pictures.

The single biggest improvement that can be made to most photos is cropping. I can crop my 10 megapixel images down to about 25% of their original size and still get a nice looking 8x10 print.

I do agree that for most casual photographers who do not do any editing or printing of their photos, anything over 6 megapixels is overkill.

Maybe they'll finally start taking on the challenge of making images less noisy by increasing the sensitivity of the sensor. Compact cameras are already at or beyond the either 1) the diffusion limit or b) the resolving power of their lenses.
Lets be honest and know that a compact doesn't have a very good lens. Even SLR lenes that cost more than than the best compact cameras have trouble resolving todays MP even while mounted on a tripod.
Maybe the Foven sensors will finally take off and make useful strides so we get true detail to our MP level instead of having to deal with demosiaced data.

I purchased a Canon SX-1 IS early this year because it has HD video. Frankly 720 would have been more than enough, but this is 1080 (1920 x 1080 pixels). I bought a new PC because my old one couldn't handle it, and even with a cutting-edge processor (i7 920) it struggles to play the video. I don't think there is a need for any higher video quality than that, or pics over 10 megapixel or so unless you're shooting for publication. Now the manufacturers can focus on lenses and features.

@tekmiester: It massively varies; think 2 megapixel cameraphones and how awesome those look

@tekmiester: Hoo knows what the limit might be? Apparently we have not reached it yet. I would rather see them improve on other features, and maybe provide better instructions for finding the features we have.

What I REALLY want in a digital camera - notetaking abilities. There's nothing worse than having your pics from vacation and not remembering the name of the sculpture/building/fountain/whatever you took a photo of.

I was recently at a trade show and took photos of furniture I liked, and the only way for me to know what company made the furniture was to take a photo of the company's logo at the entrance of their exhibit, THEN take a picture of the photo.

There needs to be a better way!

That chart is wrong wrong wrong. I have a 4mp and a 6mp DSLR, and regularly print in 16x20 and 20x30 sizes. They look spectacular with no pixelation.

Some people here have mentioned it, but there is no hard and fast limit. The issue stems from trying to cram waaaaay to many pixels into the same size sensor. Either the sensors will have to get bigger (meaning bigger cameras) or we'll have to stop at a certain point and focus on more important things, like lens quality. My pref would be something like 10mp in a consumer camera. Going higher means goofy ISO's, like 50. What consumer could honestly handle iso 50?

Playing with a diffraction limit calculation tool, a Compact camera with a relatively large sensor (1/1.8") and a 10mp sensor is already limited by f5.6 Typical F-stop range on a compact camera is about f2.8-6.3 or so depending on zoom. So at max zoom its already optically impossible to achieve max resolution on today's cameras. Smaller sensors and higher resolutions just make this worse. Add to this that almost all lenses dont achieve maximum resolution until several f-stops past wide open and you'll see right now there is a very small range of settings you'll ever get the rated resolution.

I shoot at something low like 4 or 6 megapixels with my P&S, but when I break out the DSLR, I shoot at the maximum 15 megapixels and in RAW. That way, (close) cropping is almost never, ever an issue.

I do all of the post production work and archiving in Aperture (and use it as a negatives archive), but I use iPhoto for organization. By time they get to iPhoto, they're processed, and a reasonably sized JPEG for all of the good, little consumer uses.

Okay, that was a long story, but the point is, even if the end product doesn't need the megapixels, they're damned nice to have in the original.

@balls187: Depends on what dpi your camera takes it at.

At 300dpi, a 72dpi 1600 x 1200 is 4x3 inches.

@nocar:

That's especially true if you need to crop an image.

/hobbyist photographer that prints at 16x20 a lot

/of course, on point and shoot cameras the big limitation is lens quality/size.

@StanTheManDean:

Sure I do: 22" at 1680x1050...which is WAY bigger than the average. I'd be willing to bet that at least half of all PC users are running at 1024x768 still.

Virtually no one buys 30" monitors.

@BZMedia:

...do you honestly need a "/sarcasm" in there?

@YouDidWhatNow?:

...sorry, hit the Enter button too soon. Wanted to add that some people are still on dialup too. Send them a 100Mb email and you well and truly just might "break" their email forever.

@Dresarius:

Dynamic range = Fuji. The S5 Pro has the highest dynamic range of any camera on the market, and the S3 Pro, which came out in 2006, is second. I have an F10 which I've been getting amazing results with over the past five years, and just purchased a used S2 pro so I can start understanding what actually goes into making pictures.

@balls187:

Don't know and don't really care. All I know is I'm tired of people being too dim to edit pictures down to useful sizes, and/or uselessly sending 100Mb emails.

@morganlh85: Use a notebook?

@silver-bolt:

...or, looking at it this way, 1600x1200 is a picture that won't quite fit on my 22" monitor - which runs at a fairly impressive 1680x1050 resolution. So while I might be able to view almost all of that picture and not be overly annoyed, the *everyone* else I know who hasn't popped $ for a big monitor will *not* be able to view the whole photo, and will be annoyed.

@morganlh85: Some cameras allow you to make audio notes after taking a pic. I had a Finepix F601Z in 2003 that allowed me to do this.

@balthisar: Agreed, but I think what Consumer Reports is suggesting is that the average snapper doesn't need all the megapixels when all they're doing is taking pictures and mailing them to friends & relatives.

@nocar: I suppose if you want to make a print the size of a highway billboard, you will need many, many megapixels.

It doesn't matter how many megapixels the manufacturers can build into cameras, their customers will still be taking flash pictures of subjects 100' away, with the auto settings turned on.

People don't seem to realize that they can make a bigger improvement in their pictures by learning a bit about their 2-year-old 5 megapixel camera than by buying a brand new 10 megapixel camera that they still don't know how to use.

This didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. The MP race was only useful for a few years. After trying to cut down on sensor size and other things (including lens) for smaller cameras. Image quality usually suffers. Though the race has gone into the mobile world now. Up to 12MP. Which is nice, but the biggest problem is still the lens/sensor size. Plus only a handful of mobiles have optical zoom on them too.

@Binaryslyder: What's the matter with 50 ISO? Until Kodak just dropped the film, Kodachrome 25 was 25 ISO and the industry standard.

@YouDidWhatNow?: Which is precisely why email service providers generally restrict attachments to emails to 20 MB.