I understand those who say more is good too. I occasionally become quite interested in scientific cameras which capture in 100\'s of megapixels. I bet I could find a use for it too - not to mention it being just plain fun to edit and dink about in the massive files. But to me that\'s a specialty item - even a novelty item. If I want images for the art of capturing what I (as a human being) see with the intent of keeping it for future reminisce and/or maybe sharing it on-screen or in print (8x10, A4, 4x5, A5 or smaller) I actually do not want more than about 16mp or maybe 18 max.
To me this is the main purpose of a camera. Capturing and/or sharing a vision or version of reality in a semi-permanent media (paper, file, screen). If my purpose were to reproduce the works of great painters and artists photographically or something of that nature then I would enthrallingly welcome the D800\'s higher resolution and likely call for more. So I do understand those digging this. IMO however, such a high resolution belongs to a specialty or scientific camera model of some kind.
I guess if my home were equipped with one or more of those VR walls we see in hollyweird films I might feel differently...
Feb 07, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10321292 « Better rather than just more megapixels ? »
