[mercy]

I don't want to argue.

However, pixels are not just pixels. The size of the photosite on the sensor that creates the bits that inform the pixels is very important. As is the number of bits.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you never go beyond 8 x 10 or if you are not talking about serious art prints then digicams are usable.

The best fashion guys right now are using the 1Ds II with 16million pixels. They tell us that they can do a large mag double spread if they don't have to crop much. Of course I'm talking about 'perfect'. Every eyelash. Art quality.

If we are talking about snapshots or the web then 5 MP is all you need. My comments are geared towards art photography. Fine detail. Withoug the plastic look of normal digital. Even the 1Ds produces a bit of that 'plastic look'. It is reported by some that the 30 thousand dollar digial backs for medium format cameras are beginning to produce 'film like' quality.

[ValerieUSA]

Large art prints are large format, not 35mm, not prosumer digital.
I don't think large format photography is what the beginner is taking on.

[MarkL]

However, pixels are not just pixels. The size of the photosite on the sensor that creates the bits that inform the pixels is very important. As is the number of bits.

this is very true... My first digital camera was a Sony MVC-CD1000, which was a monster, top of the line, Sony 2.1 MP camera, that recorded directly to mini-cd. I bought it 2 years after it was discontinued, as a returned product for $350, while the original price was over $1000. Let me tell you, I got an amazing number of animal-ass photos with that camera! The joys of early digicams, with long shutter lag, and EVF blackout while shooting! Still, it took some terrific photos. Even though it was a 2.1MP camera, the picture quality rivals that of alot of 4MP cameras. I've been able to blow prints up to 8x10, and the photos look great: While there is quite a bit of grain, it looks OK. As long as you're more than about a foot away from the photo, it could be a film image. The look of the photo was really quite good.

Mark

[Tatze]

I would be curious what you might know about the sensor on the Pentax *ist DSLR. I just got one in late June, mainly because I already had quite a few Pentax mount lenses and thought this route would be cheaper without the added expense of new lenses. It will do up to 6.1 MP and will do RAW format. I have been very happy, for the most part, so far with the *ist. It took some very nice pictures on my trip to Vegas in early July (see 1 below).

As for prints, I have only done a few over the years with my ME Super. Mostly 8x10 or smaller, but at least 1 poster size that I have framed on my wall. The *ist has the potential to reignite my interest again, which could increase the likelihood for more prints.