Is my monitor good enough to show my camera's photos? Printing will be fine? There are other equipaments that must follow the cameras development.

I would much prefer camera companies work on eliminating noise and perfecting their color accuracy in their images.

I have been reading that it is the quality of the sensor that might be more important than the number of megapixels.

When PC's first came out, nobody thought they'd need more than 175MB disk storage either but as technology increases, we find the need to adapt. In 5 years, everyone will be using 200+ Meg cameras as standard, even for the kid's birthday.

I shoot for stories and on-line articles. 10MP is more than enough. Once and a while I make an 11"x19" without any problem.

I do a lot of editing and cropping. The larger the file size, the more cropping is possible.

Sure, but I, and most people can't go out and buy the next jump up every couple of months or so. I replaced my D70 last summer and I'll feel left behind with my D300 very soon. The big advantage for me is the ability to crop in and still have a very sharp and detailed print.

If you want view camera quality then yes, bigger sensors and more MP. For 35mm quality I don't see a need for anything beyond 10MP. Nothing was said about sensor or pixel size. This question doesn't reflect the current state of technology.

Many people feel that pixels can take the place of proper photographic technique, not so! As in computers, increasingly faster processors don't always make a better computer. The other components compliment the processor when applied properly to improve & refine performance.

The size of the image sensor is the often forgotten half of the equation. I would prefer a full frame 35mm image sensor with fewer pixels to a APS sized sensor with more pixels.

My 12+MP camera produces better images than a friend's 20+MP camera. He freely admits it. But as he is a friend, I won't be the one to tell him why. And another friend gets better results than I do with his 10+MP body. The reasons have nothing to do with who has the most megapixels, as we all know. Personally, if I were being paid to produce better images than I do presently, I would spring for a medium or large format system. But for my own needs, I would rather put the money into better glass and long-term subscriptions to informative educational media. Like Shutterbug. Uh, does that qualify me for a free extension of my present subscription to Shutterbug?

Even if you do not need the extra resolution for each and every image you make, you can always downsize. And I figure I can carry shorter focal length lenses and less bulk and crop more if need be. Really no down side, if you do not need it, one can always keep what they have. jmho

As long as you can turn down the MP on the camera for normal work, it is a great advantage to be able to crank it up to the highest MP for work that can benefit from it.

For the professional field; the more the better as long as technical advancements in printing large format continues. I believe that poster size and larger prints can take advantage of the higher MP yield. On the other hand the amuture needs less and I do not see where higher MP is an advantage when people like myself would not be able to take full advantage of the captured image.

30MP should do it. gives an uncropped 16X20 at 300dpi, But my last camera will probably be a 24.8 Nikon.

The more the better says it all!

It depends on the work you do, but I find 12 MP from my D300 adequate for my uses. I don't create many large prints.

Frankly, you never know when you'll find an image that will need to be cropped and enlarged. As long as memory cards keep up, the only other challenge is being able to transfer them for processing &/or printing.

It is a little upsetting that the old line mfrs like Canon, appear to have been metering out the larger sensors a few MP at a time. Sony jumped in with maximum pixels, exposing the old guys for the rascals they really are.

Cropped images are much better.

It depends on what kind of photography you do. If you do a lot of wildlife photography, more pixels allows more cropping when you get tiny, distant images.

If you need large sized prints, then you need the pixels. If you're not going larger than 11x14 then 4 MP are just fine. More are just a waste.

While it is likely that some photographers may realistically be able to benefit from such high resolution sensors, I personally don't feel the need. Does this mean that I won't avail myself of such a camera some time in the future? Probably not.

I am an amateur, but use four digital cameras in my work as a college teacher, and find anything over 8 MP overkill.

More work in increasing the dynamic range of the sensors is more important than MP.

I'm still using a 6 mp Canon SLR and still get great photos with it. I don't know how much better my pictures would be with a large amount of MP.

Why more megapixels? From what I've read pictures at ten megapixels could be placed on a billboard (if the billboard people or photographers were so inclined). But the big reason for me is that 20 megapixels is way too expensive!!! If there is a benefit to all these megapixels and a low cost (around $400 for the camera), there might be a reason. Otherwise, no way!!!

Bigger pixel size would be much better than more pixels.

MP needs depend on the end use of the image... a wallet photo or a billboard! both have their need to be filled.

I've had full-frame 40 MB capture resulting in 241 MB 16-bit files on screen and on disk for years, and will continue to get these sizes forever from my 40-year archive of 35mm film scans. For digital capture, in memory of Herbert Keppler and the Minolta Alpha 9, I'm waiting for the return of in-camera flash wireless control of remote accessory flashes before going digital full-frame, though - why compromise?