to be honest I don't want more mega pixel ,but sometimes I feel little more will be better as I can crop when there are situations which are real tight but 12mp is more than enough for me .

It's got to cover a bigger image circle for medium format, ar_d3s. I'm not sure what you mean about keeping 12MP but have smaller pixels in the same space.

I would much rather have smaller pixels, but still full frame, We can still keep the 4256x2832 12mp size for say a d3s, but pack twice the number of pixels within that given space.

I've shot composites with my d3s to form a larger image. For example, I've shot a anywhere from a 72mp equivalent to a 477mp equivalent image of various subject matter, to try and get a higher resolution and larger image than I normally would with 12mp, but when I zoom into my subject matter, I'm still facing the usual resolution issue, due to a given pixel size. Check my page, http://www.focusarkansas.net, and you will see.

If you look at what's going on, bigger sensors, are needing bigger cameras, and larger appropriate lenses. I've had my d3s next to a hasselblad h4d, and the size of the h4d lens compared to a similar focal length lens for my nikon was bigger.

You are asking a lot willis! There is something about a printed picture that a monitor will never be able to replace I think. we can get pretty attached to a printed photo and with age the creases and fading just makes the bond stronger.

BTW Congrats and welcome to the over 1K posters!!

I need more megapixels... in my monitor.

I'm stunned how much better my Blurry iPhone pictures look on my 300ppi phone than they do identically sized on my monitor (or even at 100%). I took a shot of sweet baby the other day and it looked great on my iPhone... emailed it to myself and now it kind of looks like crap.

What's interesting about this is that if I look at shots at 100% on my computer, they rarely ever are as sharp as I like them, but still print out great. I want a full sized monitor that looks like my prints would look... is that to much to ask?

Yes, in DX 16Mp and in FF 18-20 leaning towards 20.

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said anything, Davey, considering I have very little experience with film at all and even less experience with scanning.

I occasionally put together slide shows, if that's still what you would call them now. I used to do it with actual slides—my dad had a three-projector setup and I was pretty good with a hardware/software control system called TopHat. It's incredible what you can do today with just a few dollars invested and digital images. This weekend I put together a really short one of my sister's wedding (photos by me and another sister):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wRIGA26Y3Y

Oh, and I prefer digital, too, though it means less coming from me who have only once tried any format bigger than 35mm.

@Johnny Apple: On my Apple Cinemas or Samsung LED HD TV there is a big difference between film and digital. I own more scanning gear than i care to admit. Scanning does not give me what I want or need. Frankly there are more scanning artifacts than I can tolerate. I am not talking amateur scanners. I prefer digital period!! On a slide sound show digital is the way to go!

@ studio 460 Well I sure have pursued large format and caution you to be very careful there. I owned what some companies regarded as the most impressive camera fleets owned in the USA. Looking back on it I regard one place, the Fuji GX 617 as a great and fast scenery camera. I owned all the lens panels and in fact pushed Fuji to make the longer ones. Fast forward to today. Large format will teach you discipline. It will teach you how to frame a scene. You can make prints as large as a barn. But you had better realize what you are getting into. Personally I would get a D700 replacement when it comes out. The D700 is amazing. But I think my D90 will do as good as the D300 or D700 much of the time. I sold all of my Hassys, Maymias, Linhoffs, etc. when I did comparative prints from the same scene with my Nikon F5 and superb Nikkor glass. Now I still walk thru public places once in awhile and see one of my large photos or one taken with a camera I sold to the photographer who took the picture. I frankly never miss those days, not at all!! I could point out pro landscape books done with 35mm. William Henry Jackson took great photos with a 16x20! But that was then and this is now. A d700 or even a D300 will get a different photo than the big rigs. Save your money. patience, marriage, sanity, and health and stay with 35mm DSLR!

jonnyapple said:
No offense taken, studio. Hopefully it's obvious from the rest of what I say on the forum that I don't only care about megapixels. Honestly, because I only rarely print above 11x14", I don't need more megapixels.

None meant, of course! I'm so lame, I didn't even read your first post--I saw the thread title, and immediately began typing willy nilly! I think you make good and valid points. Can't wait to get my copies of CS5 and Lightroom 3 myself!

Bob Pan said:
I'm greedy, I'd like more DR, MP, ISO and less noise, oh and if someone could do something about the cost of the equipment while they are at it, that would be nice.

I think Bob's on to something here . . .

studio460 said:
Absolutely! But novices only count megapixels! (I'm not implying that the OP is a novice--certainly, there are legitimate reasons for wanting more megapixels).

No offense taken, studio. Hopefully it's obvious from the rest of what I say on the forum that I don't only care about megapixels. Honestly, because I only rarely print above 11x14", I don't need more megapixels. I was just saying that where it was never even a consideration for me, it will be something I'm looking for in my next camera if I can get it.

Davey's post was talking about projecting digital on an HD screen, where there should be no difference between film and digital. I'm not saying I know the answer of what's enough for your purposes. That's something you'll have to find out for yourself, I think.

I'm greedy, I'd like more DR, MP, ISO and less noise, oh and if someone could do something about the cost of the equipment while they are at it, that would be nice.

DaveyJ said:
Nikon's primary need for more megapixels is sales. New buyers see that as an objective measure of quality . . . Nikon should launch both a D90 replacement and a D700 replacement with more MP and HD video. Time is of the essence though. Contrary to some, modern buyers do not stay loyal forever and a brand needs to improve to keep market share.

Boy, have you hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head!

DaveyJ said:
Dynamic range, low ISO capability, larger pixels and as has been pointed out . . . larger sensors would help Nikon.

Absolutely! But novices only count megapixels! (I'm not implying that the OP is a novice--certainly, there are legitimate reasons for wanting more megapixels).

DaveyJ said:
I have seen some very large prints done with FF DSLR Nikons. Landscapes are one of the toughest assignments for a Nikon D700. But when projected on a HD LED TV(some which are very sharp) a very large view camera image no longer has much of an edge.

Do you really think that's true? I'm not arguing your point, I just need to know! I'm about to shoot a whole new portfolio, possibly for gallery exhibition. First, I thought, gee, I need a "new" D700, FX-frame camera--my D90 is just too noisy, even at ISO 100. Then I thought, I know, I'll shoot 6x7cm film, since used Mamiyas are dirt cheap now. Then I thought, aw heck, why not go whole-hog, and just go for a cheap Toyo 4x5 body, and rent lenses as needed. Do you think the image quality of a D700 can really compete with 4x5 color negative, printed gallery-sized, on chromogenic paper? Wouldn't even a D3x have a tough time rivaling a print from a 4x5 negative?

Nikon's primary need for more megapixels is sales. New buyers see that as an objective measure of quality. Use a 12 MP D700 and the megapixel game seems far more complicated. Dynamic range, low ISO capability, larger pixels and as has been pointed out.....larger sensors would help Nikon. A huge factor is what use do you make of your photos? I still have yet to own a DSLR that can make some of the prints my big film cameras could. But they were slow, expensive, and I would NOT use them today. I have seen some very large prints done with FF DSLR Nikons. Landscapes are one of the toughest assignments for a Nikon D700. But when projected on a HD LED TV(some which are very sharp) a very large view camera image no longer has much of an edge. A great photo will always be a great photo.....one of the most important issues is actually how do we preserve and share some of the few really great images we take in a lifetime? Forum members though are a select batch and I suspect influence quite a few sales. We are also smart enough to know that we have to have gear that is up to date and competitive. Nikon should launch both a D90 replacement and a D700 replacement with more MP and HD video. Time is of the essence though. Contrary to some, modern buyers do not stay loyal forever and a brand needs to improve to keep market share.

solid_liq said:
In that case, I'd love a 24MP sensor for landscapes, and a 12MP effective sensor for normal shooting. It'd be great if I could even step down to 6MP effective or even 3MP effective for super high ISO capability. I'm not talking about a software averaging method for the pixels. I'm talking about the hardware bins being combined to act as one bin before being dumped from the imager.

A 24mp sensor that can become a 12MP sensor will have significant reduction of performance compared to a native 12MP sensor because you loose alot of light just because the individual pixels are smaller. further I dont think a hardware based pooling of the light is going to make any difference compared to software.

I don't want more megapixels unless you can switch the camera to taking lower MP images to get higher ISO capability similar to what Nikon did with the D1 series. In that case, I'd love a 24MP sensor for landscapes, and a 12MP effective sensor for normal shooting. It'd be great if I could even step down to 6MP effective or even 3MP effective for super high ISO capability. I'm not talking about a software averaging method for the pixels. I'm talking about the hardware bins being combined to act as one bin before being dumped from the imager.

I care more about DR and high ISO than I do about MP, but high MP could come in handy for landscapes and some macro shots.

I would break an articulated screen with the amount of use my camera gets (although a wireless one that was detached from the body would be very nifty). I need more mpx because I print so large. At least the Iso grain doesn't look like crap, unlike canon.

I think Niko has it spot on and I totally agree. Two things I would love to see are an articulated screen..... because I enjoy macro; the other thing I really thought was a great idea was the fake D4 with its neutral density built into the camera. I will get back on topic now... mega pixels sell cameras, not everyone who buys them ever reads forums like this and has any idea about image quality and DR.
There is a way in Photoshop to get rid of a lot of noise by taking multiple images, it works well, but only useful for static objects.

Rich.

I'd also be all for more MPs but only if they don't bring pixel quality to the altar as a ritual sacrifice.

However I would also agree with Niko on a better dynamic range. I'm not much of a technical person, so I don't really understand what Canon is doing (http://www.photographyblog.com/news/canon_files_patent_application_to_expand_sensor_dr/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+photographyblog+PhotographyBLOG). It does sound like a virtual means for increasing the dynamic range and I have no idea how it will work out for them.

No warprints don't retract that opinion! I agree with you and the fact that video in a dslr is due to popular demand. I just don't understand why except people that might be knew to the field of photography and they enjoyed movie modes on point and shoots. I just hope that this video craze does not take valuable research away from potential advances in image quality, noise reduction (iso ability), dynamic range, and resolution. Nikodoby you are right in that Nikon sat on 4-6 mp for a long time as well.

I think Nikon is smart in that they like to milk as much out of their research as possible therefore, they research into as many products as they can to get back maximum gains. 12mp technology,iso etc into 3-5 years of camera bodies. I have mentioned this before. Canon gives the public what it wants quicker and more consistantly, but I still think Nikon releases better products (eventually) onto the market when comparing Canon with Nikon. Just gotta be patient!

I prefer better dynamic range. However Nikon can't sit around with 12mp for much longer. They sat on 4 and 6 mp for too long as well. The competition is going to really start to heat up. For example, Pentax is rumored to be readying a 21 megapixel "D90 price range" camera!

Nope, not I. I'm no where close to being comfortable with editing yet, and I haven't had to crop from a mile away. So no for me, for now at least.

Sorry. I'll retract that.

I would really enjoy more MP on a FF sensor, I'm not sure it would do so well on a current gen crop sensor.

Video is very relevant to a lot of amateurs, photojournalists, and wedding photographers wanting to expand their services.

My dream camera from nikon right now would be: 18-24mp FX, d90ish sized body, 1080p RAW format video, 3fps continuous, 51pt af, for about 2k$. Compliments the d700 nicely.

Let the d700 be the lowlight king, short of putting a d3s sensor in it (they can't keep up with orders for the 5k version, I don't know how they would do with a 3-4k version).