Many of the photos I shoot are printed at 12X18 or 16X24 and this is an important feature for me.

I can't afford to make a print larger than 8x10. The inkjet printers that go that big are too expensive, and the camera shop isn't any better at $20 for an 11x16 print. I compete in the small print division or slides at our local camera club! PS: For $1.50 you can have any digital image converted to slide.

I like the clarity of a print at 16x20. So the EOS20D does work; however, more pixels would mean not having to interpolate up.

you can never have too many original megapixels even for 5x7 there is a BIG visible difference between a small and large megapixel image - more so if you crop or do any manipulation.

Because I like to crop and still have clear sharp image. I prefer the option of higher megapixel camera. Though I may not print larger than 8X10 I may use only a section of the image and end printing it to an 8X10.

Yes, this is an important factor, but you should only purchase the amount to do the jobs you have in mind.

I've been using a Canon i9100 printer and have done 13x19 prints which are well worth it. However, the cost of printing this large begins to get excessive. Has anyone tried any of the continuous ink systems with this printer and what are the results? Is there chance of damage to the print head, which would obviate any cost savings over using cartridges?

High megapixel is valuable if you want to crop to improve composition. I routinely crop, sometimes severely.

Only the best of my photos end up as large prints; however, having a high megapixel count allows for major cropping to zoom into an image when I didn't have a telephoto lens with me or to better compose the shot in post processing.

I'd rather have a sensor closer to 24x36 (full frame 35mm)to take advantage of my existing lenses. MP count is less important to me.

I want the larger mega-pixel sensor to allow cropping without loss of quality.

I own the Epson 4000 and shoot the Fuji S3 in my studio, and sports I shoot Nikon D2h and make prints 16x20 and 16x24 all the time. Yes the higher count is important but not as important as the quality of the sensor to me. Canon sent me the 5D and Mark IIn to shoot at a pro soccer event and as nice as the 5D is I still like the images out of the MarkIIn better, once again sensor quality is what matters to me.

I really like the large prints from my Epson Stylus Pro 7600 printer. The prints of the south west scenics demand large prints.

I'm not there yet, but this is the direction in which I want to go---as fast as possible. Using my computer as the ultimate darkroom is a rewarding way to spend my days as a happy retiree.Thank you, Adobe, for Elements 3. Thank you, Olympus, for digital quality. And thank you, Epson, for letting me do this all in my home!

Only use the 8 megapixels when taking a shot that I think will be better with some serious cropping.

I like having the ability to make large prints when I want one and being able to crop an image significantly without resolution issues being a limiting factor in the print size.

Other than printing standard photographs for the

I did get into a photo contest, in Rotterdam, Holland, by invitation of a quite big publicity office, to make a photograph (about Dance)wich they are going to use in November December, in our "Beurstraverse", a kind of subway-street in Rotterdam,with a lot of shops. This is an special X-mass exhibition I make my pics always analogue, and had it to burn in nero, somewhere: EML+150Mb. They really chose one of my pics, and it will be enlarged to 4.60m wide and 2.10 high.(m) So no square's in my photo!, by digi-shooting. Analogue shooting and after that making digi, it's the best property to get nice enlargments.

Thae main drawback is storage and saving of large files. As files get larger, larger hard drives are needed as well as DVD's.

It's quality, not size that counts! The type of sensor and quality of color is more important to me. I shoot a 20D...

I make 16x20 prints for competition, so I always shoot at the highest resolution.

I do most of my shooting to create large framed prints, so bring on the pixels!

I routinely print on 13x19 fine art paper. For portraits I use 13x19 canvas. I never print snapshots preferring to put travel or family pix on to a video slideshow.

Living close to Yellowstone Park, I am able to capture wildlife and have enlargements made for family, hopefully for art shows next year.

Not only is the high megapixel count important for print size but also for cropability.

I bought my first DSLR (Canon Rebel) one year ago this Oct. I'm in awe of it with it's 6.3 megapixels....I shoot ONLY at this setting and often print a CROPPED sections and make 8 1/2 x 11 or 11 X 14 prints that are flawless! After 65 years with film, I'm glad I'm still around to enjoy this awesome technology.

My HP printer doesnt have the capability to make that large of print. Photo labs are way to expensive and only for rich people. I sell many 8x10`s shot with my 4mp Kodak dx6490 and intend to buy the new p880 but will never use a lab for large photos, not very cost effective.

Large magapixel count is essential for me because I sell my framed prints at 13x19 or larger. I have been able to squeeze out large prints with a 5 megapixel Nikon 5700, but since switching to a Konica/Minolta D2, my results are significantly better (at 8 megapixels. My next step is a full-frame DSLR or a APS-sized sensor in an all-in-one lens compact model.

I like to make poster-sized prints. The bigger, and sharper, the better.

My answer: Both A and B. (They aren't mutually exclusive.) I usually shoot at high resolution unless the photo is being made only for web sharing. Sometimes I'll reduce the size of a high-res photo to share. I'll print only the best. I need a camera that can do justice in high-res printing, even though 99%of my photo work would do just fine with a 2 Mp compact camera.