It's difficult to see differences in small images at any megapixel. Big prints, yes.

I'd like to see resolution that is comparable to 35mm fine grain films. When I scan a 35mm frame at 4000 dpi the file is approximately 50MB, so I'm used to large files.

Good film was very high resolution, but good lenses are even better. By rough calculation a 35 mm image was about 35 megapixels. I would like the same in digital. My film scanner is 5000 dpi, that gives 37.5 MP. I want sharp and I want sharp after cropping, so more and better pixels please.

Everything is relative... if I can get medium format resolution in a 35mm size, I would welcome that IF I also had the same light gathering capability & handling versitility. 12MP is fine for 35mm equivalancy in most applications. Not sure that the higher MP buys you more in practical application but I could be proven wrong?

My 21 megapixel Canon 1Ds is amazing but probably all I'll need.

Perhaps the pros need files that big, but for myself, with 11X17" prints about the largest I make - 5X7 or 8x10 most common - more than 12 or 15 mp is really more than I need, and takes up far too much memory in the computer, let alone memory card. I also try to get the best picture I can in camera, so don't need that much in the way of excess bits in files to do a lot of Photoshop digital darkroom work with.

The color & detail become better in things like wedding dresses. Then there is far more head room to edit and still look clean. we are approching film now.

Quality is far more important than quantity.

Using the right lens for the subject you're shooting, 10mp works well.

Unless you want to enlarge your DSLR photos to poster size, I do not see the need for more than 10 megapixels. "overkill". Just a selling point to unaware photographers. Like buying a v8 engine car when a v4 will do the same job.

10-12 MP is plenty for most users. Give us better dynamic range instead of more pixels.

I'm doing great with 6MP. Larger files will require larger hard drives ie more money to put out.

It depends on what you are shooting but it is always better to have the higher resolution and not use it then not have it at all.

Maybe the biggest file size are good if you are doing wall size murals all the time.

I currently shot at 8 MP, with great success. The new Canon 50D with 15 MP hits my sweet spot, and would be enough to satisfy all of my needs for cropping and large prints. I don't need 24 MP, but to those that do, it's available.

As an advance amateur, the key is the quality of the picture, not the amount of MP. 12-15MP is more than enough, files are easier to work with, and the new cameras show excellent color and depth results.

As long as they offer a lower prize for the non-professional photographers... is perfect! Add some more!!!

As far as my needs go, 12 megapixels are plenty for most work assignments or personal photo collections. More than that such as will be used in full size sensors required for special work would be extreme overkill. Just think of the computer processing time and storage needed. I think the industry is just pushing to sell the latest and (greatest?) technology. We user would be better served if camera manufacturers just improve what exist now.

With proper post processing, I get excellent prints up to 20x30 with 10MP cameras.

If I take a killer picture, I want to be able to make a LARGE print.

My grandkids take better pictures using a 4MP digital than I do with my 10 MP DSLR!

I would like to see Nikon come out with high quality, full frame 22+MP for $2-3,000.

It sells cameras and does the makers a lot of good - in the short term I have a 30"x20" of good quality from a 5MP Panasonic FX8 - my first digital when I was experimenting before switching from Leicas.

I don't think they need that much large of a file. I think 12 is enough. Do You really need that many MP?

20+MP trumps 35mm film resolution. That said, I just got a 6MP DSLR for everyday use since my 6x7 medium format scans are so huge.

At present I don't need such large files. Anthing around 10 to 15 MP is all that I need to make nice phtotos.

I question the need for cameras like the new Sony A900 with a gazillion megapixels. What's the noise tradeoff? I was happy to see the jump from 6 and 8 MP to 10, 12, and even 15, but beyond 15? Is this just never-ending marketing?

Fourth option: So long as the quality of the photo is maintained, I see no reason to limit potential crop options by limiting MP. For those worried about excessive file sizes, I think options like sRAW are good - some peope don't want high MPs, great, let them use sRAW and get all the options they'd have shooting a 10MP camera while giving the rest of us 20MP.

I think the camera companies need to work on the noise issue first, and get us lower light photography before they try to multiply the pixels any further!

I would think 10 to 15 MP would be more than enough for me now. The only possible upside to large sensors is allowing image crops with less quality loss. The large files requiring extra computer storage and processing I would view as negatives.