Well, it really depends on the project that I am working on. Image sensor may not have a direct relationship with the quality of image. A light source and its quality is one of the major factors, which drive the result. You really cannot compare 10MP point and shoot camera vs Nikon D200.

A 17MP camera will produce a 16x24 picture without any help from Photoshop. I don't usually print anything bigger than that, so the extra MP would be a waste of money.

10 mp is just fine for all but professional and poster needs. I wish they would emphasize pixel sensitivity and noise, instead.

It depends on how large a print you want to make. Twenty megapixels will give a roughly 14" by 17" print with optimum print detail. If you want to make a 4X6 print, who cares about the megapixels.

In a camera system that was 35mm. I think things are big enough now for this format. I am scanning thousands of 35mm images now and most are 65MP or larger. It quickly fills your hard-drive and slows down the works. If the manufactures want to up the ante, improve the features in the camera like variable ISO settings on the same frame, ETC.

Only if you are a pro and not every pro needs so many pix. I'd rather have better digital file, less noise, better details in dark area etc. It's also means more powerful computer, more money and on. I believe the new 5D let you decide of the megapixel size you want.

Seems to me manufacturers should improve on sensor interpretation and lens to sensor assimilation and symmetry.

As I only print to A3+ I am getting good results from my A 700 12.5 mp camera. I work in RAW for all my printing and even so the files are always close to 20 mb

The more the better if we have a reduced RAW option and the "more" doesn't increase noise. The large file sizes are great for zooming close in Photoshop for retouching and large prints, but are unnecessary for much of candid wedding photography, etc. I use the SRAW option on my 50D for much of my wedding work but got to the larger size when needed. My 5D MK II is on order.

High Megapixels are only one factor in a high performance camera. Autofocus performance, ISO sensitivity and a full frame sensor are even more important attributes that most professionals demand.

Not quite the right choice of answers. I could barely tell the difference between Velvia(ISO 50 film) and digital (12mp canon). I don't expect at 21 mp I could. Seems like the lens resolution is now the limiting factor for digital as it was with quality film.

I see no need for anything larger than 12 megapixels for what I shoot, weddings and portraits. I've never had a customer that wanted a billboard on their wall.

I would say that 24 MP is the limit I would want to see. That would make a 20" X 13 inch print at 300 dpi with native sensor resolution. I'm sure there is also a limit on how many pixels the human eye can take in at any one time (probably less than 24MP). And there is probably a point where lenses can't resolve any more resolution or the pixel pitch becomes too small to be of added benefit.

With cameras still having options for shooting at lower resolutions, having higher resolutions gives you more options for super-size prints and more extreme cropping.

10-12 MP seems good to me. I shoot a 10meg file everytime I hit the shutter. All my cameras have 16 Gig cards in them now.

For architectural photography, I want the best image quality possible. While my 10 MP Nikon gives very good results, I frequently revert to shooting film in my Hasselblad and scanning ~70MB files. I would like to eventually see an affordable digital camera that can equal these results.

Increased chip size and more light gathering ability with high speed transfer to memory will always be advantageous to the serious photograhper.

I think I have commented on this before, but I think that my computer would die trying to do anything with such large files, or I would die waiting. If having more MP's means buying a bigger, faster computer, then I'm going to have to wait awhile.

For my work, the only thing a super huge file accomplishes, is slowing down my workflow and costing me more in storage peripherals. I generally end up downsizing my images if anything. I'm sure some people have a need for it though.

Beyond liking startling detail in my pictures, I don't plan huge blow-ups. I would like to see in-camera choices of the look and feel of various types of film, much like available photoshop plug-ins, to make use of all the pixels.

I have a Nikon D300 and take fantastic photos. I crop quite a bit and get equally fantastic results. Sharp is sharp, I only see a need for such a high megapixel count if you really crop in close. If that is what you do, then the more megapixels the better.

MP's are over rated no need for most people to have over 5-6 MP if your going to have your photo put on a billboard then 20 mp i guess would make more sense.. compose your photo. I work in a photolab and so many people confuse Mega Pixels with quality the quality of a photo.. I show them that i can take a better photo with a 4 MP point and shoot GE piece of junk than they can with a Nikon D60 with 10 MP and it has to do with composition, lenses ect... nothing to do with MP's.

At least for the work I do, 20+ is way more than I need. With careful work, I am able to get decent 11x14s with my 6 MP D70s. Maybe for pros this is the way to go but for the majority of shooters, it is way more than we need.

I have a 10 megapixel camera which is more than enough for most of what I do. It makes for great 11x14 prints so I really think 20+ megapixel is an overkill. Most people don't need that kind of size and it certainly is a big drain on memory! With some people, they just never get enough, no matter what it is.

I didn't make prints much larger than 8X10 in a film darkroom, nor do I with digital. Although 20 Mpixils gives lots of room for croping.

One can now print 16 x 20 without resorting to medium frame camera systems. This huge as the cost to replace all my 35mm camera system components is prohibitive!