On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:27:38 -0800, Episteme wrote
(in article >):

> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/...ogues-posts-2/

One other thing I would point out. Not only is the printer the limiting
factor on prints these days, but most people never print anything larger than
4x6. Or they just keep their pictures on their computer. For them, anything
over 2 or 3Mp is a waste of money. No computer screen can take advantage of
any more. I have a 17" MacBook Pro, one of the finest screens available among
laptops. And the best it can do is 1.7Mp. It is incapable of showing any
improvement my Nikon D200 has over most cell phones, let alone my D70 or
Coolpix 7900.

Then consider printers. Few home printers are capable of displaying more than
about 4 or 5Mp. No wonder Pogue couldn't tell the difference printing an 8Mp
picture. There wasn't any! They were all 5Mp photos by the time they were
printed.

So, why bother with more pixels? The downside -- more blur from camera shake
and more noise -- is substantial, yet there is little benefit to be realized.
Well, for most of us, we are used to cropping our pictures, sometimes
considerably. More pixels gives us the ability to do that without losing
displayed quality. More pixels are like having a cheap telephoto. :-)