The megapixel race, with its pursuit of sharpness, seems unending. Is this really important or is it just a callous marketing ploy used to make the last iteration of whizzy cameras redundant?

Here’s an interesting fact…

According to Thorsten von Overgaard, the Danish writer and photographer;

– “When we were using film ( I assume here he is talking about 35mm film) those images equalled around 18-20 Megapixels.”

And I ask – didn’t those images set our perception of “Sharp”?

– Where does that leave us with modern digital cameras being 24, 37 and 100 Mega Pixels?

– Thorsten argues those extra pixels are simply “overkill”  because as he puts it  “What are we going to do with that level of sharpness – or detail might be a better expression”?

Making a print will not evidence those extra pixels. Thorsten argues the only benefit of such pixel size is when you want to use just a portion of the image.

He closes his argument with the simple statement of…

“If it looks sharp, it is.”

I would echo that.

As we have reached, surpassed even, what we could see with film then is it not wise to stop chasing the rabbit set loose by the camera manufacturers to get you to chase after it into the local camera dealer with your credit card?

If you must buy gear would it not be better perhaps to spend on lenses attached to a functional, if older camera? Though personally, I would argue. One camera, One lens especially for street-work.

Better to spend your money on photobooks, go to exhibitions anything in fact, except buying new cameras loaded with more megapixels – which will go unseen – thinking that is going to help you take better pictures.

I’m ready for your incoming… Seconds away!