Digital Cameras. Do we Really Need all These Mega Pixels?

I was lucky enough to be invited to my local universities photography course open day earlier this week and afterwards was assured a viewing of Hasselblads newest digital piece of goreousness, the H4D series.  Hasselblads area sales team done a terrific job in demonstrating the new cameras properties and potential and best of all we then got a chance to salivate over one of these superb beasts in person.

And what a genuinely incredible piece of kit this camera is, like all cameras brandishing the Hasselblad logo previous, it simply oozes quality.  The Rolls Royce of cameras, the grade that all other brands must chase etc etc etc... but I've no wish to publish a review.  The issue that has continually bothered me for many years now (and judging by the photographers I met at the event I'm not the only one) is this apparent mega pixel race we all seem to unwittingly be transfixed in. This crazy and down right misleading obsession with the pixel count as a barometer of the caliber of a camera and consequently the photographer.

This isn't as an assault on any one particular camera manufacturer, at least Hasselblad aim their cameras at high end professionals whom could at least sometimes employ all those 60 megapixels on a billboard poster or something as equally huge, all camera companies are at it!  When did you last photograph a 48 or 96 sheet poster?  When did you last do a print larger than say A4?  In fact when did you last do a print at all?

I have photographed both billboard posters and also produced large exhibition prints whilst working with in the exacting demands of the advertising industry.  Since taking a step back from the advertising world but still continuing to photograph in a professional environment where pressures are high I have seldom shot anything that the client expected to be printed greater than A4.  In fact I took a quick look at my previous years commercial jobs and can culminate that a good 75% of this work will not even go to print at all and will spend its days destined to be displayed on your regular desk top personal computer screen at a pathetic 72dpi.

After shooting on just about every kind and size of camera format over the years from a bog standard 35mm negative to a wonderful 10x8 transparency I now select to shoot on a puny 12 mega pixel DSLR, except of course when the job necessitates a specifically greater file size.  Guess what?  I've never had any issues or concerns about the image quality!  What I have to do is use all my knowledge and understanding obtained from years of photographic training and work experience together with the unique 'eye' I've developed as a result, to capture files that are of a commercially engaging quality.  The point I'm seeking to hammer home is that these shots would be no better

I keep threatening to update my camera equipment, or instead keep getting seduced by skillful marketing techniques into believing I need to upgrade my gearcamera kit, but the simple point is I really don't need to.  Picture quality is not governed by pixel count or more precisely file size, that is the truth.  There are countless concerns affecting the excellence of the eventual picture not least the actual proficiency of the bloke pressing the shutter.  If you take a moment to actually think about past shots that have really had an impact then I doubt very much whether many of those shots were captured using what we would now call a top spec camera, even a fairly moderate modern digital camera is capable of truly quite astonishing image quality.

Digital cameras have become amazing in the amount of bang you get for your buck and have served as a great leveller in the way that photography is no longer only a rich mans pastime.  Select your camera system (don't agonize), invest in a couple of reasonable books and then get out there and use it.  Try to forget those elitist camera bores you'll get on any online forum and definitely ignore the greedy camera manufacturers cries that bigger is better, its not!