I agree the more MP the better! Did you know imax is something around 68mp! I need that for time-lapse so can convert a film I want to shoot into true imax res. Cheers!
quote author=Flake link=topic=1444.msg20198#msg20198 date=1312529755][/i]
Why would anyone want 36MP? It's not a huge increase in terms of resolution, however the files are larger, meaning that there's less of them per GB, they take proportionatly longer to transfer to the PC longer to open & to apply PP. On top of that noise is generally worse, and with that dynamic range takes a hit too. Lens flaws are made even worse, processing in camera takes longer.
For me 25MP with better dynamic range (lower noise), a digic V processor with its greater power used to give more fps (3.9 just isn't quick enough).
If you need more MP then either buy a medium format (your work will obviously fund this) or if it's landscape the stitch two images together to acheive the same!
Sounds like someone urgently needs to consider upgrading their computer system, or at least parts of it.
I on the other hand want the highest mp count they can possibly cram into the beast, 65mp? Bring it on!
Amazing! Only the other day you were decrying the noise & dynamic range of your current camera, and now you've done a complete 180 turn and decided that neither actually matter - nor image quality, all you want is high MP! Make your mind up because you can't have both!
As for my PC it's quad core 8GB running windows 7 I think it's powerful enough, the laptop is a Lenovo W700 again more than powerful enough.
Clearly you're an amature snapper who processes just a few images at a time for those of us needing to process a couple of hundred at a go, twice the file size makes a huge difference to the time it takes, and that's regardless of computer power.