By the more pixels the better, I meant easier. You just have more to work with, and run into fewer problems when retouching skin. And yes, standards have changed over the years with digital, especially with beauty advertising, which is different from fashion (think make-up vs clothes). But like I said, the main issue is, it's just easier, quicker and therefore cheaper when working with more pixels (assuming hardware capable of it). Personally, I'd be happy still shooting film and doing hardly any retouching. But that's not what most clients want. Things are trending a little more toward natural, un-retouched style ("don't retouch me!"), so we'll see about that in the years to come.slclick said:So were fashion shots simply unusable until the newer high MP bodies of the past couple years? I cannot believe that. Or are you saying current fashion and portrait studios hold themselves to different standards? Your response was bordering on the tired premise that you can't do anything good unless you buy _____ product. (Which disregards 100+ years of incredible photography with older gear) I didn't say you said exactly that just that you didn't convince me with your reasoning. Maybe if you just said pixel peepers with money created a market, then I'd say "ok"tmroper said:Not everyone's needs are the same. For those doing a lot of retouching, especially skin retouching, the more pixels to work with, the better (everything else being equal). People shooting sports on a 1DX wouldn't care about that one bit, while someone shooting beauty shots would care about that a whole lot.slclick said:Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?