That's not really an accurate statement. Of course the number of megapixels has everything to do with the resolution and details in an image. A 12 MP image has higher resolution and more details than an 8 MP. A 20 MP image more than 16 MP. The more MP, the larger the image can be printed without loss of quality at at least 300 dpi. This is why all professional DSLRs have 20-30 MP these days. National Geographic and AP photographers need the details to be able to print poster sized images. The downside with loads of megapixels in a tiny sensor in a lot of point and shoots is that they capture less light and produce noisier images which is why having more megapixels doesn't necessarily mean better photos, just higher resolution ones.
If you have the same sensor on an 8mp and 12mp doesn't mean the 12mp is going to take better pics I guess is my only argument. I just think there's too much emphasis from sales people on megapixel, nowadays every new camera is fine megapixel-wise for me.
Dunno I'm fine with 12mp, which just about every camera nowadays has, if I buy another camera it'll be a used 5d mark II.
There is also a software for converting Tiff images to giant billboard sized images that aren't all grainy. I went on a workshop with some "pro" photographers and he had one image blown up to 7' wide by 5' tall from a 12mp camera and it wasn't all grainy unless you put your face right up 2" from it.
The guy was also saying anything over 8mp was fine for what he would do in photoshop. Some of the images get up to 1 gig after adding/blending dozens of layers to bring out details, unsharp mask, etc
I was shooting with my friend who has the 5d mark II and he could drop the ISO down to 50 well after sunset and take long exposures with literally no noise.
@dreamache sick artwork, the 5d mark II is so fucking badass for the price, I'd get a used one if I had the money.
I made a collage of photos I shot myself but nothing like your stuff:
