answer:I’m sort of not answering your question directly because I haven’t dealt with magazine covers personally. However, it depends on the magazine—if you look at a NatGeo for instance, you’ll see a much higher quality printing process used because the mag is as much about the photography as it is about the articles. And NatGeo held out against digital for a VERY long time. Most magazines have embraced digital photography, which means making due with less pixels, but it ends up not mattering in the end because of the relatively low-resolution printing techniques they’re using. The Canon 1D Mk II has been a mainstay of magazine shoots—at 16.7MP it barely gets you 11×17 at 300dpi. For comparison, 35mm film gets you 20MP, or about 12×18 at 300dpi. For fashion work, medium format (80+MP film or 40–50MP digital) has been the typical format, but those are often getting blown up to billboard or kiosk size.