Do I really need 45mp

ac12 · Dec 9, 2018

Peeb said:
Actually pondering going the opposite direction: FEWER megapixels. Currently shooting 24MP, and looking at a 20.9 MP D500.

I think that is the theory behind large photosites, where each pixel is larger and able to gather more total light than a smaller pixel on a higher MP sensor. So the DR is better, because of the larger pixel.

D7K · Dec 9, 2018

D850 45MP RAW files can be edited without annoying delays on my 2017 MacBook Pro (16Gb RAM/i7). Extra storage is a requirement however..

Braineack · Dec 9, 2018

ac12 said:
I think that is the theory behind large photosites, where each pixel is larger and able to gather more total light than a smaller pixel on a higher MP sensor. So the DR is better, because of the larger pixel.

modern tech has made this rule-of-thumb invalid.

the DR between the 24MP and the 36MP is nearly identical.

I notice no difference in IQ between my D610 and D800 shooting the exact same shot -- but I benefit greatly from the increased resolution and there's simply much more fine detail in the same shot using the same lens/settings.

If this theory was true, the Df at 16MP would have better DR than the 24MP, 36MP and 45MP sensors:

But alas.... it's high ISO performance is on par with the 45MP sensor, but it's low iso performance is on par with a Canon sensor.

DarkShadow · Dec 9, 2018

In reality the High noise is much lower on my D7500 then my previous D7200 so I think the combination of the drop in the pix count and newer processor made a very noticeable difference.

DanOstergren · Dec 9, 2018

Unless you're making huge prints, you do not need it. Get a lens instead, or make/buy a painted canvas backdrop if you photograph people. Get some lighting gear. But you don't need 45 megapixels.

PixFixer · Dec 11, 2018

cgw said:
Camera makers have "mp jonesing" down cold when it comes to separating you from your money.

So far, 16-24mp APS-C Nikons and Fujis keep me happy. Neighbors still talk to me, too.

You're right. However the day will soon come when the 100mp, very low noise, low light cam will be the norm. You will want one of those. So will I. Here is the best part, the prices will also come down. We better start saving now. Oh, my neighbors never did talk to me anyway. Cars won't even drive down my block. Something about that nurd with the camera.

mrca · Dec 11, 2018

Dan is absolutely right, if most of your work is shown on a computer or other device or you aren't printing large, you don't need all those megapixels. Someone mentioned shooting in lower res files with the d850, but I prefer to shoot in the various crop modes since there is less image degradation. a 24x36 standard ratio shot is 46 mp. But I have programmed the video button + rear wheel to allow me to scroll to square or 4x5 format, both of which I use for portraiture most of the time except when shooting environmental portraits or need an area for text. In 4x5 mode the camera only stores that area or 36 mp and square at 30. When you select either in the viewfinder the areas eliminated are grayed but visible and you are looking at the cropped image to help with composition. I am a print photographer and regularly print large, like at least once or twice a week (today is print day), so the higher mp are a big selling point for me. The cropping advantage also translates to allowing you to lighten your camera bag. Instead of a 3 lb 70-200 with 22 elements, I can carry a 7 element 135 2.o dc that blows the doors off the zoom quality and bokeh and then can easily crop down to what would have captured at 200 mm and still leave plenty of pixels. A 35, 85 and 135 make a great walk about kit with this camera.

pixmedic · Dec 11, 2018

it seems like we are back in a bit of a "megapixel war" between the various camera companies.
my first digital camera was a 1.5mp (thats one-point-five!) sony mavica. it took 3.5" floppy disks as "Memory cards". it was pretty innovative and high tech at the time.
i had the $1200 version that had a huge motor attached to the lens section that was an early version of image stabilization. again, high tech at the time.
it didnt take very long for the MP wars to kick into full gear. my first paid work was shot on a 6mp D100, about a year after they were first released. then the 12mp D200 and D300, the 16mp D7000, and eventually the 24mp D600.

people asked this same question when the 24mp sensors came out. do we NEED 24mp? perhaps more so when the 36mp D800 came out. 36MP!! who NEEDS 36mp?!?
now its 45mp, 50mp...im sure this isn't even the end of the MP line.

i find most of my camera upgrades have been more of a "want" than a "need". the most significant upgrades have been more in low light performance than in what i can do with more megapixels. do you NEED 45mp? that isn't really the question. do you WANT 45mp? also, what else are you getting from that 45mp camera besides more megapixels?
better low light performance? fps? buffer size or speed? wireless connections? maybe you cant justify the MP jump, but if the camera offers other upgraded features it might be worth it. is it worth it JUST for a MP upgrade? probably not unless you print very very large, or crop very very close in.

Braineack · Dec 11, 2018

I'll tell you what though, when you start looking at these large MP files at 100% it's hard to go back -- the only downside anymore is your computer processing power and space.

greybeard · Dec 11, 2018

Well, the wife gave me the OK and so it is in a B+H cart with a vellos grip waiting for me to pull the trigger.

greybeard · Dec 12, 2018

Trigger has been pulled

Solarflare · Dec 13, 2018

Braineack said:
I'll tell you what though, when you start looking at these large MP files at 100% it's hard to go back -- the only downside anymore is your computer processing power and space.

Speak for yourself.

I use a 12 Megapixel D700 quite happily next to my 24 Megapixel D750.

I dont think I'll stop using either if I get a D850. Which probably will happen at some point.