Does Size Matter?

[SquarePeg37 8]

Should I be seduced when it comes to megapixels?

I recently started my research on upgrading my Nikon D60 to something current. I'm intrigued by the D5200 due to the movable viewscreen and the 39 point auto focus as well as the 24 megapixels. That would be a huge upgrade over my D60.

I searched existing threads to get some reviews/opinions on the 5200 and I see many posts from the forum regulars recommending that the person asking for opinions go with the D7000 instead. Other than the in camera focus motor - what are the advantages to the D7000? I can't seem to find any posts that say WHY the D7000 is more highly recommended than a camera with more megapixels, more focus points and all around newer technology. I've compared the specs but not truly confident that I am the best judge of that information.

This purchase is months away so I have time to research. I am still learning so not looking for anything that will overwhelm me with choices but want to have room to grow. I am interested in landscape and people photography - purely for my own enjoyment, absolutely no far reaching photography business aspirations but I do want the quality of the images to be detailed enough to withstand some scrutiny if I should want to have something blown up and framed.

I appreciate any feedback you can provide.

 

[480sparky41 40]

IMHO, once you reach a certain number, more pixels doesn't make any difference.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

IMHO, once you reach a certain number, more pixels doesn't make any difference.

What is the certain number? The D60 has 10.2. My phone has more (and sometimes takes a better pic LOL).

 

[imagemaker46]

Megapixels matters when you shoot loose and want to crop and still come away with a decent size file.

 

[SCraig]

I searched existing threads to get some reviews/opinions on the 5200 and I see many posts from the forum regulars recommending that the person asking for opinions go with the D7000 instead. Other than the in camera focus motor - what are the advantages to the D7000? I can't seem to find any posts that say WHY the D7000 is more highly recommended than a camera with more megapixels, more focus points and all around newer technology. I've compared the specs but not truly confident that I am the best judge of that information.

Weather resistant body with magnesium frame,
Built-in Commander mode for flash
Dual control wheels (very little need to go into a menu)
Built-in Autofocus motor
Better Autofocus module
100% Viewfinder coverage

There's a few that came to mind. And if you want the same resolution as the D5200 go for the D7100 which is yet another generation better than the D7000.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

I searched existing threads to get some reviews/opinions on the 5200 and I see many posts from the forum regulars recommending that the person asking for opinions go with the D7000 instead. Other than the in camera focus motor - what are the advantages to the D7000? I can't seem to find any posts that say WHY the D7000 is more highly recommended than a camera with more megapixels, more focus points and all around newer technology. I've compared the specs but not truly confident that I am the best judge of that information.

Weather resistant body with magnesium frame,
Built-in Commander mode for flash
Dual control wheels (very little need to go into a menu)
Built-in Autofocus motor
Better Autofocus module
100% Viewfinder coverage

There's a few that came to mind. And if you want the same resolution as the D5200 go for the D7100 which is yet another generation better than the D7000.

Thanks for the info on the pros of the 7000. If it's 11 vs. 39 point auto focus - how does the 7000 come out ahead there?

Agree, if I could afford the D7100 I would not have a decision to make! I'm looking to spend about $1000 for a body and the 18-105 kit lens. I can get either a new 5200 + that lens new or a refurbished 7000 for $750ish and separate refurbished lens for $250ish. I was able to find 1 refurbished 5200 but the price cut was only $60 so not really worth the loss of the full warranty IMO.

 

[480sparky41 40]

IMHO, once you reach a certain number, more pixels doesn't make any difference.

What is the certain number? The D60 has 10.2. My phone has more (and sometimes takes a better pic LOL).

A lot of variables, but lens resolution is one.

 

[Trever1t]

Anything new is a huge improvement over the D60, which by the way was my second DSLR and a beloved little camera.

It's not so much how many MP the sensor has in this equation but rather the advance in technology since the D60.

 

[TCampbell]

Assuming you have good glass, then more megapixels help UNTIL you hit the limits of diffraction. Diffraction limits are based on laws of physics and assume "perfect" optics (in other words... better glass wont get around this barrier.) It has to do with the wave nature of light, how it bends through tiny openings, and it's inability to truly focus to a single point (light always focuses to an "Airy disk" -- named for the astronomer who discovered it.)

If the "Airy disk" can fit within a single pixel then you're not diffraction limited. But if the pixels get so tiny that the "Airy disk" is spilling over onto adjacent pixels, then making the pixels smaller wont actually improve the image anymore... at that point they're just taking up more space on the storage card, but it's wasted data.

Diffraction limits are based on the aperture... lenses and cameras become diffraction limited at the highest focal ratios first (which is why you might occasionally hear someone say you should "never shoot at f/16".) So while a camera might be diffraction limited at f/16... it might not be diffraction limited at a lower focal ratio such as f/11 or f/8.

16 & 18 megapixel APS-C DSLRs are typically not diffraction limited at f/11 (but they are pretty much hitting the limit). At f/16 they are diffraction limited.

Keep in mind ... you wont NOTICE they're diffraction limited unless you're inspecting them at 100% size (at a web-size image you wont notice... but then at a web-size image you wouldn't notice the difference between a 10 megapixel camera and 100 megapixel camera even if it weren't diffraction limited.)

Full frame cameras get a bit more breathing room because they have more real-estate on the sensor.

See: Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

BTW, I do still believe in shooting at f/16... or even f/22. Just be aware that when you're up against diffraction limits you may find that you can notice it if you enlarge the image enough -- in small sizes you'll never see it.

Even though your camera might be diffraction limited at high focal ratios and unable to focus a single point of light to an individual pixel anymore... it _can_ benefit from higher resolution, even if magnified to a large size, if you shoot at LOW focal ratios. A high megapixel sensor will benefit if you're shooting at, say, f/4 (assuming you need all those megapixels.)

Keep in mind that photographers have been shooting at, say, 12 megapixels for YEARS and not exactly suffering with a lack of sensor resolution.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

Anything new is a huge improvement over the D60, which by the way was my second DSLR and a beloved little camera.

It's not so much how many MP the sensor has in this equation but rather the advance in technology since the D60.

I've gotten some great shots with the D60 but mostly using it from a P&S perspective. It was a gift about 4/5 years ago but I was too busy with other things to really learn how to use it. Now that I finally have some time to invest, I don't want to spend that time learning the D60 only to quickly figure out that I need to upgrade and have to start all over again. I realize the composition, exposure triangle and DOF understanding will carry over but I'm thinking more of learning the menu and manual controls so I can make adjustments as needed without having to fumble around.

Thanks all for the insights. Trying to force myself to wait at least a few months before I make a decision. Not sure if I'll make it! Going to Hawaii end of June and would love to have a better body for the trip, lol.

 

[bratkinson]

Mr Campbell explained the nitty gritty details very well.

And as Imagemaker indicated, when you want to do more than just a little bit of cropping, more pixels is better. That's where I started from on my first DSLR, a Canon 30D, with 8mp. When I wanted to do some heavy-duty cropping, such as converting a landscape format image to portrait format to frame, say, a single person on a stage, when starting from 8mp, what was left was 2mp...a rather low-res picture that unless printed at 3x5, showed how low res it was. So I upgraded to a newer technology 60D that had 18mp...again on a crop sensor. IQ issues on heavily cropped pictures were eliminated. It also gave me much improved lower light/higher ISO capabilities, as I do a lot of shooting indoors without flash.

It's only since upgrading to Canons' newest technology and full frame, 5D mark iii that REALLY knocked my socks off! Most will agree that full frame sensors provide better IQ than corresponding crop sensors. Perhaps this is due to the larger distance (in microns) between sensels in the sensor itself. I don't know. But between the added full frame IQ and moving to 23mp, the resultant image quality can't be beat, in my book. And the new technology permits me to shoot at ISO 5000 and even 6000 with virtually no noise! That alone is worth far more than the monetary cost of the upgrade to me.

 

[Derrel]

The D7000 has the in-body "screw-drive" focusing motor, which the D5200 lacks, so the D7000 can focus older AF and AF-D lenses, which are still quite numerous. THe D5200 requires AF-S or Sigmas HSM or other lenses that have an internal, lens-based focusing motor, in order to autofocus. Offsetting that, the D5200 can use old,cheap, pre-AI manual focus lenses from Nikon and other compoanies, so, pawn-shop priced old macro lenses, and $10-$30 cheap-o thrift store manual lenses and old-school macro lenses and macro accessories WILL FIT RIGHT on the D5200, making it the "experimental lens tinkerer's" choice for use with older, pre-1977 manual focus stuff.

Ummm...24 megapixels...that's a LOT. I would not worry much about diffraction, since shooting at f/11 and smaller, like f/16, just slows down the shutter, leading in many cases to blurred images, AND plenty of sensor dust spots showing up. Shoot zoom lenses at f/5.6 or 6.3 or 7.1 and live large! Shoot primes at f/3.5 to f/4.5 and be AMAZED! The D60 you have is 10 MP I think, right??? Well, you NEED to use most of the frame to make a good-sized print with the D60; with the older, 6-, and 8-, and 10-MP d-slr's, cropping was not NEARLY as much of an option as it is today.

Case in point; last week I shot my kid's soccer game with a 70-200 and a 24 MP Nikon. On cross-the-pitch shots, wayyy across the width of the field, I was easily able to crop in and basically throw away as much of the frame as I wanted, to make very good, 1200- to 2000-pixel-wide images. On some shots down at the far corner, shooting diagonally, I was able to crop in and basically, throw away 65-70 percent of the frame, and STILL have enough pixels-on-subject to make a doggone good image!!

So, instead of bringing a massive,obnoxious 300mm lens and monopod, I shot hand-held with the lighter,smaller, 70-200 VR, and had plenty of pixels. If I were shooting for publication, sure, I'd have lugged a 7-lb 300/2.8 with me, and slapped that on a 4-lb camera...but I did not need to. On closer-range shots, where the majority of the image was used, the quality of a 24 MP capture on a modern Nikon is pretty damned good. The D7000 is quite an upgrade from the D60,in terms of the sensor's performance in low-light and at high ISO and resolving ability. The D5200 has a pentamirror viewfinder, and I find it hard to SEE through those tiny Nikons with my glasses on. I totally "get" the idea of the D5200: light, small, VERY high-density 24-MP sensor, 39 AF points, low price, small size...it's actually quite a value proposition, I think.

 

[SCraig]

Thanks for the info on the pros of the 7000. If it's 11 vs. 39 point auto focus - how does the 7000 come out ahead there?

It's not 11 vs. 39 focus points. They both have 39 although to me that's a meaningless specification. D5200 has 39 AF points with 9 cross-type. D7000 has 39 AF points with 11 cross-type. Both use the CAM 4800DX AF module. D7000 allows fine tuning of the autofocus, D5200 does not.

 

[O'Rork]

The D7000 has the in-body "screw-drive" focusing motor, which the D5200 lacks, so the D7000 can focus older AF and AF-D lenses, which are still quite numerous. THe D5200 requires AF-S or Sigmas HSM or other lenses that have an internal, lens-based focusing motor, in order to autofocus. Offsetting that, the D5200 can use old,cheap, pre-AI manual focus lenses from Nikon and other compoanies, so, pawn-shop priced old macro lenses, and $10-$30 cheap-o thrift store manual lenses and old-school macro lenses and macro accessories WILL FIT RIGHT on the D5200, making it the "experimental lens tinkerer's" choice for use with older, pre-1977 manual focus stuff.

Ummm...24 megapixels...that's a LOT. I would not worry much about diffraction, since shooting at f/11 and smaller, like f/16, just slows down the shutter, leading in many cases to blurred images, AND plenty of sensor dust spots showing up. Shoot zoom lenses at f/5.6 or 6.3 or 7.1 and live large! Shoot primes at f/3.5 to f/4.5 and be AMAZED! The D60 you have is 10 MP I think, right??? Well, you NEED to use most of the frame to make a good-sized print with the D60; with the older, 6-, and 8-, and 10-MP d-slr's, cropping was not NEARLY as much of an option as it is today.

Case in point; last week I shot my kid's soccer game with a 70-200 and a 24 MP Nikon. On cross-the-pitch shots, wayyy across the width of the field, I was easily able to crop in and basically throw away as much of the frame as I wanted, to make very good, 1200- to 2000-pixel-wide images. On some shots down at the far corner, shooting diagonally, I was able to crop in and basically, throw away 65-70 percent of the frame, and STILL have enough pixels-on-subject to make a doggone good image!!

So, instead of bringing a massive,obnoxious 300mm lens and monopod, I shot hand-held with the lighter,smaller, 70-200 VR, and had plenty of pixels. If I were shooting for publication, sure, I'd have lugged a 7-lb 300/2.8 with me, and slapped that on a 4-lb camera...but I did not need to. On closer-range shots, where the majority of the image was used, the quality of a 24 MP capture on a modern Nikon is pretty damned good. The D7000 is quite an upgrade from the D60,in terms of the sensor's performance in low-light and at high ISO and resolving ability. The D5200 has a pentamirror viewfinder, and I find it hard to SEE through those tiny Nikons with my glasses on. I totally "get" the idea of the D5200: light, small, VERY high-density 24-MP sensor, 39 AF points, low price, small size...it's actually quite a value proposition, I think.

Derrel makes some very good points. I can add that taking to the field with the very manageable 70-200 2.8, slap a 14tc on it and one stop down, you're long. 24 MP makes a huge difference when you have to crop..

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

Thanks for the info on the pros of the 7000. If it's 11 vs. 39 point auto focus - how does the 7000 come out ahead there?

It's not 11 vs. 39 focus points. They both have 39 although to me that's a meaningless specification. D5200 has 39 AF points with 9 cross-type. D7000 has 39 AF points with 11 cross-type. Both use the CAM 4800DX AF module. D7000 allows fine tuning of the autofocus, D5200 does not.

thanks for setting me straight re the focus points. I must have gotten confused by too much research. Originally started comparing 3200 to the 5100 and 5200... At some point I reached a state of diminishing returns with my efforts to understand it all! Today I'm heading over to our local camera store to check out a 7000 hands on.

Derrel thanks for the point about cropping. I do tend to shoot large and crop it close later, which is where I've run into issues with the d60 shots.

Still really undecided between these two options but leaning toward the 7000.