How many megapixels do you need?

[Gavjenks]

Honestly, I have no idea:

Yes Nikon has good dynamic range. But don't cherrypick by comparing it to Canon's absolute lowest sensor value per dollar body. The 6D is a much closer equivalent, it performs 2/3 stop better at half the price:
View attachment 70463
Yes, the 610 still outperforms at low ISO. When is this relevant? Occasional landscapes, and... landscapes.
If you shoot weddings... or sports... or portraits... or anything in a studio that you control, they become effectively identical (either because you're shooting at higher ISOs, or because your scenes aren't >12 stops of range)
Plus landscapes don't tend to move around much, so even if you don't have the range you can just trivially do an HDR in most cases.


Dynamic range is pretty much at the limits of usefulness at low ISO. Where ALL companies need to up their game is at high ISO dynamic range.

 

[runnah]

Where ALL companies need to up their game is at high ISO dynamic range.

Yes. High ISO is pretty much a marketing gimmick these days. Can my camera do ISO 25600? Yes. Would I ever use it? No.

 

[Derrel]

The 24- and 36- megapixel sensors Nikon has been buying from Sony for its full-frame cameras since the D3x premiered in 2009 are pretty much the leading sensors in the d-slr industry...unequalled by anything any other camera or sensor maker has. Better shadow recovery potential, and none of that awful patterned noise the Canon 5D-III sensor has in its deep shadows--at BASE ISO..not at ISO 25,600, but at ISO 100.

As Fred Miranda himself wrote, "Although the Canon 5D Mark III deals with banding slightly better than the previous version, surprisingly I could still see a substantial amount of color noise. Obviously, the Nikon D800 is in a totally different league. Absent of color noise or any pattern, this image reveals Nikon's exceptional performance. Notice the lower area of the image with no recovery and no post-processing.The Mark III image shows a huge chunk of color noise. Vertical patterns are also visible."

Part II - Controlled tests

It's always amusing to see allegedly scientific-type people try their darndest to minimize a huge difference in technical abilities between products from a company that has UPDATED its manufacturing technology and machinery to state-of-the-industry (meaning SONY, with its new, .18-micron sensor fabrication process) and products from a company (Canon) that has refused to spend the money to update its sensor fabrication tech,and continues to plod along with its antiquated .50-micron sensor fabrication process.

Windows98 anybody?????

 

[runnah]

The 24- and 36- megapixel sensors Nikon has been buying from Sony for its full-frame cameras since the D3x premiered in 2009 are pretty much the leading sensors in the d-slr industry...unequalled by anything any other camera or sensor maker has. Better shadow recovery potential, and none of that awful patterned noise the Canon 5D-III sensor has in its deep shadows--at BASE ISO..not at ISO 25,600, but at ISO 100.

As Fred Miranda himself wrote, "Although the Canon 5D Mark III deals with banding slightly better than the previous version, surprisingly I could still see a substantial amount of color noise. Obviously, the Nikon D800 is in a totally different league. Absent of color noise or any pattern, this image reveals Nikon's exceptional performance. Notice the lower area of the image with no recovery and no post-processing.The Mark III image shows a huge chunk of color noise. Vertical patterns are also visible."

Part II - Controlled tests

It's always amusing to see allegedly scientific-type people try their darndest to minimize a huge difference in technical abilities between products from a company that has UPDATED its manufacturing technology and machinery to state-of-the-industry (meaning SONY, with its new, .18-micron sensor fabrication process) and products from a company (Canon) that has refused to spend the money to update its sensor fabrication tech,and continues to plod along with its antiquated .50-micron sensor fabrication process.

Windows98 anybody?????

INSTIGATOR!!!

 

[runnah]

In summary, MP play an important part in many aspects of photography, but they also aren't the only thing to base a purchase on. Factor in other elements that are important to you and go from there.

 

[ecphoto]

rofl.

Intolerance is funny to you?

sometimes yea...
i mean, it shouldn't be...but..
come on man...sometimes you just cant help but chuckle.....when you see someone shooting Canon.

I love my Canon. It sits elegantly and unused in a drawer due to be outshined by the NIkons. Of course, it is a film camera too, but have they progressed beyond that yet ?

I thought 16mp was good from my d7000
now I love the 24mp from the d600

but then, I end up exporting images anyways at a certain size to JPEG ... so ....... the bigger image allows me more cropping & detail in general.

I left the Canon camp for Nikon some time ago and couldn't be happier.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

[/QUOTE] INSTIGATOR!!![/QUOTE]

IMITATOR!!!!

How many megapixels??? 12? 12.8? 14.1? 16.2? 20.1? 22.5? 24.2? 36?

I dunno...

Right now, the most-affordable high-performance sensors seem to be the 16-million-pixel ones that "many" companies are buying....

I'm not too concerned with the MP count per se, but with the quality of the results I can get. For "me", I like FF for the way it makes my 24,35,50,85, and 70-200/2.8 and my 300mm lenses shoot, in terms of both distance from the subject AND in the magnification and angle of view I get from those specific lenses.

I am a sloooow upgrader. I moved from 12.2 and 12.8 MP (Nikon D2x and Canon 5D CLassic) up to 24x36mm or FX sensor in 2012 after seven years with the D2x and six years with the 5D Classic. Those sensors grew outdated by the end of that time. I think the generation of sensor technology is more critical than the MP count; the 5D Classic's sensor and the D3x sensor had serious issues with scenes with wide brightness ratios. The 5D blew out highlights in MANY real-world scenes; a newer, better sensor can bridge the scene brightness with absolutely zero issues.

 

[pixmedic]

MP is really only a part of the photography equation.
there are a lot of other variables like ISO, AF, processor, control options, etc etc.

it wasn't that long ago when pros were shooting with a 4mp D2H (2003), or a 12mp D2X (2004).
Somehow they managed to get clients without 36 MP's, 51pt autofocus systems, and ISO 256,000.

 

[ecphoto]

The 24- and 36- megapixel sensors Nikon has been buying from Sony for its full-frame cameras since the D3x premiered in 2009 are pretty much the leading sensors in the d-slr industry...unequalled by anything any other camera or sensor maker has. Better shadow recovery potential, and none of that awful patterned noise the Canon 5D-III sensor has in its deep shadows--at BASE ISO..not at ISO 25,600, but at ISO 100.

As Fred Miranda himself wrote, "Although the Canon 5D Mark III deals with banding slightly better than the previous version, surprisingly I could still see a substantial amount of color noise. Obviously, the Nikon D800 is in a totally different league. Absent of color noise or any pattern, this image reveals Nikon's exceptional performance. Notice the lower area of the image with no recovery and no post-processing.The Mark III image shows a huge chunk of color noise. Vertical patterns are also visible."

Part II - Controlled tests

It's always amusing to see allegedly scientific-type people try their darndest to minimize a huge difference in technical abilities between products from a company that has UPDATED its manufacturing technology and machinery to state-of-the-industry (meaning SONY, with its new, .18-micron sensor fabrication process) and products from a company (Canon) that has refused to spend the money to update its sensor fabrication tech,and continues to plod along with its antiquated .50-micron sensor fabrication process.

Windows98 anybody?????

In your opinion what's the lowest I should go?
The D90 has 12mp, is that good enough if I need to crop and maybe make the occasional large print?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

In your opinion what's the lowest I should go?
The D90 has 12mp, is that good enough if I need to crop and maybe make the occasional large print?

I think the D90 is showing its age at anything above ISO 400. But if you shoot at Base ISO, in good light, with immaculate technique, the D90 will still make good files within its limitations.

Have you seen Thom Hogan's "Ultimate Upgrade Guide" article? The Ultimate Camera Upgrade Guide | byThom | Thom Hogan

For owners of the D70,D70s,D80,D90, and D7000, he writes:

Like what you've got: probably stick with it. It's only a probably here because, other than the D90 and D7000, we've gotten much better cameras recently and your choice of these models indicates you're a bit of a serious photographer to start with. You'll probably appreciate some of the things the new cameras give you.

• Dislike what you've got: You have two basic choices: (1) stay with the same type of model and get the current version (D7100); or (2) move up to FX.
  
  Which should you do? Here's the simple guide:
  • Choose #1 (buy a D7100) if you're happy with what you've got in terms of camera but want to upgrade simply to update your equipment and get better image quality. Be prepared for some surprises if you're moving from 6mp to 24mp, though. Things have changed a lot since you bought your camera.
  • Chose #2 (move up to FX, most likely the D600) if you're now serious enough that only the best possible image quality will do for your next camera. Be prepared to have to upgrade your lens set, too, though, especially at the wide angle end."

 

[ecphoto]

In your opinion what's the lowest I should go?
The D90 has 12mp, is that good enough if I need to crop and maybe make the occasional large print?

I think the D90 is showing its age at anything above ISO 400. But if you shoot at Base ISO, in good light, with immaculate technique, the D90 will still make good files within its limitations.

Have you seen Thom Hogan's "Ultimate Upgrade Guide" article? The Ultimate Camera Upgrade Guide | byThom | Thom Hogan

For owners of the D70,D70s,D80,D90, and D7000, he writes:

Like what you've got: probably stick with it. It's only a probably here because, other than the D90 and D7000, we've gotten much better cameras recently and your choice of these models indicates you're a bit of a serious photographer to start with. You'll probably appreciate some of the things the new cameras give you.

• Dislike what you've got: You have two basic choices: (1) stay with the same type of model and get the current version (D7100); or (2) move up to FX.
  
  Which should you do? Here's the simple guide:
  • Choose #1 (buy a D7100) if you're happy with what you've got in terms of camera but want to upgrade simply to update your equipment and get better image quality. Be prepared for some surprises if you're moving from 6mp to 24mp, though. Things have changed a lot since you bought your camera.
  • Chose #2 (move up to FX, most likely the D600) if you're now serious enough that only the best possible image quality will do for your next camera. Be prepared to have to upgrade your lens set, too, though, especially at the wide angle end."

Thanks for that article, you bring up a good point. I'm plenty happy with what I've been getting out of my low end D3200. I'm only looking at these older bodies cause I can pickup a 2nd body for very cheap.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

 

[gsgary]

im just a sucker for upgrading electronics whether I need to or not....
that's why i have a new smartphone every year.
all they have to do is cram more MP's, gHz's, or Gigs into it and im sold.

All the gear no idea

 

[Braineack]

Honestly, I have no idea:

Yes Nikon has good dynamic range. But don't cherrypick by comparing it to Canon's absolute lowest sensor value per dollar body. The 6D is a much closer equivalent, it performs 2/3 stop better at half the price:

I simply chose the Mark III to take a return jab at Runnah, since that's what he shoots; it was just a joke.

Comparing the D200 and D90 to the D600 and I can shoot at 9000ISO and get the same DR as those poverty Nikon sensors at 800ISO

I quite often crop my images, and often to DX size, so I'm left with a 10MP image that trumps anything those two 10MP bodies could produce--all things being equal.

This clarifies the actual point I was making here.

 

[pixmedic]

You don't need any megapixels if you shoot film

 

[Scatterbrained]

In your opinion what's the lowest I should go?
The D90 has 12mp, is that good enough if I need to crop and maybe make the occasional large print?

I think the D90 is showing its age at anything above ISO 400. But if you shoot at Base ISO, in good light, with immaculate technique, the D90 will still make good files within its limitations.

Have you seen Thom Hogan's "Ultimate Upgrade Guide" article? The Ultimate Camera Upgrade Guide | byThom | Thom Hogan

For owners of the D70,D70s,D80,D90, and D7000, he writes:

Like what you've got: probably stick with it. It's only a probably here because, other than the D90 and D7000, we've gotten much better cameras recently and your choice of these models indicates you're a bit of a serious photographer to start with. You'll probably appreciate some of the things the new cameras give you.

• Dislike what you've got: You have two basic choices: (1) stay with the same type of model and get the current version (D7100); or (2) move up to FX.
  
  Which should you do? Here's the simple guide:
  • Choose #1 (buy a D7100) if you're happy with what you've got in terms of camera but want to upgrade simply to update your equipment and get better image quality. Be prepared for some surprises if you're moving from 6mp to 24mp, though. Things have changed a lot since you bought your camera.
  • Chose #2 (move up to FX, most likely the D600) if you're now serious enough that only the best possible image quality will do for your next camera. Be prepared to have to upgrade your lens set, too, though, especially at the wide angle end."

Thanks for that article, you bring up a good point. I'm plenty happy with what I've been getting out of my low end D3200. I'm only looking at these older bodies cause I can pickup a 2nd body for very cheap.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It reminds me of a guy I used to work with who had a bunch of crappy old cars; because they were cheap. The current generation of Nikon cameras almost all using the Sony Exmor sensor technology, which is as good as it gets for sensor tech right now. I wouldn't step backward from that. Instead why not pick up a speedlight and get to work on your lighting? Or maybe some filters for landscape shooting?