More Megapixels?

[green_valley01]

Hello I am currently using the D3100 and want to upgrade to the D7100. Ive been reading about how more megapixels does NOT produce a more detailed photo and it's more of a marketing scam.

The D3100 has 14.2mp and the D7100 has 24.1mp so is there a difference between image quality if you used the same lens and same settings?

It seems that more megapixels is ONLY useful for if I plan to crop and if I print out my images, other than that the images aren't more detailed.

Also an image's sharpness is based on the lens you used correct?

 

[ruifo]

Welcome to the forum!

Cropping capacity is certainly a beneffit you'd gain.
Moreover, the D7100 sensor (Expeed 3) is newer and better than the one in the D3100 (Expeed 2).

The D7100 will also offer you better color depth, better dynamic range, better low light ISO performance, and several most advanced features and configurations.

The D7100 will give you too better image sharpness as well, in general, with any lenses, once it does not have the low pass fillter.

Overall, you will have a great increase in IQ (around 23%, accoding to dxomark.com). So you really have to think beyond the MegaPixes themselves. See the comparisons:

The two camreas in general (snapsort.com):
Nikon D7100 vs D3100 - Our Analysis

The two sensor and IQ (dxomark.com):
Nikon D7100 versus Nikon D3100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

 

[Light Guru]

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D7100

Lots of differences between the two.

 

[Derrel]

Almost two and one-half EV better dynamic range with the D7100's newer, better sensor technology; now THAT is something I think you will truly "notice". The overall sensor score difference is actually pretty significant. The D3100 was announced in August of 2010; the D7100 was announced in February of 2013; if I am not mistaken, that puts the two cameras in generation A for the D3100, and Generation C for the D7100, which means updating to the D7100 would be you following the old adage of updating only EVERY-OTHER model generation.

 

[daggah]

Upgrading from the 16 MP D7000 to the 36 MP D800, I thought I wouldn't really see much advantage in the increased resolution, but even though I rarely save images with the full resolution, I find that I absolutely love having 36 megapixels to play with. My large size images are converted to 24 megapixels, which still gives me room to do a little cropping.

Regardless of megapixel differences, the D7100 is a significantly better camera than the D3100, particularly feature-wise.

 

[KmH]

. . . The D7100 will give you too better image sharpness as well . . .

The D7100 delivers better image sharpness when compared to what a D3100 can deliver because the D7100 does not have low-pass filter in front of the image sensor.

 

[AlanKlein]

From your post it appears, you don't print. How much do you crop? 12 mp is more than enough for the web. It's also more than enough for prints of fairly large size. Are you unsatisfied with the pictures you're getting? If not, why do you want to change? You really should have specifics reasons to upgrade so you can pick a camera that will meet those new expectations. Once you know what you want in a new camera, you may find the D7100 is the wrong model. So in that sense, yes, more megapixels could be a "scam".

 

[AlanKlein]

PS: I doubt if anyone will be able to tell the difference between the cameras for photos posted on the web or most prints. Use your money on getting a different lens. Maybe a good wide angle, macro or telephoto. How about a tripod. You get more benefit from those.

 

[WayneF]

Hello I am currently using the D3100 and want to upgrade to the D7100. Ive been reading about how more megapixels does NOT produce a more detailed photo and it's more of a marketing scam.

The D3100 has 14.2mp and the D7100 has 24.1mp so is there a difference between image quality if you used the same lens and same settings?

It seems that more megapixels is ONLY useful for if I plan to crop and if I print out my images, other than that the images aren't more detailed.

Also an image's sharpness is based on the lens you used correct?

That is pretty close. There are many differences in the D3100 and D7100, features and options and such. Pretty much bottom of the line vs top of the line, at least for DX models. Experienced users who can use the features really do like them, would certainly hate to lose them. It really depends on how limited you feel by a D3100 now.
But megapixels is NOT a direct indication of image quality. It depends on how you USE the images...

To show a picture on a wide screen 1920x1080 pixel computer monitor, more than 1920x1080 pixels cannot help. That is only about 2 megapixels. The image has normally been automatically resampled to be not larger than 1920x1080, to fit on the screen. One exception, you could leave it actual size, and then scroll around on it.

To print a picture to be 8x10 inches on paper is only about 7 megapixels. More pixels cannot help.

However... more pixels can give you more choices.

To tightly crop a 14 or 24 megapixel image to include only a smaller 2 or 7 megapixel region.. then you have something that a 2 or 7 megapixel image cannot do.

Or to print it 16x20 inches for example, could benefit from having closer to 30 megapixels. These are rare exceptions to daily use, but when you need it, it is nice.

 

[goodguy]

I think the D3100 is already a pretty good camera.
Under the right person no doubt the D7100 will be able to produce better results but I think it will come down to 2 things.

1.the lenses you will use, you need very good glass to really let the D7100 shine.
2.It is mostly about your own skills, if you have the ability and know how to make a camera produce good images then absolutly you will love the D7100 but if you dont you probably not see a huge improvement.

I own the the D7100 and cant say enough of how much I love this camera but at the end of the day it really is about the person behind the camera.

Good luck

 

[bigal1000]

I owned a D7100 and it is a fantastic camera but,I think it is over mega pixeled I think a sweet spot would have been around 16-18 MP's but again it is only my opinion !!!!!!!!!

 

[KmH]

What do you base your opinion on?

 

[Derrel]

I owned a D7100 and it is a fantastic camera but,I think it is over mega pixeled I think a sweet spot would have been around 16-18 MP's but again it is only my opinion !!!!!!!!!

Let's see...Fuji's entire X-series line 16 MP sensor in all of them....Olympus OM-D line...16MP sensors....Panasonic GH3, has a...16 megapixel sensor...the Canon APS-C lineup...18 MP sensor in all of them...

Nikon D4 and D4s and Df...all three use basically, the same 16 megapixel sensor...the Canon 1DX...has an 18.1 megapixel sensor....

Hmmm..it SEEMS LIKE five leading manufacturers of cameras all produce about 25 or so models that have...16- to 18-megapixel sensors.

Huh...whoda' thunk it, right?????

 

[robbins.photo]

I owned a D7100 and it is a fantastic camera but,I think it is over mega pixeled I think a sweet spot would have been around 16-18 MP's but again it is only my opinion !!!!!!!!!

Let's see...Fuji's entire X-series line 16 MP sensor in all of them....Olympus OM-D line...16MP sensors....Panasonic GH3, has a...16 megapixel sensor...the Canon APS-C lineup...18 MP sensor in all of them...

Nikon D4 and D4s and Df...all three use basically, the same 16 megapixel sensor...the Canon 1DX...has an 18.1 megapixel sensor....

Hmmm..it SEEMS LIKE five leading manufacturers of cameras all produce about 25 or so models that have...16- to 18-megapixel sensors.

Huh...whoda' thunk it, right?????

Lol.. well having gone from a 16 mp to a 24 mp myself not to long ago I think there is probably a pretty straightforward explanation as to why this might be, at least in my experience the 16 mp doesn't show the errors in technique nearly as clearly as the 24 does, gives you a little more wiggle room for the less experienced shooter.

But oh brother when you do get a little experience under your belt and improve your technique enough that 24 mp sensor is amazing, well worth the price of admission IMHO.

 

[Derrel]

I owned a D7100 and it is a fantastic camera but,I think it is over mega pixeled I think a sweet spot would have been around 16-18 MP's but again it is only my opinion !!!!!!!!!

Let's see...Fuji's entire X-series line 16 MP sensor in all of them....Olympus OM-D line...16MP sensors....Panasonic GH3, has a...16 megapixel sensor...the Canon APS-C lineup...18 MP sensor in all of them...

Nikon D4 and D4s and Df...all three use basically, the same 16 megapixel sensor...the Canon 1DX...has an 18.1 megapixel sensor....

Hmmm..it SEEMS LIKE five leading manufacturers of cameras all produce about 25 or so models that have...16- to 18-megapixel sensors.

Huh...whoda' thunk it, right?????

Lol.. well having gone from a 16 mp to a 24 mp myself not to long ago I think there is probably a pretty straightforward explanation as to why this might be, at least in my experience the 16 mp doesn't show the errors in technique nearly as clearly as the 24 does, gives you a little more wiggle room for the less experienced shooter.

But oh brother when you do get a little experience under your belt and improve your technique enough that 24 mp sensor is amazing, well worth the price of admission IMHO.

Why do you suppose the Nikon D4s has a price of admission of right around $6,495, and features "only" a 16-MP sensor? Is it because that's a beginner's camera, or a novice's camera?