shall i fall for the MEGAPIXEL?

enerlevel · Sep 22, 2012

hello all,
i am still learning my way through.... i mostly do wedding photography or take photos where the lightening condition is not very good.... so my main requirement is a very very good low light performing camera. currently i don't really see myself doing sports or making large prints of my works.. but dunno what the future holds for me .... right now i have
1) nikon 24-70 f2.8
2) nikon 50mm f1.8 D
3) sigma 70-200 f2.8
4) nikon sb-800
5) nikon d-90

All my lens are FX because i did plan to go for FF one day.. and its now!

My obvious plan was to get the nikon D3S because as it seems, it is the best performing camera for low light. however, now comes the D800 and the D600 which make the 12 mega pixel sensor look really small...... therefore my question is , shall i get the D3S as planned or shall i go for more mega pixels ....
to be honest, i don't earn as much as i am spending on my gear , therefore its imp. for me to make the right choice and to keep the camera for years to come .... ( i kept the D90 for 2 years now) ...

thanks all

panblue · Sep 22, 2012

How much resolution do you need?

Here's a link to a psychadelic graph..

The Case for Big Photosites

..the best yogic-flying seems to be happening
where the green and red clouds merge. YMMV.

Derrel · Sep 22, 2012

I'd be very tempted to buy a brand-new D600...however, a good, clean,low-miles D3s for $2000 or so would also be a very good camera.

enerlevel · Sep 22, 2012

Well I hardly print photos , I only give it on computer copies but I do need extra resolution for cropping as I am not pro yet . I have always used 12 mp ... For me the megapixel count might not be as imp as a solid low light performer ... But if I get the same high iso performance with higher mega pixel , then why not !!!
Yes my friend has a fairly new just under 7000 clicks for sale brand new d600 for £1850 , new d800 for £2100 and used d3s for £2200 so money is not the issue here ... I just need the best for my work