MP do you agree..

PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,410Member
edited July 2014 in Nikon DSLR cameras
Tom Hogan is banging on about MP again but I have never seen my view on the subject discussed or validated.

12MP I have a friend who does portraits D700 85mm lens ..superb detail
24MP I use a D7100 for most of my wedding shots 5-8 people superb and my wife who does the processing likes to crop to perfection.Nikon 18-140
36MP now if I use the D7100 and a 10mm lens for big scatter groups (30 people spread over a 15x15 yard area) or a heart shape 60 people the definition is terrible,,you would not want to zoom in on an individual. Now use the D800 with an old $60 sigma 17-35mm D and the results are superb. I am sure a nikon lens would do a better job but I am here to make money not spend it

So I do think the wider you go the more MP you need and wide FX lenses must be easier to design than DX retrofocus and all that.
I also conclude that using the Nikon lens with the nikon camera is the way to go because of the built in corrections

I have not seen the wider you go more MP required expounded elsewhere so have you experienced the same ??


  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member

    I also conclude that using the Nikon lens with the nikon camera is the way to go
    I agree 100% not just because of retrofocus but also for VR, AF , etc.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    It would seem from my experience the number of pixels used to capture an image is more dependent on the size of the final product than the lens used. Also, the ISO setting, is a big factor, IMO.

    The number of pixels, like everything else, is just a piece of the whole. In the early days of digital, 1 or 2 MP could produce images which appeared razor sharp. And, my experience with 16 MP suggests easily up to prints 1 x 1.5 m are achieved with razor sharpness, even when viewed from very close up.

    It may be the larger number of pixels will give better tonal range and color rendition… but for me, I almost always get to a color rendition which I like, so, who knows.

    This is rather like in racing vehicles where near the limit one spends huge dollars to have very minimal gains. I think as we go up in megapixels, we may have the same situation. 99% of the images can be captured with most cameras, but to have the ultimate, more pixels will be better.
    Msmoto, mod
  • FritzFritz Posts: 140Member
    A lot depends on what your subject is; for studio and set piece work 36 is probably an asset, for action and nature photography 36 is a handicap under current technology. Perhaps the D5 will have 36mp with the exposure and focus speed of the D4s …..
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,465Member
    I too have been reading Thom Hogan's MP articles with interest. For most of what I do a 24 mp FX sensor is enough (as would be 16 mp FX if I had one) and I am sure 12 mp would be fine for headshots. But 36 mp does a bit better in extreme enlargements. I see Thom is now talking about a 54 mp FX sensor. When that one arrives and we have a new line of lenses designed for high megapixel sensors the improvement will probably be obvious. As far as where we are today I do agree that when using a wide angle lens one should use a high megapixel FX sensor with a lens your body recognizes and can automatically correct, especially for people. I suspect it is because it helps to have more pixels on the small faces and the in-body lens correction data fixes distortion.

    I just went on a trip and my wife wanted "great" photos for her facebook page so I took my D5100 with my 18-200 zoom for weight and convenience. She is very happy with the results. "Great" is relative to the final use.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    The need of MP comes down to how the image will be used, and as @PitchBlack points out, how you need to edit the images.

    Do I find the 12MP files from the D700 less usable than the 36MP files from the D800? Depends on what I am shooting. If I get the framing I want, both provide plenty of detail for average print sizes (8x10/11x14). The D800 produces a much nicer image, and I can spot the difference as soon as higher ISO values are used or the image is cropped.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • framerframer Posts: 491Member
    The key word here IMHO is resolution not sharpness. A UWA of 10mm,

    10mm lens for big scatter groups (30 people spread over a 15x15 yard area) or a heart shape 60 people the definition is terrible
    with that many small subject/objects will require more resolution than 12 MP.

    60 people a 4x5 would be nice or that D800 w/24mm

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited July 2014
    4. It's always better to err on the side of too much rather than not enough. You just never know when you're going to want to print that photo out for the wall in your living room or office.
    I have started a new thread

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    PitchBlack makes a good point in the ability to crop. This is why I purchased a D800E, normally shoot in crop mode, but can go full frame if needed with the ability to move my subject around in post. And, if i can crop heavily and still have 15 - 20 MP, this is a real benefit.
    Msmoto, mod
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    I needed to crop some wedding pics because Uncle Tom was in the frame and the result was great after the crop.

    Cropping on the DF wasn't too bad But I can see a difference in cropping the D800 and DF with the D800 on top with quality.

Sign In or Register to comment.