Megapixel/sensor question (Page 2): Thank you, it makes sense to me. I like my D200 and want to keep using it. Like you said - I'll focus on getting a better lens. I moved from D200 to...

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

dandi wrote:

Whats more important than the pixels, is the glass you put in front of those sensors. Its a shame people rush after megapixel numbers instead of first focusing (hurr)on the glass.

Thank you, it makes sense to me. I like my D200 and want to keep using it. Like you said - I'll focus on getting a better lens.[/quote]

I moved from D200 to D300 to D800E. While good lenses are important, there have been MAJOR advances in sensor technology since the D200. Apart from more pixels, which means more resolution for large prints or cropping possibilities, recent sensors have better color depth, better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. These things do matter as much as a lens.

With the D200, one loses detail, smoothness and tonal range quickly in shadows. In modern Nikons, what is retained in the shadows is truly amazing. I can get a decent print out of the D800 from an image that is underexposed by 4 stops. What can be done with night shots is wondrous. This applies also to photos with high dynamic range--bright sun and deep shadow for instance.

And of course one can shoot now in much less light and still get excellent results. These are advantages that pertain with all lenses.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

more is not always better. Some of megapixel increases is simply marketing. As you said you get just as good results fro your 16 mp camera as your 24. Unless you are going for wall size murals higher mp numbers wont matter. You have to know that the various manufacturers want you to "Upgrade" toa more expensive body. While I am certianly no expert but it seems to me that megapixel hunting is a fools errand.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

Thanks everybody for the discussion.

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

dandi wrote:

Yes, technology is amazing, but don't you think sometimes that with all this technology we going further away from the art of photography?
Even my original question, it's about sensor, megapixels.
It's more like technology question than photography.

That's true - but hasn't it always been? I can picture Ansel Adams discussing with his assistant how he could do *so* much better with just a bit more *something*.

I think as soon as we move away from the Kodak Instamatic (or Box Brownie), we start on the slippery slope of technology. Not saying this is a bad thing, just a fact of life.

WAL

A friends teenage daughter bought a new camera. A Kodak point and shoot with 14 mega pixels. I felt her original Canon was a better camera with fewer pixels. I asked what made her buy the Kodak. She said she liked the color, it was bright red. I gave up and asked no more questions.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

WAL wrote:

A friends teenage daughter bought a new camera. A Kodak point and shoot with 14 mega pixels. I felt her original Canon was a better camera with fewer pixels. I asked what made her buy the Kodak. She said she liked the color, it was bright red. I gave up and asked no more questions.

It's always important to know which battles are worth fightingan d which are not.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

dandi wrote:

Hi everyone, I am relatively new to digital photog... (show quote)

I believe that the larger mega-pixel cameras are great if you are going to do large prints. A 15 to 20 MP camera will print great photos such as a 13 X 19 print, the largest I have ever done.

More important is the glass! Instead of running out and buying a new camera just because it is a 24 MP instead of 18 MP invest in the best glass you can afford. That has more to do with getting the best IQ in your photos than any thing else!

There have been some great photos taken with 10 MP cameras! What is more important to me is the processor and sensor. Canon has started to use a Digic 5+ processor, replacing the Digic 4 processor. It is capable of handling more features better and faster than the older one.

Jim D

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

dandi wrote:

Whats more important than the pixels, is the glass you put in front of those sensors. Its a shame people rush after megapixel numbers instead of first focusing (hurr)on the glass.

Thank you, it makes sense to me. I like my D200 and want to keep using it. Like you said - I'll focus on getting a better lens.[/quote]
If you read the tests, the D300 was a BIG improvement over the D200 in noise. Anything since then can be duplicated with OnOne Software until you get to the newest(D7100 and D800) IMHO.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

kymarto wrote:

I moved from D200 to D300 to D800E. While good len... (show quote)

So, it means that statement: size of the pixel is more important than number of pixels is not accurate anymore? For some reason I was influenced by this.

A friend of mine gave me his Sony A900 (FF 24MP) for a week. I was not very impressed with it. In terms of sharpness, yes it's better than D200, but colors and skin tone-I like D200 more, even my friend had to admit it. But it's of course matter of taste.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

dandi wrote:

So, it means that statement: size of the pixel is more important than number of pixels is not accurate anymore? For some reason I was influenced by this.

A friend of mine gave me his Sony A900 (FF 24MP) for a week. I was not very impressed with it. In terms of sharpness, yes it's better than D200, but colors and skin tone-I like D200 more, even my friend had to admit it. But it's of course matter of taste.

Keep in mind the D200 was a CCD sensor. Newer cameras are almost all CMOS sensors. Pixel spacing is more important with CCD sensors than it is with CMOS sensors. Medium format digital backs are all still CCD type sensors mostly due to the better dynamic range, but they all have poorer high ISO quality than CMOS and most will not even process over 800 ISO.

Bigfoot73 Loc: Canada

dandi wrote:

So, it means that statement: size of the pixel is more important than number of pixels is not accurate anymore? For some reason I was influenced by this.

A friend of mine gave me his Sony A900 (FF 24MP) for a week. I was not very impressed with it. In terms of sharpness, yes it's better than D200, but colors and skin tone-I like D200 more, even my friend had to admit it. But it's of course matter of taste.

Did you check the settings on JPEG export? If you shoot RAW that you should know that tones can be edited in Post Processing, colors also.
P.S. I own D200 and I love it but to be honest it is an old piece...

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

MT Shooter wrote:

Keep in mind the D200 was a CCD sensor. Newer cameras are almost all CMOS sensors. Pixel spacing is more important with CCD sensors than it is with CMOS sensors. Medium format digital backs are all still CCD type sensors mostly due to the better dynamic range, but they all have poorer high ISO quality than CMOS and most will not even process over 800 ISO.

Thank you, MT Shooter. I knew about CCD sensor but it's good to know about dynamic range. It makes me love my D200 even more :). I rarely go over 800 ISO.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

dandi wrote:

Hi everyone, I am relatively new to digital photog... (show quote)

From what I understand it's actually the size of the sensor that really matters. So the larger the sensor, regardless of the mp count, should produce better results.

The best part about smaller pixels is that this yields a much tighter detailed look at your subject which would be better for enlargements. Larger sensor, more pixels, better result.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

dandi wrote:

Hi everyone, I am relatively new to digital photog... (show quote)

This is a recurrent theme. With current technology, the sensor physical (not pixel) dimensions is the limiting factor. Given two sensors of identical dimensions, doubling its number of megapixels can only be done by reducing the size of each individual pixel. The smaller the pixel, the fewer number of photons per unit of time it can collect. Furthermore, the smaller pixels are much more prone to show greater diffraction, resulting in noise, than the larger individual pixels. So the total number of photons/second collected by both sensors is about the same, but the camera labeled with fewer megapixel may actually have better image quality with less noise than the the one with the larger-megapixel label. For awhile, the megapixel-label battle concentrated on high numbers because it was more luring for the average consumer.

Other factors, such as lens quality certainly are important whether the the sensor uses many small pixels or fewer larger ones.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

bunuweld wrote:

This is a recurrent theme. With current technology... (show quote)

I read your post a few times, very interesting, thank you. So, the pixel size IS important. That's impression I had.