cropping: I am new to this I have been using a super zoom Sony HX200V for years now and am moving on to a DSLR camera for mostly wildlife and macro photos I have some lenses already a...

haze63 Loc: Tiffin Ohio

I am new to this I have been using a super zoom Sony HX200V for years now and am moving on to a DSLR camera for mostly wildlife and macro photos I have some lenses already a Nikkor 200-500mm a 70-300mm VR FX and a Tokina 100mm for now I would like to get for a body the Nikon D500 but I am not sure yet because it has only 20.9 MP or the Nikon D7200 24.2 MP does the 3.3 MP really make any difference in the crop factor or sharpness of the pictures please help would rather get the D500

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Welcome to the Hog Haze, get the D500, you will not notice the MP difference. I have a D7000 16 MP and a D7100 24 MP, I can't tell the difference. Sometimes I think the D7000 shoots better pictures than the D7100.

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

ebbote wrote:

Welcome to the Hog Haze, get the D500, you will not notice the MP difference. I have a D7000 16 MP and a D7100 24 MP, I can't tell the difference. Sometimes I think the D7000 shoots better pictures than the D7100.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Welcome to UHH.
There are things much more important than pixel count. The D500's AF system, processor, and fps are superior to the D7200.

CO

I have a D500 and have rented the D7200. You won't notice the difference in megapixels. I think the resolution of cameras got as high as it is today for marketing purposes. It seems like they have hit a ceiling. Nikon DX cameras have stopped at 24 megapixels.

Bill_de Loc: US

I have both those cameras. The D500 is the one to go with for wildlife. The difference in MP is negligible. The difference in focus speed is IMHO monumental. The 10 frames per second is another advantage of the D500.

The D500 is worth the extra money for your intended use.

---

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Mac wrote:

Welcome to UHH.
There are things much more important than pixel count. The D500's AF system, processor, and fps are superior to the D7200.

This...go with the D500!!!

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Nikon nailed it on the D500. While many would die for a D810, I would rather have FX lenses for it. If you already have DX lenses, the D500 is the best option. And you still have a great crop sensor camera. The 4K video and the usage of the XQD card is a great advantage, as well the 10 fps mentioned already.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Are you sure 20 Mp are not enough megapixels? Do not expect to see a noticeable difference between 20 and 24 megapixels files.
The D7200, which I do not own, is said to be an excellent tool and right now it is cheaper than the D500. That would be my choice if I was out in the market for a new cropped sensor body.
If you have the need to crop often then your camera is the D800.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

haze63 wrote:

I am new to this I have been using a super zoom Sony HX200V for years now and am moving on to a DSLR camera for mostly wildlife and macro photos I have some lenses already a Nikkor 200-500mm a 70-300mm VR FX and a Tokina 100mm for now I would like to get for a body the Nikon D500 but I am not sure yet because it has only 20.9 MP or the Nikon D7200 24.2 MP does the 3.3 MP really make any difference in the crop factor or sharpness of the pictures please help would rather get the D500

If the wildlife you shoot has a pulse, the D500 is more useful to you. If it has roots, doesn't matter so much.

mikenolan Loc: Lincoln Nebraska

Now that Canon has a 30 megapixel camera out (D5 Mark IV), I would not be surprised if Nikon also comes out with one in the next year.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Nikon has a 36 mp camera for a while and Canon has two 50 mp camera, 5DS and 5DSR.

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

mikenolan Loc: Lincoln Nebraska

Megapixels is an arms race, and increasingly one aimed at people who think megapixels is the most important factor in selecting a camera.

In a few years we'll all be agog at the 75 megapixels cameras, then the 100 megapixels cameras, etc.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Just not needed unless you are making giant prints or cropping your shots a ton...
My friend had a 40 something phone camera at the drag races last year and it was amazing in that he could take a photo from the starting line and zoom in to the scoreboards a quarter mine away and easily read them. That was pretty neat.

But bigger files mean more computing power and storage space will be needed. Got to keep people buying more of both. It will also require better lenses to resolve to,that level in my view. Again more money to spend. Cameras are merely specialized computer systems. Have you noticed that the prices don't go down much anymore, you just get more for the same dollars. My problem is that I need a time machine as much of what I would like to shoot is 40-50 years in the past. Oh to have had today's cameras back then...

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

It is often said that the more pixels the greater the resolving power of the sensor. On the face of it this is reasonable, but my next thought concerns the physical size (dimensions) of the sensor. Dividing the area of the sensor by the number of pixels would yield a working value of the area occupied per pixel and that would derive the lower limit of resolution. At this point the visual acuity of the human eye intervenes - can one actually distinguish that fine of detail in the image 'As Viewed.' So whether more pixels gives better pictures is not a simple question, in my mind anyway.