The value of more megapixels (Page 2): Take a good look at the people that say they upgraded and it makes a world of difference. Most of them upgraded to a full frame camera. The...

tramsey Loc: Texas

Take a good look at the people that say they upgraded and it makes a world of difference. Most of them upgraded to a full frame camera. The pixels on a full frame are doubled BUT so is the sensor size and the sensor type is a better grade. So it's not just the pixels that make a difference but many other things.
You are not missing out on a thing with your 700 except the frustration of learning a new camera.
If your camera is doing what you want it to do, stick with it.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

If you like printing large then more MP will give you a noticeable difference. I have been shooting with 24mp since 2012 and recently got a D800 37mp and there is a difference in quality some due to FX vs DX. If you have the funds go for it.

tcthome Loc: NJ

speters wrote:

You'll be able to make out a few more details, but the diffence is small, if you move up to the 850 it will be more obvious, because that one has almost double the resolution of your camera!

Almost 4 x the amount of pixels !

OviedoPhotos

I still have my D700 and bought a D850. Using the same lens, I shot 5 landscape photos of a botanical garden. The detail difference was amazing. I was also able to crop really close and the images still had details.

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

speters wrote:

You'll be able to make out a few more details, but the diffence is small, if you move up to the 850 it will be more obvious, because that one has almost double the resolution of your camera!

D700 is 12MP when compared to D8xx is 36 MP ( they're 3x), the D850 is 45.7MP ( it's 3.8x).

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Not sure what you shoot or lenses you have, but you might want to consider a D7200. Crop sensor with higher megapixel count, excellent features and very reasonably priced now.

Marcel Hoef

If you multiply the megapixels by 4 you double the resolution that means a 50 megapixels camera will allow you to crop the picture to the level of a 2x teleconverter

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Shel B wrote:

Being fairly new to digital photography, I'm still learning...a lot. Here's my question. I currently use an older Nikon d700 for the bulk of my still photos. I think it is a 12 megapixel. In practical use, is there enough difference in image quality to warrant the move up to something with over 20 megapixels? I do make some prints up to 30x40...and I think the results are quite good. I love the d700. It's as solid as a rock....but am I missing out? I'm only interested in image quality.

If you are getting quite good 30X40 prints using a 12 megapixel camera why would you need a new camera?
EXCEED processors in Nikon Camera's are AS important as more megapixels. Many folks feel the EXCEED processor is what sets Nikon apart from other camera manufactures. The new Nikon Z camera's use the new EXCEED 6 processor. The EXCEED 5 processor is in the D500, D850, and D5.
If you shoot a lot of sports or wildlife you may want to consider the D500, D850 or the D5 because in addition of the EXCEED 5 processor Nikon has included a separate processor just for focusing. Also included in these camera's is a focusing system called GROUP AUTO FOCUS, a real advance in getting moving objects sharp.
Other than these advances, if your getting quite good 30X40 prints, CARRY ON MY WAYWARD SON.

Marcel Hoef

Without loosing detail competed to your 12 megapixels camera. If you have a 12 megapixels camera and a good 200 mm lens a 50 megapixels camera will allow you to crop like it was a 400mm lens without optical disadvantages

anotherview Loc: California

You have answered your concern: "I do make some prints up to 30x40...and I think the results are quite good."

Shel B wrote:

Being fairly new to digital photography, I'm still learning...a lot. Here's my question. I currently use an older Nikon d700 for the bulk of my still photos. I think it is a 12 megapixel. In practical use, is there enough difference in image quality to warrant the move up to something with over 20 megapixels? I do make some prints up to 30x40...and I think the results are quite good. I love the d700. It's as solid as a rock....but am I missing out? I'm only interested in image quality.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Shel B wrote:

Being fairly new to digital photography, I'm still learning...a lot. Here's my question. I currently use an older Nikon d700 for the bulk of my still photos. I think it is a 12 megapixel. In practical use, is there enough difference in image quality to warrant the move up to something with over 20 megapixels? I do make some prints up to 30x40...and I think the results are quite good. I love the d700. It's as solid as a rock....but am I missing out? I'm only interested in image quality.

The battle tested Nikon D700 full frame DSLR, was virtually a godsend when I first saw one on display, at a high end photo store in late 2008. The price of it was outrageous for its time. I couldn't afford the camera. I remember the store manager said it had a whopping 12.1 megapixels. Although, I personally would not purchase one used, I would prefer the 24 megapixels D750. While many crop sensor DSLRs have 24 megapixels, you can get quality 8X10 photos from just 5 megapixels..

Low Budget Dave

The average human eye can distinguish pixels as small as 300 micro-radians (down to about 24 cm away). That works out to 75 microns, or about 350 pixels per inch. So if you are printing 8.5" x 11", the limit of human vision is about 12MP.

You might want a few more than that for cropping purposes, and to gain a slight bit of sharpness from the interpolation process, but the additional resolution is miniscule, compared to the sharpness you lose from things like shutter shock and the low-pass filter.

If anyone is looking at your 30" by 40" print from 25cm away (about 10 inches), then they deserve to see the pixels.

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

orrie smith wrote:

If you are satisfied with what you are creating, s... (show quote)

I agree, and will add that I (and others) have made 30X40 prints from 8MP cameras and proudly display them on my wall. Over the years I have made large prints from each of my progression of cameras - 8MP, 10MP, 12MP, 16MP, and 20MP. In the end, the subject, lighting, composition, and point of focus are king - more MP will just let you see more warts and all, but it won't improve the photo.
But as Orrie points out, if you need better focusing, ISO performance, etc., that comes with an "advanced" body, then you should consider it.

tomcat

I would keep the D700 because you've already said you are very satisfied with the quality at large prints sizes. I would spend the money on a couple of Sigma Art lenses. I have the 50mm Art and the 135mm Art lenses and they are the sharpest lenses I have ever used (even better than my Nikon stuff). I regularly shoot a D3s at 12 megapixels and with these lenses the results are astounding. So I would not buy a new body just for the megapixel increase. Maybe next year, so for now just get the glasss

Haymaker

wetreed wrote:

The more pixels the better, that is why more pixels cost more. You get what you pay for. The more something cost the better it is. I think we can all agree to this.