D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

I'm trying to figure out what camera I should purchase. I have been comparing them on the Nikon website (I currently have the d7000). I looked at the D500 and compared it to the D810 and also wanted to see what the expensive new D5 had. When I was comparing them I notices that the new D5 which costs apprx $6,000 and is a FX and the new D500 which is a DX has the same amount of pixels which is 20.9 million and costs $2,000 and the d810 which is a FX and less expensive then the D5 had 36.3 pixels. Would I notice a difference in clarity between the D500 and the D810. I realize one is a FX and one is a DX. I also noticed that D7200 also has 24.2 pixels. I will be shooting wildlife, landscapes and going on safari.

Adicus Loc: New Zealand

I think it will depend upon how big you will want to make your prints. 20 plus million pixels is quite a lot for average size photos

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

I would be printing average type photos

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

Your average, my average or Joe Schmo's average???

If you want help then give us proper information. 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, 20x24, 20x30 are all standard sizes. Which one suits your needs best?

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

8x10 or 11x14

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Forget about pixel counts - they only help when you have excruciatingly sharp lenses and do a lot of cropping. For most prints, 12 mp is really all you need.

As you start cropping or zooming in on a shot, yes, you will see a difference as you increase in pixel count. For wildlife you want fast autofocus and at least 16mp, and some reasonably fast frames per second (minimum of 5) and a large buffer so you can capture 30-40 shots or more. I believe with a fast card, a D5 can do at least 200 full sized, lossless compressed raw files in a continuous burst at maximum frame rate. That is what you pay $6k for. Image quality is not going to necessarily be any better than the other cameras you are considering.

High pixel counts on DX cameras "generally" mean more noise, but the D500 seems to provide really good low light/high ISO performance.

I currently use a pair of D800s, but I am seriously considering a D500 and possibly replacing one of the D800s. I shoot landscapes nature, wildlife, portraits, architecture, travel, street photography, etc etc etc.

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

Thanks for the info. It was very helpful.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Adicus, your ppi requirements drop as you increase print size. This is based on the fact that typically larger prints are viewed at greater distances, and the eye's ability to resolve fine detail diminishes as the distance increases.

You've seen the Apple iPhone 6 billboards - with huge images taken with the phone's 8 mp camera. Boy do they look sharp! Also, consider that the Sony 4K digital projection system at your local multiplex is only 8.8 mp.

For excellent quality on a 24x36, you only need 6 mp, but 12 mp will give the viewer the ability to move in closer and admire the fine detail.

I use a D800, and used to have a D70s, D200, D300, D700 and a D3S, and I often print my work at 24x36, and sometimes up to 40x60, so I speak from experience.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Are you ever going to crop an image to some part of the original before printing? Or do you print only the original.

The "best" pixels would be the D810. But if you never print a 16x20 or a cropped image, the best is also the wasted.

The D5 is intended for fast action, such as sports. That does not sound like it would serve you all that well.

A DX camera would have some advantage for long telephoto shots of wildlife. If you are shooting with a 500mm or 600mm lens and commonly still aren't close enough, the DX body will be better than an a D810 with all those pixels even on an FX body. Except for that one single circumstance, the D810 will be better for your proposed work.

I do not own a DX camera. I do have a D4 and a D810. The significance for comparison to your work is that I shoot people pictures and wildlife. The wildlife includes birds, but all of it is on the flat treeless Arctic tundra where there is no such thing as too long a lens! There are times when a DX camera would be better, but it just isn't worth it to me to pack another camera around. That might be very very similar to your needs...

One other consideration is "interesting". Or maybe not. If you are in no big rush, we can expect a replacement for the D810 model soon after the D5 actually goes on sale. Maybe this summer, or perhaps in the fall? Who knows. But it will probably have more pixels than the D810, as well as other improvements.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

OK, now we're cooking with gas. (pardon the pun)

For that size of print a 10-12 MPixel camera will suit you just fine. Full frame will give you more captured dynamic range but a crop will give you some extended distance.

(edit as I just re-read your original post and see you have an adequate camera so take the next bit with a grain of salt) I would suggest you buy a used body such as a Canon 30/40/50D (or Nikon/Pentax/other equivalent) and put the savings into some high end glass. The camera only captures what goes through the glass so high end camera with low end glass = poor quality photos vs. low end camera with high end glass = good quality photos.

Now if you just won the Powerball lottery then get high end stuff all around and don't forget to get an extra one so you can send it my way. :lol:

Yes you can always spend more but if you're only need is to go the the local supermarket, then you really don't need a Ferrari.

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

I have Nikon 17-55 f2.8 , Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a 55-300 f4.5/5.6. I wanted to check out the new nikon lens 200-500 but its for a fx body and didn't know what it would be like on a dx body.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It should be fantastic.

zigipha Loc: north nj

but the pixels get blown up as well as the billboard gets bigger; the comfortable viewing distance is proportional to the size that you blow up, so the two cancel. point is, that ppi is important across all image sizes.

you could argue that ppi is more important at larger sizes because those are actually easier to pixel peep at.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Take another look at the D500. It will be an awesome camera when released. 4K video and dual memory card slots for either XQD or SDHC. Nice LCD Screen. For a DX format camera, this camera in my opinion will be a winner. Your Nikon D7000 has about 16 megapixels. You will have 5 megapixels more..

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I hear a lot of people saying the DX camera trumps the FX for telephoto (wildlife) work, including some of the so called experts.

This could be true in some circumstances especially if the amount of pixels are the same for each camera and you are just looking at resolving power.

I have never seen a review where (as an example) a DX of 24mp is compared to a FX of 36mp shot in the DX mode.

In my opinion all things considered I believe the 36mp camera would have the edge in IQ even with the lower image pixel count. There is a lot more to IQ than resolving power.

We know from all the camera and lens data available that FX sensors have much better characteristics than DX and just about all lenses perform better on FX of comparable or better size.

I know many have both types of cameras, I don't at this point otherwise I'd do a comparison.

I challenge any one with both types and an inquiring mind to do a comparison and give their opinion. It wouldn't be that hard.