gary8803

I find the 12 mp sensor on the D3 is a benefit for me I hand hold a sigma 500mm prime lens ( this is a non vr lens) and use a shutter speed of 1/500 or great. It seems like my shoot are sharper then higher mp camera I shoot with the same lens. I think its because of the large pixels not so many on the sensor. I don't use a tripod because I walk around with my wife as she is a bird watcher. A tripod is just to much to carry. Whats your opinion on lower megapixel cameras getting sharper hand held shot vs higher mp camera like D810 or D850.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Gary, the D3 was a great camera, used by many professionals. And, if it does what you need, it's a perfect match. My cameras are 24 MP and I like the additional resolution. But, that's me. Good luck!

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Without a side by side comparison of the D3 and D810,D850 with your 500mm prime who knows? You do know that the D3 with your 500 prime is super sharp.It works for you.

ELNikkor

I'm a fan of large pixels too.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

My D3 is ample for my usage; I usually shoot with a 300mm F4 afs ED attached. This combo is super sharp, and used freehand. Mostly used for birds and animals.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The D3 is a very capable professional camera. If you want to see how capable those 12 Mp. are enlarge any of your files to 20x30.
All of the details are going to be present.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

D3 a great camera

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

You could use a monopod with a quick release. It doubles as a walking stick

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

To some extent, what you say is true. Canon noted similar when they first rolled out their 18MP APS-C cameras.... that they were more susceptible to camera shake blur than earlier, lower resolution models. They published a white paper about it. After a long explanation why this was the case, Canon simply recommended using somewhat higher shutter speed to avoid camera shake blur and insure sharpness. Matters have only gotten worse, since APS-C cameras are now commonly 20MP or 24MP. Full frame have seen similar, though generally not quite as extreme increases in resolution. Canon 50MP full frame 5DS models have almost exactly the same pixel pitch (size) and density as those 18MP cameras too (and such a high resolution camera is also "very demanding" of lenses... the lens' resolving power has to match or exceed that of the camera, and a lot don't.)

But very likely another reason your 12MP camera's images seem sharper on-screen than those from, say, a 36MP camera is because when you view them you're enlarging the lower resolution camera's images far less....

The native resolution of the D3 is 4,256 x 2,832 pixels.

The native resolution of a 36MP, FX D810 is 7,360 × 4,912 pixels. (The 50MP Canons capture 8688 x 5792 pixels.)

A lot of people tend to look at their images ridiculously large on their computer monitors. Just out of habit they use the same settingst... regardless what camera the images are from or what size the images will actually be used.

If you view images from both D3 and D810 "at 100%" on the typical computer monitor (HD, not 4K or higher) set to display at it's default resolution, it's like viewing approx. 42" x 28" print from the D3.... or a 73" x 49" print from the D810. A 3.5 foot by 2.5 foot print viewed from 18 or 20" away is bound to "look sharper" than a six foot by four foot print seen from the same distance. In other words, using the same 100% viewing setting with both, you're actually looking at the the D810's images at almost double the magnification... so any and all flaws are going to be a lot more obvious and it's almost certain to appear less sharp.

There are other factors.... In older cameras the full frame, lower resolution models tend to need and use weaker anti-alias filters (which deliberately blur images). Higher rez models needed stronger AA to reduce and prevent moiré. The trend though has been toward cameras without AA filters (actually still use a filter over the sensor, but without the same low pass/AA effect). I don't claim to fully understand why they are now able to do this... would guess that it's due to advancements in image handling in-camera and post-processing software... dealing with moiré in other ways. Images straight out of cameras without AA filters need less sharpening in post.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I also have a D3 $5000, 12mp, ridiculously small. So I bought a D4s for $6500, 16mp. Go figure.

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

Many great photos have been taken with 10mp cameras...
If you are happy that is what matters most...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

The amount of blur is the same with the D3 and D850, the difference is that the D3 didn't have the resolution to show you the mistakes. If you downsample the D850 shots with blur to 12MP, you'll likely find they look like what you get with the D3. The trick isn't to shoot lower resolution, it's to use better technique (faster shutter speeds would be a good place to start in this case).

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Fine higher MP cameras expose blurs from improper technique and lens flaws that coarse lower MP cameras are unable to do. Everything "looks" better on a lower MP camera - to a certain point of magnification.

..

tomcat

I don't think there has ever been a greater digital camera than the D3/D3s for low light shooting. I have one and you'll have to pry it from my hands (at a concert or gym, ha). Those 12 honking huge megapixels can gather light like there's no tomorrow when it is dim lighting. Now the D500 with sunshine, shooting soccer, is in another league.