The value of more megapixels: 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...

Shel B

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.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

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 satisfied with what you are creating, stick with it. In my opinion, upgrading is more about the added features you are able to get, such as a faster focus, frames per second, the way the controls are laid out for ease of use, and things of that nature. The higher pixels are just added bonuses. Look at the Nikon D5 and D500, they actually lost megapixels, went from 24 to 21, and they are considered professional models from Nikon. Some say the more megapixels the larger the print, but you seem to be impressed with your 12 megapixels and the 30x40 prints, so, why change?

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Two yrs ago I went from a 21 megapixel full frame to a 50 megapixel -- photos from both were equally sharp with equal color the only difference (the expressed reason I upgraded) was the additional detail -- LOTS of additional detail

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

Usually makes little or no difference - unless you need to heavily crop. like a small bird in the distance. Then you can crop and still enlarge quite a bit.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

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 D700 is no doubt a wonderful, still relevant camera.
More megapixels will increase your cropping ability.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I also have a D700. Wonderful camera! That said, I also have a D850. Do the "extra" megapixels make a difference? Yes! There are those who will tell you that they don't, but believe me, they do.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-501318-1.html

Bill_de Loc: US

rplain1 wrote:

Usually makes little or no difference - unless you need to heavily crop. like a small bird in the distance. Then you can crop and still enlarge quite a bit.

Little birds, one of my favorite subjects, is the main reason I always want more pixels.

When I shot Alaskan Brown Bears years ago 5 pixels was enough as they more than filled the frame.

If 13mp meets your needs than there is no NEED to upgrade.

If you want to upgrade just because new cameras are fun, go for it.

---

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

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.

My personal opinion is that MPs are over rated. I use a Nikon Df that has 16 MPs, no problems.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Shel, I've had a D700 since 2010. In 2016 I received a D800e as a present. I still use both. Unless you are finding serious shortfalls in what your camera is producing, I'd say stay with what you're using. You've no reason to change.
--Bob

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.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

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 happy with what you have, there is no rush to get a new body. I do feel you will eventually benefit from increasing your pixel count to the 18 to 24 pixel range. From a proper viewing distance, my 20mp 4/3rds image looks like any other 30X40 image from larger formats. Of course, if you put your nose 8" away from those prints, yes, there will be a difference. But not from a proper viewing distance. Also, if you crop heavily, you will benefit from having more pixels to crop from.

Go about upgrading sensibly. Save your money while you keep an eye on what is available. Once your money matches what you want, go buy your new camera body to shoot with.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

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.

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!

wetreed

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.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

Kmgw9v wrote:

The D700 is no doubt a wonderful, still relevant camera.
More megapixels will increase your cropping ability.

Totally agree, if you crop a lot than I would think about more Mpixels. I have d700 and Dx camera with 24mp, still love images from D700 more. Image quality, color - superb.

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

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.

With 12mp images, you have no practical limit with respect to image size. Larger images are usually viewed at longer distances, and unless you have an eagle's or peregrine's visual system, you will never ever see the fine details that you see up close or on a computer display. I printed (and sold) many 40x60 prints made with 6 mp images from my D70.

The main benefit of 24, 36 or 47 mp is the ability to crop - provided you are using really sharp lenses.

This is some background that explains the relationship between vision capability, viewing distances, printing resolutions and print size.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

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.

There are only two reasons to upgrade a D700:

To gain more reach by cropping and to get an improved focusing system.