rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

When was the last time you cropped to the point where you could make out individual pixels?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Personally, I do all the time. Moreover, every image every image is examined at the 1:1 pixel-level details.

No matter how much focal length I throw at wildlife, rarely -- boarding on never -- can I fill the original frame with a compelling subject. More typically, I crop to the pixel-level details seeking to retain enough that fill my long-side 2048px minimum image size.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You all can argue all you want. The final use is the only thing that counts. When used on the web, a 4MP camera is just as capable as a 50MP.

Printing is a different story once you pass the printer capabilities (Usually 300DPI). The final print basically determines what is needed as far as pixel size goes. A 8x10 printed at 300DPI requires a image pixel size of 2,000x3,000 pixels to get an optimal quality. Add the viewing distance, and it gets lower than that.

I am currently printing several 6 feet wide images. That is 21k pixels wide, over three times the default offered by a D850 (8256 pixels). Despite this, the images when viewed at a normal viewing distance (6 to 10 feet) they are sharp, stunningly so. I do enlarge my images using various post-processing tricks in order to send the images at 21k*.

As to 'cropping', sorry, but that is an old argument that does not hold water for the same reason. Sure, you see thing 'closer' but quite honestly, if you invest in a megapixel system just to crop, you are wasting your $$$. Better learn to shoot correctly instead.


------------
* For info: I use Whitewall. They have labs all over the world and have used their lab in Germany as well as the US. Their prices are reasonable, and their customer support is outstanding.

therwol Loc: USA

If you pixel-peep, you will see some difference in the amount of detail recorded. This is the equivalent of looking at something like a 4x6 foot sized print with your nose up to the print. Both pictures will look essentially the same on a computer screen, even a large one. You will be able to crop more heavily with D810 pictures and preserve a bit more detail. This may be important if you don't have a lens with enough reach for your bird shots and you need to crop to get the composition you want. What you should do is take some comparison pictures and come to your own conclusion (Obviously not on a moving subject.)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

So, you shoot wildlife and have all the focal length where cropping is irrelevant to your needs? Asking for everyone who think megapixels are rather relevant.

User ID

True, but the OP framed a comparison, and in the comparison all things are equalized, except that one camera has 50% more pixels. Therefor the pair of comparison pix would both get cropped identically. Regardless of how you crop them, one camera still has 50% more pixels. Even if cropped to 6MP and 9MP, the extra pixels are no more “valuable” than when comparing 24 vs 36MP.

Working on a multi-sessions project that happens to need very well rendered fine detail, using cameras from 16 to 50MP, with and without low pass (AA) filters, I have come to realize that elimination of that filter is worth waaaaay more than doubling or tripling the pixel count when it comes to rendering fine detail.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sensors are expensive and more pixels costs serious $$. There’s way more bang for the buck in just ditching that filter. Acoarst more pixels combined with no filter is best, but comparing two no-filter cameras of 16 and 50MP, the difference isn’t impressive. But comparing those two cameras to various 24MP cameras WITH filters, the filtered 24MP cameras are just not doing the job. The detail isn’t there.

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

Yes to your first question and it's up to you for the second question. If the lens has enough resolving power to take advantage of the D810. If it doesn't you will not likely see much of a difference. Also, when viewing a print, the further away you stand from the print the less you'll be able to see a difference between an image from a 36 mp camera and a 12 mp camera. Human eyes lack the visual acuity. This is why you can see a billboard containing an image that was shot with a 12 mp iPhone and it looks amazingly sharp from across the highway.

srt101fan

Thanks for allowing us to argue all we want. And you can pontificate all you want. You say cropping "is an old argument" and "better learn to shoot correctly instead". You must have a very narrow view of what constitutes photography. Haven't you ever run across a subject that called for tight framing but you couldn't achieve it with your gear and you couldn't get closer? Or a shot that called for a square format but you had 35mm film? Oh, right, my fault, I should have had a Hasselblad along with my 35mm....jeez...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

As above MP only matter if you print, and print large, or aggressively crop amd then print. I have 16X24 inch prints from my 18 mp canon 7d Which are noise free at more than 1 inch away. Viewing distance is also a consideration. The further away from the print the more important MPs are.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ron's is the way.

srt101fan

I'll assume you're kidding, Paul!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This is a play on the current cultural phenomena of The Mandalorian.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Often people will blow something up and "look" at it from effectively less than two feet, not the "normal" viewing distance.
(I wonder if they look at pictures in newspapers with a magnifying glass.)

therwol Loc: USA

Some of us don't have bottomless pockets to invest in every possible lens we may want to have or need. Sometimes close enough for a decent crop is all we can do.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States