HallwoedHill Loc: Chattanooga,TN

This is my experience: In 2005 I purchased a Nikon D50, a 6 mega pixile camera. Loved it. Great color great pics, used it for 12 years. During that time I retired and started taking more pictures. I became aware i could probably get more out of my photography if I upgraded. So here was my thought pattern.

1. What do I photograph? Wildlife including BIF, architecture, travel, sports ( my son plays and coaches tennis at the NAIA level, landscapes and family outings.
2. What do I do with these photos? I do some post processing with some croping. I use these with family on the internet and print up to 16x20.
3.I never sell or do anything commercially, I am strictly a hobbyist.
4. I would like to decrease the weight I carry on my outings, recognizing that image quality is important and I would probably use most zooms.
5. After I started researching it became apparent that I needed to consider what could the human eye actually see in a cropped 16 x 24 image?

Not being a professional, and not needing to pixel peep, one more consideration appeared: after 12 years the technology changes in a lot of ways not related to pixels: download speed, sensor quality, post processing requirement. etc.

After looking at multiple options from ff to m43 I bought an Olympus Om D-E M1 Markii with a pro 12-100lens and a Panasonic 100-400 and couldn't be happier. It is great for what I need and will keep me occupied growing my skills for years to come.

Its not the camera: it's truly the photographer. Figure out what you need , what you might want, and go from there. Don't get lost in the marketing hype.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The D700 is a great camera. I am sure 20x30 inches enlargements show excellent quality when using good optics.
I do not believe you are going to do better with more megapixels.

Jeffers

The number of pixels determines native image size and this doesn't matter for electronic display. For print, the number of pixels and the Dots per Inch (DPI) determine the print size and resolution. In this case, if you print large blowups, Megapixels count. If you crop heavily Megapixels count. There can be a downside to 20 Megapixels and up if you send images to friends over normal Gmail. They're too large and Google will make you use an alternate medium such as Google Drive. I recently bought a 20 Megapixel camera which I love, but I have to resize the images to send them over Gmail. I agree with the others, if you're satisfied with what you have, stick with it.

anderzander

There are some great comments here, but unless you are paid big bucks, as professional Photographers are in all categories, more pixels will gurrantee a sharper image, but won't garrantee you are taking great photos. It is the same with people who don't know the difference between (Adobe CS all in one package) and Adobe Lightroom. If you are not a graphic designer/illustrator working it the publishing world, lightroom is all you need. Years ago a photographer was hired to cover the Colorado Rapids, this was in the seventies, he had all the top gear, but also brought along his Kodak Instamatic 35mm. The award winning shot from all of his gear was the instamatic, because he capture a perfect moment in time, that image was used on the cover of Life Magazine. More pixels are for the techologically challenge who have other purposes than taking ordinary pictures, it's the field they work in and high resolution is great for those specialty fields and professions. Sharper doesn't always gurrantee a great image. There is a reason why depth of field drops out or blurs the backgrond, the foreground is the subject.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

More pixels is only one-half the question. Sensor dimenions completes the equation.

tomcat

I would also add that Topaz has a stand-alone program (or it will also run in Topaz Studio) called AI Clear. It is incredible what it can do to reduce noise when you enlarge the smaller megapixel sensor images. I use it all the time to get rid of the noise when I capture indoor sports images shot at 12,000 to 18,000 ISO. It cleans up the images so well that you can see the facial details, individual hair strands, etc. Plus it has an added bonus of increased sharpness also. So for now, I would stay with the D700, buy some sharper glass, and play with Topaz AI Clear (free trial). I had a D700 and stupidly traded it for a D800. Now I'm back to using my D3s most of the time (12 megapixels).

Dossile

I shot better pictures with my D300 S then I did after an upgrade to a D800. I bought the D800 solely for improved pixel count and full frame. I could never get the quality I saw in some of my other enthusiast friends’ photos, also taken with a D800. Jump forward. Frustrated, I sold the d800, bought a D850 and am very pleased. The ability to crop and the additional features are fun because they increase the likelihood that the camera will take the image that I see in my head. If you have the money, you’ll enjoy the added features including pixels of a D750 or D850 or D500. If not, don’t worry about it because you have a truly great camera.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Do you ever finding yourself wishing you could crop in more when doing those 30x40s or ditching an otherwise nice shot because you do not think it will print well at the size you want? If yes, then maybe a new camera. If not, then no, it is working for you.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I am not historically a big "upgrader." I used my D200 from 2006 until 2016, when I traded for a used D300s. The number of pixels went only from 10 to 12, but other differences in the D300s (which was already "obsolete" when I got it) really increased my photographic enjoyment. These included noticeable noise improvement, slightly improved low light performance, and a number of new functional capabilities. I was able to get noticeable improved results immediately.

Then in the summer of 2017, I started making preparations for a workshop that I was planning to participate in last year. There were two specific needs...more wide angle capability and significantly better low-light performance. So I ended up buying a new D810, even though there was some reluctance to spend that much money. (I already had been buying top line full frame lenses for several years.) I will tell you that in addition to the improvements I was targeting, there were a ton of other benefits...significant new functional capabilities among them. I could easily capture photographs of subjects that were either impossible or difficult before. The resulting images just looked and felt different...better, more detail, deeper. It was much the same as the experience years ago when I delved into medium format. The negatives were just much nicer to see and much more pleasurable to work with.

That change reinvigorated my interest in photography and reignited my desire to learn as much as possible about how to do the best work possible.

P.S. The increased interest spurred by the D810 moved me to the place where I needed (or at least felt that I needed) a second body to be able to do what I now wanted to do. So last August, I purchased a D850 to fill that need. The result of that has been quite different. It's a nice camera. I use it, and I'll keep it. It provides me with a few more incremental functional capabilities and slightly improved overall capability compared to the D810. But it didn't bring the same level of excitement and new motivation. It just serves as a very nice and functional second camera when needed.

P.P.S. I still have and use the D300s. It's still a nice camera, and sometimes it's just a lot more convenient to carry it with an 18-200mm zoom. But the truth is that compared to the newer cameras, it now feels a little bit old and clunky. And more and more, as the D8xx's have become my "standard," I run into situations with the D300 where I find myself seeking to dial in a function or choice that just isn't there. That means there may eventually be more to the story...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

- if you cannot fill the frame with your subject ......and using SHARP lenses and maximize their resolution potential by minimizing motion blurs.

As MP goes up blur potential goes up also, as well as the ability to perceive the limits of your lens's resolution

..

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

The more pixels will basically increase the size of the picture you can print. It will also allow you to crop a picture and still have some pixels to print larger pictures than a smaller pixel camera could. MORE DOTS

Jpmaca Loc: Maryland

I'm a newbie to this site, though a long-time hobbyist, and have learned so much from everyone's comments. I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the questioner might want to consider that moving up to a camera that produces double to triple the file sizes he's used to dealing with may have an impact on his workflow, depending on the computer setup he's accustomed to. I've run into this problem as I've upgraded my cameras from time to time. Just something to keep in mind during decision-making, I think.

David C.

I am also new to digital photography even though I have been exposed to it for some time. I used it because it was easy to email site repair photos to customers. My I phone camera which boasts a 20 mega pixel quality produces a clear photo image as a digital reference. I also have a Canon 40D (10 mpix), Fuji A201 (2 mpix) and my Leica Digilux 3 converted to Leica R Lenses w/ (7.2 mpix). their photo quality is excellent however unless you print the photo on good photo paper with a photo printer they do not compare with a real film photo. The digital equipment I have is all experimental to me. I am just getting exposed to the format as a hobby and hope to understand and use it more often. ...but will still use a film camera as a back up. David Note: I always prefered my Topcon RE and DM over the Nikon but still go back to the Leica IIIc
often, it is just a fun camera to use.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

You have received a lot of thoughtful responses, both for keeping and for replacing. In the end it is up to you, and in my opinion it at least partially depends on your personal needs and objectives.

First, since you like to print large, you undoubtedly will appreciate more pixels if you acquire a camera with a lot more of them than your D700.

Second, you need to consider the purpose behind your photography. Is it for your enjoyment and perhaps those with whom you share? Do you sell at least some of your work and work to increase skills needed to achieve the level of a pro? [Excuse me if you are already near or at that level!]

Third, in my opinion, there is a balance to be sought in photography. As an attempt to explain, I will first tell you about my journey. I started digital photography with a point-and-shoot, after a number of years without a camera [film]. Loved it, got some great photos, learned a lot about composition and a bit about editing. That lasted several years. Then I began to want more control over how the images turned out, so after doing some research, asking questions, and holding the candidates in my hands, decided on my first DSLR, the Nikon D7000. At that time [2012] it was the top model of crop-sensor cameras and the best I could afford. With it I purchased two "kit" lenses to cover most of the most common focal lengths. This kept me happy for another few years.

As I learned more about so many aspects of photography and improved my skills, it became clear I would eventually want to upgrade to an FX camera. Quality and detail of images were important to me. I began to make purchases of peripherals as I began to see the need for them - better tripod, filters, and FX lenses. After all that I bought a D810 when it was on sale in the fall - Black Friday/Cyber Monday! Of course the D850 came out after that, but I had enough camera to satisfy me and was not about to succumb to "GAS"" And, once again, it was the best I could afford!

So back to balance. What you need and what you can spend are two things to balance. Some can go for it all at the same time, others like myself have to take a more gradual approach. Evaluate what you have and what new gear would best suit your photographic objectives.

The camera and lenses are inter-related because each one functions in relationship to the other's capabilities. If you already have good FX lenses, that is a good start. However, they can only perform as well as the camera's capabilities will let them. Better lenses do improve a camera's performance as much as they are allowed. So owning better lenses and wanting to improve quality of images does suggest that a better camera will increase the performance of those lenses. On the other hand, if the lenses are not high quality, they will not improve significantly on a better camera because this time it is the lenses holding the camera back from its full potential!

As technology advances, the camera manufacturers have taken advantage of that to make changes to how the cameras are made and perform. Sometimes photographers do not like some aspect of a new camera, and the manufacturer may revise their design eventually. But in general, the advances have been improvements. Thinking of it that way, you have a good camera, but Nikon lists it as "archived" because it has been succeeded by models that do what it can do but better, and that also can do more.

So in your situation, it is a matter of whether new lenses or a new camera will be the best investment to achieve your objectives. It is often said that it is the photographer behind the camera that makes the most difference. That is true, but on the other hand an artist seeks the best tools to accomplish the fulfillment of the vision. Sometimes the tools at hand are good enough, but other times the artist decides a new tool would allow better workflow and better results.

Hope this helps!
Susan

Bill P

I still have and shoot a D3, the D700 was considered to have the same sensor. I too print LARGE and am pleased with the results.

If you upgrade to a higher megapixel sensor, you may lose the high iso properties of the 12MP sensor. Ultra high iso cameras are made for folks that shoot most of their photos of test charts.