More megapixels bad for novice?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
thygocanberra
Regular MemberPosts: 185Gear list
Like?
Re: More megapixels bad for novice?
In reply to BillyInya, 11 months ago

BillyInya wrote:

jb1677 wrote:

I presently have a D3100 along with Nikon 35 1.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Tamron 70-300. I am interested in a newer body for a few reasons including better ISO capabilities (biggest factor), better/faster focus and better video capabilities. The higher ISO capability is the biggest seller, hoping this will allow for better indoor pictures (low light, fast kids) over the D3100. Typically we either have blurry pictures (slow shutter) or grainy pics (high ISO) or razor thin depth of field (from shooting at 1.8 to make up for ISO at reasonable shutter speed). We do augment with an external flash with some success but the flash pictures just don't look as good as non flash pics. The keeper rate is without a doubt higher with flats but not as good as the rare gem we get without flash. Also our kinds are very pale, even a bounced flash makes little ghosts.

I have read that while upgrading seems like a no brainer many people find that the huge jump in megapixels often results in poorer quality pictures, some thing to the effect that it just magnifies the technique issues that a novice like myself and my wife would have.

Any thoughts here, is buying up quality (specifically the items I mentioned above) possible for the casual shooter or am I just asking for more headache? The faster focus and quality at high ISO are really sucking me in to a d5200 or d7100

I totally agree. People too often look at more megapixels and think more is better when in actual fact it is more likely the opposite for most.

Big increase in megapixels means even the slightest micro-movement now can cause blur.

Even the shutter movement as the mirror thunders up and slams in to its padding and then thunders down again causes vibration which can and usually does cause blur at speeds that had always previously been pretty "safe" from blur.

The faster the frames per second the more susceptible the cam will be to this type of vibration. So while many hope for more frames per second some of us hope for the opposite because less frames per second means the mirror up and down slamming vibrations have had more time to dissipate.

So with more megapixels you end up having to increase the speed to some unusually high amount in the hope its fast enough to cancel out hand held micro-movements or you have to carry a tripod around everywhere and endure the hassles of setting to mirror-up to ensure you get a clean pic without movement or vibration blur. None of this is good IMO.

I can't tell you the number of people I know who have upgraded their gear to get big increases in megapixels only to end up with less quality images (blurred photos).

I'm now a FujiX-E1 mirrorless shooter. I am getting ridiculously good image quality out of this little Fuji (I swear in most cased comparable to full frame quality) and no such thing as mirror slap vibration cause it ain't got one.

The EVF takes a bit to get use to, in fact the whole approach is very different to that of a DSLR and does take some getting use to. But there's absolutely no mistake about the advantages .... you see it every time you look at an image;-)

I get the feeling Nikon already know they need to get a mirrorless system in to a decent DSLR type body. I just hope they equip it with serious specs (good MP count in at least an APS-C) instead of making it a "token" camera.

Cheers

Interesting. Seems 24 MP for the casual shooter with kit/consumer grade, also interested in weight/bulk (read can't afford/justify higher quality, heavier, pricier lenses) of a camera for take anywhere (read almost always hand held) is approaching (passed?) the law of diminishing returns.

Making me think "stay away ..."

I have similar upgrade desire/dilemma. Have a 10 MP D60 which I have grown to love for size, ease of use and colours. Similar hopes as jb1677 - 1) better high ISO/low light, better focus (D60 3 pts), 2) better processing speed (D60 super slow with D-lighting), higher res LCD, see ISO in viewfinder, RAW+fine jpeg, 1/3 EV steps ISO would be nice 3) fps (processor speed is really the issue for me). I actually like the entry level user interface having tried the (12 MP) D90 and for my uses very happy with image quality and high ISO/low light/AF performance but decided I really like the smaller body and didn't use the external controls and features like bracketing nearly as much as I thought I would. Biggest plus of the bigger body was bigger viewfinder (but not as much an influence as I thought it would be - still tiny compared to my old film SLR).

24 MP D3200 feels great in my hands and the user interface is obviously familiar - gear lust. Lots of people here say 16 MP D5100 is a sweet spot. Very subjective but D5100 doesn't feel as comfortable and not sold on the flippy screen. 14 MP D3100 ticks many boxes on my wish list but I can't use the ML-L3 wireless remote (a big minus for my family uses - sure you can fit a remote via the hotshoe but then you can't fit a flash there ... and off camera flash is off the map for me. Why did you do that Nikon?).

Leaves me thinking stick with the D60, maybe get some other 2nd hand lenses and a bigger flash, some better software (and learn to use it) and at some point a nice 'point and shoot' with improved high iso/low light capabilities and video for impromptu indoor family situations where handling the dSLR, even a small one, can be a challenge.

Or even try to pick up a 6MP D40 which has better high(er) ISO performance than the D60 (but is it much better) ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow