A simple poll......24MP or 36MP...

Started Sep 23, 2012 | Discussions
Sergeant Baker Forum Member • Posts: 56
Re: true

played a bit in Lightroom with the raw files available here.
D800E and D4 are incredible close at ISO 25600! Can't tell what's better.

But the EXIF in D4 file says 1/100th second and D800E 1/2500th (both f/11). Whatever...

mmmmmmmm Senior Member • Posts: 2,666
Depends upon what you shoot

For weddings, the 36mp file is way too large. Most wedding pictures found in wedding albums are smaller than 8X10 and only need a 1.7 to 5mp file, where the average wedding album photograph will print nicely at 2.5mp.

landscape photographers will like the larger file. I think Canon did it right at 24mp which should do nicely at whatever is photographed. I have heard of rumors of a Canon with 40+ mp file on its way.

If you need more than 36mp then I think you should start thinking of a MF digital camera where the pixels are much larger of the same mp.
respectfully,
David Miller

 mmmmmmmm's gear list:mmmmmmmm's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
herbymel Veteran Member • Posts: 6,000
Re: A simple poll......24MP or 36MP...

36mp...because having the capability to print large when I want to, and being able to do so will probably have me printing large more often. I've also been lured by the possibility of MF digital and this is as close as I was going to be able to get at this price. It's a decision I'm glad I made.
--
Herby

 herbymel's gear list:herbymel's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +6 more
thxbb12 Senior Member • Posts: 1,891
36MP - this is why

Given they are of the same technology, I don't see any advantage to having less pixels except for the disk space used and the more powerful machine needed for pp.

You get more cropping flexibility for cropping, same high iso IQ and more pixels at low iso for landscapes.

 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +10 more
golf1982 Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: 36mp

larrywilson wrote:

More to a camera than mega pixels. 36 for me is too much, not into wall size photos. 24 would probably work if Nikon can get the frame speed up and have the 24 in a body such as the d3 or d4 series. I am happy with 16.

Larry

High speed and 16 mp......... Get a d4

pavi1 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,838
Re: 36mp

golf1982 wrote:

larrywilson wrote:

More to a camera than mega pixels. 36 for me is too much, not into wall size photos. 24 would probably work if Nikon can get the frame speed up and have the 24 in a body such as the d3 or d4 series. I am happy with 16.

Larry

High speed and 16 mp......... Get a d4

At $6,000, not the brightest bulb in the pack.

-- hide signature --

Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

Archimago Regular Member • Posts: 117
36MP of course!

I'll regularly shoot at the 1.2x crop factor is I want 20MP resolution on zoom lenses.
--

-- hide signature --

Body: Nikon D70 --> D200 --> D300 --> D800
Canon 300D - 'beater' camera

Zooms: Tokina 12-24/4, Tamron SP 17-50/2.8, Tokina 28-70/2.8, Nikkor 80-200/2.8, Nikkor 18-200/3.5-5.6 VRII, Nikkor 28-105/f3.5-4.5

Primes: Peleng MC 8/3.5, Sigma 20/1.8, Nikkor 35/2, Nikkor 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Tamron SP Macro 90/2.8
Just for fun: Lensbaby 2.0

Canon: 18-55/3.5-5.6, Canon 28/2.8

 Archimago's gear list:Archimago's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +6 more
alan54g Regular Member • Posts: 469
Re: 36mp

pavi1 wrote:

golf1982 wrote:

larrywilson wrote:

More to a camera than mega pixels. 36 for me is too much, not into wall size photos. 24 would probably work if Nikon can get the frame speed up and have the 24 in a body such as the d3 or d4 series. I am happy with 16.

Larry

High speed and 16 mp......... Get a d4

At $6,000, not the brightest bulb in the pack.

I have to watch what I say. I know someone that has a D4...

But yes. If you don't need 11 fps. You are paying more than $3000.00 for a camera with less mega pixels. Bad investment. Spend it on a lens.

-- hide signature --

Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

 alan54g's gear list:alan54g's gear list
Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Bruce Bracken
Bruce Bracken Regular Member • Posts: 313
24MP on a D4

I would rather have gotten a little boost in MP, and better video quality, on the D4.

Tony Beach Veteran Member • Posts: 9,321
Re: Depends upon what you shoot

mmmmmmmm wrote:

For weddings, the 36mp file is way too large.

I don't shoot weddings, so I couldn't care less about that.

landscape photographers will like the larger file. I think Canon did it right at 24mp which should do nicely at whatever is photographed. I have heard of rumors of a Canon with 40+ mp file on its way.

I'm currently shooting at 24 MP; and while it's okay, I would like more. For a wedding photographer, I don't think the differences between 24 MP and 36 MP are that great; and regardless, I'm certain that there will not be any more 12 MP options, and sub-20 MP options are probably on the way out too (even DX will have more MP).

I think photographers are just going to have to bite the bullet and invest in computers and storage that make handling larger files a non-issue. The thing is, and it's been pointed out elsewhere, when you look at the demands 10-12 MP cameras were putting on our computers a few years ago, 24-36 MP cameras are now less demanding on today's computers.

If you need more than 36mp then I think you should start thinking of a MF digital camera where the pixels are much larger of the same mp.

In what way is that an advantage? I'm having a hard time seeing why the D800E isn't the better choice when I look at some of the tested cameras at DxO Mark:

A DSLR is more compact and more versatile than a MF camera. A high resolution DSLR is also a better choice for me (YMMV) because it costs dramatically less than MF cameras (anywhere from 3x to 10x less), and that's just the cost of the cameras. MF lenses also cost a lot more with far fewer options. Based on all of that, I don't consider MF a viable option (again, YMMV).

 Tony Beach's gear list:Tony Beach's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +3 more
Tee1up Regular Member • Posts: 460
Re: 36mp

All things being equal, why not have more crop capability?

But dollar for dollar, the D600 offer a great feature set with a lot less wallet shock.

I agree, more better.

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/
Always have a camera with you and make sure you use it.

Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 30,353
36MP n/t
-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II +15 more
Devendra
Devendra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,584
36mp - more horse power at same mpg .. and everything else equal

what would u chose?

 Devendra's gear list:Devendra's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha NEX-3N
rjx
rjx Contributing Member • Posts: 917
More is not better....

Yes, I agree with that!

More MP's will exploit how good or bad the quality of the sensors MP's. Thankfully for the D800, it has quality MP's.

I'd prefer the D800. You have the extra MP's if and when you'll need them. And you can shoot in a crop mode if you desire.

 rjx's gear list:rjx's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 II Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Zeiss Loxia 50
Gary Kirkpatrick Regular Member • Posts: 257
Re: 36mp - more horse power at same mpg .. and everything else equal

It goes back to the same old answer: It depends on what you need for the jobs you are doing. Most likely the majority will never need more than 24mp. Personally for what I am moving to, I can use a 36mp sensor in a Nikon/Canon/Sony SLR. I have lens systems for all three. Currently when I need it I use a Leaf Afi 7 with a 33mp sensor. If I don't need it I don't use it. It depends on the job or maybe the demands of the Client. Clearly the SLR's get more use, and are lighter and less expensive.

There is a market for the 24mp and below and there is a smaller market for 36mp and above. I am just glad we still have the choice.
--
GaryK

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,384
did you say medium format?

mmmmmmmm wrote:

If you need more than 36mp then I think you should start thinking of a MF digital camera where the pixels are much larger of the same mp.
respectfully,
David Miller

David... surely you realize that many photographers would shoot exclusively with medium format if they could afford it. The D800e costs less than many MF lenses.

MF digital is still way out of the reach of most photographers.

A Hasselblad 31mp camera/back with 80mm lens is $14,000... Instead a photographer can by a D800, and a professional strobe and pack set and 70-200 and 24-70 f2.8 lenses.

Which makes the better business decision and return on the money spent?
--
Teila K. Day
http://www.teiladay.com

PK24X36NOW Senior Member • Posts: 1,872
A simple answer...36MP...

No point in leaving detail out with no appreciable gain in noise, FPS, etc.

KnightPhoto2
KnightPhoto2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,968
Re: Depends upon what you shoot

mmmmmmmm wrote:

For weddings, the 36mp file is way too large...

landscape photographers will like the larger file...

It's interesting how this 24mp mystique has developed but I don't think there is any truth to it based on the results we have all seen so far. Next gen is probably going to keep on upping the mp too.

I had a young whipper-snip at the branch office photo store start the yadda yadda 24mp is better all around yadda yadda yadda the other day too.

But the truism that is closer to the truth I think is "all else being equal, more is better" and at the pixel level the all else of the 24mp and 36mp appear to be equal

I've never been a mp seeker, my highest cams are 16mp currently, but even I can see what everyone is talking about.

-- hide signature --

Best Regards,
SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002

 KnightPhoto2's gear list:KnightPhoto2's gear list
Nikon 1 V3 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR +21 more
AlephNull Senior Member • Posts: 1,475
36Mpixel

The whole reason I bought the D800E was because it was such a massive advance. 24Mpixel would have been too "me-too".

 AlephNull's gear list:AlephNull's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Sony Alpha 7R II Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art
RodluvanII
RodluvanII Senior Member • Posts: 2,093
36Mpx is a brain-fart turned reality
1

I'm surprised and slightly amused the Nikon fan-base isn't more honestly disappointed in the decision to pull a nonsensical stunt like this.

24Mpx and 5-6fps, or even 16Mpx, 8fps in the D800 would've been fan-freaking-tastic, but then the D4 (much like the D3 was from D700) would've been threatened.

What we've ended up with are huge files demanding much faster computers, larger much more expensive lenses for pixel peepers and a slower camera.

Well, all that for the very, very few occasions you need to print huge stuff.

 RodluvanII's gear list:RodluvanII's gear list
Nikon D3X Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Leica Summarit-M 50mm f/2.5 +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads