16 versus 24 mega pixels

[Old Veteran]

Hello; I am a former film user, still miss using film, and I am "crossing over" to digital. My question is about the number of pixels. I intend to do landscape and nature photo taking with no intention of printing large photos. I may go as big as 14 by 10. I have finally found out the differences between the "full" frame and the APC-S sizes and I am going with the APC. Since the sensor is smaller in size, is there a maximum of pixels where there may be "crowding" in the image. I am tossing between Canon and Nikon and I've narrowed down two Nikon models and one Canon. Any help on this subject would be greatly accepted.

Bob Speicher.

[PhotomanJohn]

Bob,

For outputs of the size you state the APS-C format cameras are more than adequate and the same can be said of 16MP. You should not be able to tell any difference between the results of the two different pixel counts assuming you are using the full image captured for you final print. If on the other hand you need to significantly crop the image and only use a small portion of the captured image to make the final print then the 24MP camera MAY provide a better result. I emphasize "MAY" because the difference will only be evident if the image was captured with a top quality lens, perfect focus and no blurring due to camera or subject movement. If some or all of these requirements are not met you may again not see any difference between the prints made with cameras of the different pixel counts you mentioned.

To summarize, for most photographers there is really no advantage of one over the other. The 24MP camera will create larger files but memory is not expensive these days. My advice is to compare the features of these cameras, read the reviews, go to a store and handle the cameras and see which one seems to be more friendly in your hands and then make a decision without regard to MP value.

Post more specific questions here if you need more help. Good luck.

John

[jcuknz]

There has been a tendancy I think with smaller sensors to forgo the 16Mp for 12Mp in more recent cameras on the grounds that the larger pixel gives better performance in low light levels. If you have decided FF is not for you you could go smaller and use MFT with weight advantage. I was getting good 14x10 prints off my 3.3Mp with good post processing. Unlike film the process doesn't stop at the camera and your editing programme is an equally important companion to the camera with digital with you in control rather than handing it over to a lab to finish the job. If you have/had a fume room you should find you can do very much more and much quicker with an editor.
Once you commit to Canon or Nikon it will be yourself rather than the camera/editor which detirmines the excellence of the results. Both have characteristics which appeal to different people. You have to work out what appeals to you bearing in mind that you can learn to love a good tool even if it is a bit strange to start with.

[rpcrowe]

I do see a difference between my 10 MP Canon 40D and my 18 MP Canon 7D. I can shoot my dog images in landscape configuration with the 7D (which will allow me to use them for calendars) but, also be able to crop out a nice vertical. When I shot with the 40D, I would be sure to capture both vertical and landscape images.

I would expect that the photographer's skills, lens quality and post processing ability would make far more of a difference than the 16 NP vs. 24 MP in the cameras you are considering.

Additionally, there may be other advantages or disadvantages to either camera. I would recommend choosing the camera based on its capability to do what you want rather than the MP size of the capture.

[Manfred M]

Coming from film, one very high level way to look at MP is really the way one would have looked at film grain. Finer grain = higher MP sensor, but finer grain films had lower ISO ratings. One big difference is that film grain could be used as a compositional / artistic tool; noise never seems to work that way.

One has to be careful when judging sensors to understand which generation of camera one is looking at. My first DSLR, a crop-frame 12MP Nikon D90 is noiser at ISO 800 than my full-frame 36MP Nikon D800 at ISO 3200. The choices really come down to the type of shooting you do; a smaller MP sensor is going to be an advantage if you are a low light shooter.

I went to a full-frame camera about 2-1/2 years ago, because I never really liked crop frame; the biggest downside was the tiny viewfinder. The full-frame camera is far superior that way. The other advantage for my shooting style is that I tend to shoot at or near full aperture to get shallow DoF and a full-frame camera works far better for me in that regard.

[DanK]

with no intention of printing large photos. I may go as big as 14 by 10.

At that size, unless you crop severely, 16MP should be fine. An 11 x 14 printed at 300 ppi, which is my default but is probably overkill, is 13.9 MP. However, software can handle lower densities fine. Smug has information on minimum file sizes for printing at different sizes, along with an explanation, here: http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93359.

Until recently, I shot only with a 15MP Canon 50D, and apart from a few times when I needed to crop severely (usually in doing macro work), I never felt constrained by the number of pixels.

As someone who has both crop (APS-C) and full frame cameras, I would agree with John that for the uses you describe, APS-C will be fine. Just keep in mind as you pick lenses that in terms of field of view and hence reach, the focal lengths are different for the two formats. For FOV and reach equivalent to any focal length with 35mm or full frame, you will want the same focal length divided by the crop factor, which is 1.6 in the case of Canon. E.g., a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera has the same FOV as a 90mm on a 35 mm or full frame. Also, you will be able to use both EF and EF-S lenses, the latter being designed specifically for APS-C.

[Bobobird]

By and large everything everyone has stated above is true. But you said "landscapes and nature".

Nature can mean many things from whales to termites, inanimate objects from grass to a grain of sand. Unless you get lens that reach your potential target you WILL crop and many times significantly. There is also the frame rate to consider. Trying to shoot flying birds or a bee at 3 frames a sec is not going to cut it. Doable but frustrating. Ask those with the D800!

Secondly you do not yet know what you will evolve into preferring. Get something that is current, get the best glass you can and go on from there.

Good luck.

[chauncey]

It was a fluke that I shoot Canon...it just happed to be the body I was using when I first starting amassing lenses. Now I'm kinda vested in Canon. Point is, crop/FF/Canon/Nikon, it doesn't really matter.
Go to a local camera store and get what feels good in your hands from B&E/Adorama/Amazon.

[NorthernFocus]

Many good points already mentioned in the previous posts. For what you describe as your needs, 16MP is way more than adequate. Higher pixel count, particularly in the APS-C sensor, also has down sides such as larger file sizes, higher RAM and processor loads on the computer, optical diffraction at small aperture settings, etc. If landscape photography and family photos are your main subjects, the Nikon D7000 is an excellent body as would be a used Nikon D300. I can't speak to Canon models having no knowledge of them.

[Colin Southern]

A couple of things to keep in mind ...

1. Because images are two dimensional, print & pixal density is a square-law function. If a 16MP camera gives you a resolution of "X" then to double that, you'd need a camera with 64MP. In reality, 16 -v- 24MP makes very little difference.

2. The more pixels that are crammed into the same area the smaller the microlenses have to be - and thus the less light they receive - and thus the poorer the performance they give. For landscape shooting, you'll get cleaner imagery when pixel density is lower, so for a given size (and technology) a 16MP sensor will have better dynamic range and noise characteristics than a 24MP sensor (of the same dimensions). Conversely, if you wanted higher MP counts then using a full-frame sensor compensates nicely.

For nature and landscape shooting - especially as a film shooter - in my opinion, Full Frame offers you some measurable advantages. I'm not a Nikon shooter, so can only comment on the Canon range, but personally, I'd encourage you to take a close look at the Canon 5D Mk 3 ("5D3" in shorthand). I'm sure Nikon have comparable models if you go the Nikon way.

As (primarily) a landscape shooter myself, I don't think many would want to go crop-factor format having shot full frame -- it noting else even the difference in viewfinders would be enough to seal the deal for FF.

[lukaswerth]

24 mp is principally better, naturally, but mp is not the only criterion for a sensor. For me, dynamic range matters a lot, for many - me, too - high ISO quality is also important. The Nikon 7100 - I think it is - has an excellent sensor with 24 mp and a very good dynamic range, but I read many good things also about the Fujifilm x pro1 which has 16 mp but a specially designed sensor which is said to match higher mp rates and has very good high ISO qualities.

[DanK]

Colin,

I rarely disagree with you, and for that matter, I rarely think I have the expertise to disagree with you, but I half disagree with your advice. I bought a 5D3 recently to replace my crop-sensor camera, so obviously, I think it is a worthwhile step up for some purposes. however, depending on things the OP did not spell out, it might or might not be worth it for him.

The first issue is cost. The 5D3 costs almost three times as much as the 70D, a difference of about $2,200. For someone starting out in digital, one of my questions is usually: what's the best way for you--given what you will shoot--to spend that $2,200? You can buy a lot of good glass for that amount, and of course, there are things like a flash, a tripod & head, and all the other exepsensive stuff that most of us have accumulated.

Another question is the one you pointed to: what the person intends to shoot. If low-light performance is an issue, or if the person is going to do posed portraits with very thin DOF, or if the person is going to print very large, that points toward FF IMHO. If they need reach (birding, etc.,), that points to a crop, unless they are willing to spend a lot of money and carry a lot of weight for longer lenses. Macro, of which I do a lot, is a harder call; in some ways, if you are going to work near 1:1 and have adequate lighting, current crops are superior, again IMHO.

So the bottom line for me is not "is the 5D3 the best Canon for landscape?" but rather, given a newbie's intended uses, what's the best compromise?

Dan

[RustBeltRaw]

I'd encourage you to take a close look at the Canon 5D Mk 3 ("5D3" in shorthand).

So the bottom line for me is not "is the 5D3 the best Canon for landscape?" but rather, given a newbie's intended uses, what's the best compromise?

A used 5D mkII might be the answer. Full frame, with a highly praised sensor, and though I haven't used one, the mkIII's autofocus system seems to be the main upgrade. Not really relevant for landscape work. The mkII is basically done depreciating (selling for about $1,500 these days), so if you decide digital isn't your thing, you could probably sell it with no or minimal losses.

On the printing front, I've made 20x30in prints from 12MP images. That was a stretch at 142dpi, but I'm a stickler.

[Manfred M]

Of course all this writing about Canon totally discounts the 36MP full-frame Nikon D800 and D800E, which are really great landscape cameras. When properly used, they easily rival image quality coming out of a medium format camera.

Of course, they don't really come into their own unless you print ludicrously large images.

[DanK]

A used 5D mkII might be the answer. Full frame, with a highly praised sensor, and though I haven't used one, the mkIII's autofocus system seems to be the main upgrade.

That's the biggest, but also faster frame rate, better viewfinder, better LCD, better sensor (more MP, better noise performance, larger ISO range), better build quality, better weather sealing, and dampened mirror for near-silent shooting. Also some things for jpeg shooting (e.g., within-camera HDR) and video, neither of which I use.

[RustBeltRaw]

...also faster frame rate, better viewfinder, better LCD, better sensor (more MP, better noise performance, larger ISO range), better build quality, better weather sealing, and dampened mirror for near-silent shooting. Also some things for jpeg shooting (e.g., within-camera HDR) and video, neither of which I use.

Of those, weather sealing is the only advantage I'd call truly significant. 21.1MP vs 22.3MP is splitting hairs. It's up to the OP, but in my opinion, the differences do not justify an additional ~$1,800. Double the mkII's cost, and change.

Of course all this writing about Canon totally discounts the 36MP full-frame Nikon D800 and D800E, which are really great landscape cameras.

True. CiC is a bit Canon-centric, for some reason. And for comparison's sake, I would say that if you have the coin, the D800 is a seriously meaningful upgrade over the 5D mkII.

[Adrian]

I have a bit of experience of this dilemma, having learned a lot about photography and processing fairly recently.

For full frame, new to digital, a 5DIII may be overkill. I have one and in my office I also have a 6D. Quite a bit cheaper and hard to discern any difference, especially for something like landscape.

We also have a 40D (5D is light years ahead of it) and my son has a 7D and have just bought a 70D for my wife.

For me it's not about the camera. Two things made a big difference to us 1) pro tuition 2) glass. Good glass makes a big difference we find, but you pay both a price and weight premium.

I think in your shoes I would be looking at a 6D (or Nikon equivalent) and one of the latest short zooms. On crop the 70D is an excellent package.

[DanK]

Of those, weather sealing is the only advantage I'd call truly significant. 21.1MP vs 22.3MP is splitting hairs. It's up to the OP, but in my opinion, the differences do not justify an additional ~$1,800. Double the mkII's cost, and change.

I wasn't suggesting that it does. In fact, I was suggesting exactly the opposite. That post was just correcting details. I personally would not recommend a 5DIII to the OP, for the reasons already posted. I personally think a crop would do just fine. A 6D is an interesting alternative, if one can live without the features of the 5D--in particular, the AF--but unless one is working in low light, I doubt there would be much difference between 10x14 prints from the 6D and 70D. Low light is another matter altogether, as the 6D is the best Canon has for that.

[Dave Humphries]

Bob Speicher.

Hi Bob,

Could you do me a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put "Bob" in the Real Name field
and where you are (roughly) in the Location field?
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant (i.e. for your part of the world) answers - thanks.

I won't add to the above, there's enough there for you to chew on

I would say it might be useful for us to know what brand you currently shoot (film)?
It would be very useful to know a budget and whether that includes lenses - and which focal lengths you think you'll need.

Welcome to the CiC forums from ...

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

I rarely disagree with you, and for that matter, I rarely think I have the expertise to disagree with you, but I half disagree with your advice. I bought a 5D3 recently to replace my crop-sensor camera, so obviously, I think it is a worthwhile step up for some purposes. however, depending on things the OP did not spell out, it might or might not be worth it for him.

Hi Dan,

I can really only go on what the OP did spell out - landscape and nature photos. Sure, the 70D is also an option, but for an experienced film shooter - who (in another thread) has expressed much trepidation in going digital, I felt that full-frame would give a comforting and familiar field of view for the focal length, as well as a brighter and more familiar viewfinder; the 70D doesn't do either of those things, thus adding to the discomfort.

I also felt that the OP - being a film shooter - probably wouldn't be used to (or wanting to) upgrade as frequently -- hence a "buy once - keep for a long time - quality solution)

Regardless, it's just my suggestion - so long as we articulate the reasons for all suggestions then I'm sure we'll help the OP make the right decision for him