Megapixels: More or less?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

C

Capturingtheunseen.com

Well-known member
Member's gallery
It seems the trend is to higher megapixel cameras, even for wildlife. I am going in the opposite direction. I went from a Nikon D810--36 megapixel--to a Nikon D4--16 megapixel (older pro model) and couldn't be happier. The image quality is better, and the D4 is far better in low light, which of course we run into all the time with wildlife photography. This is an image of a Green Heron taken just a few days ago with the D4. After using the D4, I don't think I will be going back to a consumer model any time soon.


D04_6370-Edit-r.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I totally understand what you are saying. While I appreciate having the larger mega pixels in order to crop more freely I really have come to dislike the time it takes to edit in post production. I like the images from my D850 but enjoy post processing with my D500 a whole lot more because files are about half the size!
 
Member's gallery
to comment on file sizes and difficulty working with them: if you have a $3000+ camera body and more than likely >$3000+ more in lenses, you should probably spend roughly $1000 on a new/used computer and you will have 0 issues handling any file. I had an a7riv camera (since sold to save for a house R.I.P. lol) and had no issues with with those 124mb files on my 800$ computer (as long as you have 16gb ram, relatively new CPU and a dedicated GPU, you will be fine.

hope this helps some people
 
Member's gallery
Capturingtheunseen.com said:
It seems the trend is to higher megapixel cameras, even for wildlife. I am going in the opposite direction. I went from a Nikon D810--36 megapixel--to a Nikon D4--16 megapixel (older pro model) and couldn't be happier. The image quality is better, and the D4 is far better in low light, which of course we run into all the time with wildlife photography. This is an image of a Green Heron taken just a few days ago with the D4. After using the D4, I don't think I will be going back to a consumer model any time soon.


View attachment 257
Click to expand...
Great capture there,
I have a "low pixel count" as well ............D4s
IMHO, the best option is a D6 and a 600 f4
Unfortunately , I do not have enough slack on the CC to achieve that ;)
Like when I have to shoot long with my slow Tammy 150-600,
All wildlife photogs end up shooting in low light (early morning or late in the afternoon)
and, that is when cropping comes in to play, along with the downsides noise and IQ

The D850 could help here but there is still no substitute for long fast glass, naturally that includes the rest of the support system, Tripod/Gimbal etc
 
Member's gallery
My sweet spot is 24mp (D600 IR conversion, D750 and Z6). Plenty of file to work with, reasonable low light capability and able to generate nice 13x19 prints. D4/5 are better in low light but I like having 2 or 3 choices of bodies which means no super expensive ones.
 
Member's gallery
Capturingtheunseen.com said:
It seems the trend is to higher megapixel cameras, even for wildlife. I am going in the opposite direction. I went from a Nikon D810--36 megapixel--to a Nikon D4--16 megapixel (older pro model) and couldn't be happier. The image quality is better, and the D4 is far better in low light, which of course we run into all the time with wildlife photography. This is an image of a Green Heron taken just a few days ago with the D4. After using the D4, I don't think I will be going back to a consumer model any time soon.


View attachment 257
Click to expand...
So well-executed! It feels like the eye of the heron is focussed right on the viewer. Colours are great too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top