Megapixels: More or less?

[JoostJ]

I own a D850 and recently bought the D6 as an addition to that for BIF photography. The reason for that was better AF speed - lock-on - accuracy - consistency and better high(er) ISO quality.
The files from the D6 are much cleaner but (to my surprise!) also sharper (in the case of fast moving objects) than those of the D850. Very often, the files from the D850 have a very slight unsharpness over them. I cannot say that they are really unsharp, but they are not tack sharp either. There always seems to be an ever so slight unsharpness to them. With shorter focal lengths (up to 135 mm) I get absolutely perfect tack sharp handheld images from my D850, so I know the camera is able to produce them. The same goes for handheld shots of not moving subjects with the D850 and 600 at a subject distance of 100+ meters: tack sharp (with VR on off course).
The higher the pixel density (D850), the more chance of movement of the image over the sensor (and light falling on the next pixel as well) during capture and hence introducing subtle unsharpness (I think, and hear from other photographers), in spite of shutter speeds in the range of 1/3200 - 1/4000.
By the way, I use the D850 and D6 with the 600/4E FL, Gitzo GT5563GS eXact carbon - series 5 and a Sirui PH-20 gimbal. I also experimented with the VR settings, but that didn't seem to make much deference.
@Steve: I'm very interested in your opinion on sharpness/unsharpness in relation to the amount of pixels on the sensor in relation to object movement during capture. And it might still be the man behind the camera that causes the problem. If you have any advice for him, that's very welcome too !

 

[JoostJ]

So I agree on moving to lower pixel count bodies (for certain applications), because lower is indeed sometimes better.

 

[VStammer]

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

Maybe I am doing something backwards or wrong; I do most all edits exclusively in Lightroom and then edit in Topaz DeNoise and that's where my big files get bogged down. I have since switched my RAW setting on my D850 to Medium and by the time I crop the photo it seems to process my changes at a reasonable pace when I am in Topaz. Never noticed this with my D500. Any thoughts?

 

[Rassie]

I own a D850 and recently bought the D6 as an addition to that for BIF photography. The reason for that was better AF speed - lock-on - accuracy - consistency and better high(er) ISO quality.
The files from the D6 are much cleaner but (to my surprise!) also sharper (in the case of fast moving objects) than those of the D850. Very often, the files from the D850 have a very slight unsharpness over them. I cannot say that they are really unsharp, but they are not tack sharp either. There always seems to be an ever so slight unsharpness to them. With shorter focal lengths (up to 135 mm) I get absolutely perfect tack sharp handheld images from my D850, so I know the camera is able to produce them. The same goes for handheld shots of not moving subjects with the D850 and 600 at a subject distance of 100+ meters: tack sharp (with VR on off course).
The higher the pixel density (D850), the more chance of movement of the image over the sensor (and light falling on the next pixel as well) during capture and hence introducing subtle unsharpness (I think, and hear from other photographers), in spite of shutter speeds in the range of 1/3200 - 1/4000.
By the way, I use the D850 and D6 with the 600/4E FL, Gitzo GT5563GS eXact carbon - series 5 and a Sirui PH-20 gimbal. I also experimented with the VR settings, but that didn't seem to make much deference.
@Steve: I'm very interested in your opinion on sharpness/unsharpness in relation to the amount of pixels on the sensor in relation to object movement during capture. And it might still be the man behind the camera that causes the problem. If you have any advice for him, that's very welcome too !

Could it be an issue of autofocus fine tuning on the D850 that is not optimal? My D7000 was less sharp than the D7100 with the same lenses. After fine tuning autofocus both cameras were equally sharp.

 

[DRwyoming]

Never noticed this with my D500. Any thoughts?

Well of course the uncompressed raw files from the D850 are substantially larger than the raw files out of the D500. That likely accounts for some of the slow down. The fact that the medium raw D850 files seem to process better implies file size may be the culprit and you're reaching some kind of threshold in Topaz where data has to be cached to disk or otherwise slowed down vs smaller files.

I suppose you could test that theory by taking a D500 image, interpolating it up to 45 Mpixels and then running it through Topaz to see if it also forces Topaz to bog down.

 

[JoostJ]

Could it be an issue of autofocus fine tuning on the D850 that is not optimal? My D7000 was less sharp than the D7100 with the same lenses. After fine tuning autofocus both cameras were equally sharp.

Hi Rassie, the lens was "AFMA'ed". I had it done by a professional service.

 

[Tpap]

Maybe I am doing something backwards or wrong; I do most all edits exclusively in Lightroom and then edit in Topaz DeNoise and that's where my big files get bogged down. I have since switched my RAW setting on my D850 to Medium and by the time I crop the photo it seems to process my changes at a reasonable pace when I am in Topaz. Never noticed this with my D500. Any thoughts?

Go into settings or preferences in TOPAZ Denoise AI and make sure you "enable GPU" for processing. You can also make sure this is turned on in Lightroom as well. This will speed up the processing time DRAMATICALLY.

 

[Yezdi]

Awesome shot

 

[Oztours]

Sorry folks, long rant coming up. Hope it may be of help to some of you.

@VStammer There’s a whole host of things that could be slowing your PC down during processing and the first place I would recommend you looking at is the PC itself.

Mechanical:

• Processor – my main PC for graphical work, I use an Intel Core i5-7500 CPU.
• RAM Memory – 32GB
• GPU (Graphics Card) – “On Board” HD Graphics 630 – “Add On” Radeon RX 470
• Hard Drive Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500GB Used only for the operating system plus 3 other onboard drives with a total of 4TB storage. 2 for photos and 1 for everything else. Also have 6 external drives but only ever 1 or 2 connected at any given time.

This is by no means a supercomputer, but it works really well and within my budget and built up over time through upgrades.

Other Things:

• How full are your hard drives, in particular, the OS drive? All hard drives need free space so they can perform their job. The old rule of thumb was 15% free space. That may have changed with modern technology. I just work on the principal of leaving heaps of space and regularly check Task Manager (Win10) or Activity Monitor (Mac) for performance on all of the above.
• How much have you got loaded on your computer in terms of software? Over the years of fixing other people’s computers, I have seen systems clogged down because of what they are loaded up with, most specifically, gamers.
• When you are doing graphical work, how many other programs are running in the background? For low specc’ed PC’s, this can be a killer. Graphical programs are renowned for being a drag on the system, as can be the “Chrome browser” if it is bloated out with plug ins or maybe just in general. Next time you have trouble, check what other programs are running and shut them down and another check in Task Manager to see what “background processes are running. There are a ton of processes automatically started by the computer that do not even need to be running. If all else fails, reboot the computer and just use one program at a time.

Feel free to send me a private message if you need assistance in this department.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

Go into settings or preferences in TOPAZ Denoise AI and make sure you "enable GPU" for processing. You can also make sure this is turned on in Lightroom as well. This will speed up the processing time DRAMATICALLY.

Only if you have a dedicated graphics card.

 

[Tpap]

Only if you have a dedicated graphics card.

Yes, only if you have a dedicated GPU. However, considering a very good GPU goes for around 500$ or less, if you have a camera system worth $5000+ you should have a computer to keep up with post processing

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

Yes, only if you have a dedicated GPU. However, considering a very good GPU goes for around 500$ or less, if you have a camera system worth $5000+ you should have a computer to keep up with post processing

I do. Just clarifying.

 

[Tpap]

I do. Just clarifying.

Ya no worries at all! Thanks

 

[ssheipel]

Nice shot. And yup until a month ago anything that moved got shot mostly with my D3; going to remain my backup wildlife camera. And yah can't beat Nikon colour out of the camera!

 

[Calson]

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.

I know that the image size from a 600mm lens using the D5 camera provides a file that is on par in terms of resolution with a shot taken with a 500mm lens and the D850 camera. To me the D800 to D810 were the sweet spot in terms of sensor megapixels. I wish that Nikon had worked to refine the small and medium Raw image processing done by the D850 so that it was usable.

If I lived in Florida where the birds were so habituated to humans that I could photograph them from a distance of 20 feet it would be of no matter if I used a D5. But in California where I live it is difficult to get within 50 yards of most bird life and I need as much resolution from the camera as possible. And even with subjects in a place like Yellowstone NP there are restriction as to how close one is allowed (and for good reasons) to be from animals.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

I know that the image size from a 600mm lens using the D5 camera provides a file that is on par in terms of resolution with a shot taken with a 500mm lens and the D850 camera. To me the D800 to D810 were the sweet spot in terms of sensor megapixels. I wish that Nikon had worked to refine the small and medium Raw image processing done by the D850 so that it was usable.

If I lived in Florida where the birds were so habituated to humans that I could photograph them from a distance of 20 feet it would be of no matter if I used a D5. But in California where I live it is difficult to get within 50 yards of most bird life and I need as much resolution from the camera as possible. And even with subjects in a place like Yellowstone NP there are restriction as to how close one is allowed (and for good reasons) to be from animals.

Good points. If I lived in an area where I worked consistently in well lit areas, I might have a high-megapixel camera body too. But I don't. I live in South Carolina in the woods, where light is often low. I had an 810 and liked it, except for the noise it produced in low light situations.

 

[Woodpecker]

Wow, unbelievable shot ! It almost looks like high wing aeroplane with the wings coming off.

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.

I couldn't agree more ! When my friend pressed my ignition button for real nature photography I used a D600 and the main reason to move to D750 was AF. But I always looked enviously to his D4S and what he was able to do with it - although I am fully aware that you have to get the technique, experience and routine to get (t)his kind of results.

There are several things that make me think in the same direction or at least decide to stay with the current 24 MPixels.
Wildlife is all about available light and speed, which basically means "big pixel for president".

• Looking at the things @Steve wrote about the relationship between motion blur and pixel size, it clearly puts bigger pixel in favour when it comes to pushing the limits regarding motion blur.
• Better in-camera software can tweak the limits, but can't cheat physics.
  Beyond sensor technology itself in the end bigger pixels mean higher ISO tolerance and even in times of AI in post software the best thing is to avoid noise in the first place.
• Until @Steve mentioned things like "having the choice of more keepers, even when shooting short bursts", I simply didn't think of the frame rate making a difference to me. The 10(11) fps of the D4(S) is certainly better than my 6 that I can have for a few seconds and may be a bit more if I go down to 12bit as well as doubling the "emergency rate" for the time after the buffer has filled up by switching off the backup on the second card.

Without money issues due to the pandemic effects I probably would seriously consider getting a good second hand D4S, but because they are so good, they are still pretty expensive. Anything else in this direction would be totally over the top for me.

Another consideration is hardware resources for post. Going to 36 or even 45 MPixels would cause a whole avalanche of follow-up investments for many people. I am running a DELL Precision M6800 (Mobile workstation) with two graphic cards as my only PC for job and private things including photography, combined with a dock and two monitors and a NAS for Backup and archiving. All in all nothing somebody would just use as a private PC setup. But if I look at software performance, CPU and memory load when processing 24 MPixel RAWs and extrapolate that to 36 or 45 MPixel, it would probably be nothing I'd like to work with and I'd run out of storage capacity both locally and on the NAS pretty quickly.

I understand that there are other requirements when it comes to architecture, landscape etc. and higher resolution certainly has its advantages. But IMHO for wildlife 24 MPixel is more than enough for me and I would follow you and step back if I were able to afford the bodies.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

Wow, unbelievable shot ! It almost looks like high wing aeroplane with the wings coming off.



I couldn't agree more ! When my friend pressed my ignition button for real nature photography I used a D600 and the main reason to move to D750 was AF. But I always looked enviously to his D4S and what he was able to do with it - although I am fully aware that you have to get the technique, experience and routine to get (t)his kind of results.

There are several things that make me think in the same direction or at least decide to stay with the current 24 MPixels.
Wildlife is all about available light and speed, which basically means "big pixel for president".

• Looking at the things @Steve wrote about the relationship between motion blur and pixel size, it clearly puts bigger pixel in favour when it comes to pushing the limits regarding motion blur.
• Better in-camera software can tweak the limits, but can't cheat physics.
  Beyond sensor technology itself in the end bigger pixels mean higher ISO tolerance and even in times of AI in post software the best thing is to avoid noise in the first place.
• Until @Steve mentioned things like "having the choice of more keepers, even when shooting short bursts", I simply didn't think of the frame rate making a difference to me. The 10(11) fps of the D4(S) is certainly better than my 6 that I can have for a few seconds and may be a bit more if I go down to 12bit as well as doubling the "emergency rate" for the time after the buffer has filled up by switching off the backup on the second card.

Without money issues due to the pandemic effects I probably would seriously consider getting a good second hand D4S, but because they are so good, they are still pretty expensive. Anything else in this direction would be totally over the top for me.

Another consideration is hardware resources for post. Going to 36 or even 45 MPixels would cause a whole avalanche of follow-up investments for many people. I am running a DELL Precision M6800 (Mobile workstation) with two graphic cards as my only PC for job and private things including photography, combined with a dock and two monitors and a NAS for Backup and archiving. All in all nothing somebody would just use as a private PC setup. But if I look at software performance, CPU and memory load when processing 24 MPixel RAWs and extrapolate that to 36 or 45 MPixel, it would probably be nothing I'd like to work with and I'd run out of storage capacity both locally and on the NAS pretty quickly.

I understand that there are other requirements when it comes to architecture, landscape etc. and higher resolution certainly has its advantages. But IMHO for wildlife 24 MPixel is more than enough for me and I would follow you and step back if I were able to afford the bodies.

Perfectly said. The noise issue in low light with the higher mp is also an issue for me.

 

[Woodpecker]

Perfectly said. The noise issue in low light with the higher mp is also an issue for me.

I just wondered what the differences are between the Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX used in D4(S)/D8x0 and the Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX II my D750 and the only thing I spotted was that the D750 has AF detection range from -3 to +19 compared with -2 to +19 for the D4(S)/D8x0.
Could you give me an idea down to which kind of lighting situations you can work with your D4 while having reliable AF ?
I am really tempted go do what you did and go back to a used D4(S) but as I don't have the chance to compare two bodies with the same lens side by side myself I have trouble to evaluate what this one stop would really mean in practice. I guess if I hit the limit with acceptable noise level before the AF gives up, everything should be fine.

 

[robertrear]

I have the best of both worlds right now a Nikon D4s and a D500 paired with a Nikon 500 PF 5.6 but saving my pennies for a Nikon 500 F4

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[jer]

Great point. Also, if a person sets image size to uncompressed in the camera, the resulting raw file is much larger. My 18 MP camera exports 36MB .nef files.

Had not thought through this before. Thanks for posting that. Very happy with my 21MP but then, I'm not selling 10 ft prints.

 

[VStammer]

Sorry folks, long rant coming up. Hope it may be of help to some of you.

@VStammer There’s a whole host of things that could be slowing your PC down during processing and the first place I would recommend you looking at is the PC itself.

Mechanical:

• Processor – my main PC for graphical work, I use an Intel Core i5-7500 CPU.
• RAM Memory – 32GB
• GPU (Graphics Card) – “On Board” HD Graphics 630 – “Add On” Radeon RX 470
• Hard Drive Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500GB Used only for the operating system plus 3 other onboard drives with a total of 4TB storage. 2 for photos and 1 for everything else. Also have 6 external drives but only ever 1 or 2 connected at any given time.

This is by no means a supercomputer, but it works really well and within my budget and built up over time through upgrades.

Other Things:

• How full are your hard drives, in particular, the OS drive? All hard drives need free space so they can perform their job. The old rule of thumb was 15% free space. That may have changed with modern technology. I just work on the principal of leaving heaps of space and regularly check Task Manager (Win10) or Activity Monitor (Mac) for performance on all of the above.
• How much have you got loaded on your computer in terms of software? Over the years of fixing other people’s computers, I have seen systems clogged down because of what they are loaded up with, most specifically, gamers.
• When you are doing graphical work, how many other programs are running in the background? For low specc’ed PC’s, this can be a killer. Graphical programs are renowned for being a drag on the system, as can be the “Chrome browser” if it is bloated out with plug ins or maybe just in general. Next time you have trouble, check what other programs are running and shut them down and another check in Task Manager to see what “background processes are running. There are a ton of processes automatically started by the computer that do not even need to be running. If all else fails, reboot the computer and just use one program at a time.

Feel free to send me a private message if you need assistance in this department.

Yea, I suspect my lack of RAM (8GB) is a primary culprit. I have the i5 processor and I use a separate 2 TB hard drive which is less than 2% occupied currently. Thanks for your tech advise!

 

[Oztours]

@VStammer. My tech advice can be taken with a grain of salt. I am purely self taught. That's just things I have learnt from being in that same position as you. Ram is the first place to think about and I suggest going for the max that your budget will allow. I originally went from 8 to 16 and then onto 32. Would love to go to 64 but that doesn't come within budget range just yet.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

I just wondered what the differences are between the Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX used in D4(S)/D8x0 and the Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX II my D750 and the only thing I spotted was that the D750 has AF detection range from -3 to +19 compared with -2 to +19 for the D4(S)/D8x0.
Could you give me an idea down to which kind of lighting situations you can work with your D4 while having reliable AF ?
I am really tempted go do what you did and go back to a used D4(S) but as I don't have the chance to compare two bodies with the same lens side by side myself I have trouble to evaluate what this one stop would really mean in practice. I guess if I hit the limit with acceptable noise level before the AF gives up, everything should be fine.

I had a D750, it was pretty good in lowlight conditions too. The difference is in how they handle noise. My D4 was good up to 12,800 ISO. I run my D5 auto ISO to top out at 20,000. Forget the specs and get your hands on a camera body. The Nikon pro bodies are amazing. They get an AF lock in near darkness.

 

[Woodpecker]

I had a D750, it was pretty good in lowlight conditions too. The difference is in how they handle noise. My D4 was good up to 12,800 ISO. I run my D5 auto ISO to top out at 20,000. Forget the specs and get your hands on a camera body. The Nikon pro bodies are amazing. They get an AF lock in near darkness.

Clear words, thanks a lot !
That was exactly what I wanted to know and it's even better that you tried a D750 yourself. If you still prefer your D4 that's the confirmation I was looking for. I have my hands on a camera regularly, but not the right one to find out myself . The only person with a D4S who might hand it over for a day or two is my friend in the North, but he lives about 700km away and the alternative would be go up there or buy one straight away. But after what you told me I am sure I will give it a go make me a nice Xmas present. Sometimes with this kind of decision it is like going to the doctor:
You just need a bit more input from differetn sides to feel comfortable with what you do.

I am usually quite happy the D750 in dim light compared with what I had before, but still I have run in situations where it just wasn't enough when it started to get exciting. And if there is no way being able to afford anything of the new pro stuff, the D4(S) is the thing to watch out for.