CAMERA BODIES WITH HIGH PIXEL COUNT

Messages
53
Edit My Images
No
Wondering having started to dabble in landscape photography got hold of a used Nikon D3200,
with a 24 pixel body this to me seemed to be a good starter level.
However seen some of the current newer models the pixel rate appears to have moved along a somewhat.
Although bit late now does anyone rate the Nikon D3200.
 
The number of pixels a sensor has isn’t the most important aspect of a camera nor does it show its overall quality. For a beginner I’d recommend going for the D7xxx series if your budget can stretch that far. The reason being these models have more physical controls on the body. One example is a front and rear dial that makes changing the aperture and shutter speed much easier. With the D3xxx and D5xxx series you will need to go into the menus to change aperture and shutter speed at the same time (you only have one dial not two). The D3200 will otherwise be a good starter if your budget can’t stretch that far.
 
It's a decent entry-level camera, though it certainly isn't high pixel count, it should be fine for landscape. Most important for that work will be the lens(es) you use, but if you're just starting out then it may be best to use the kit lens for a little while & see how you get on.

You're buying a camera at a slightly awkward time, because systems are changing from mirrored (DSLR) to mirrorless, and the lenses don't have great compatibility. However a lot of DSLR stuff is relatively cheap, so that may be a short-term advantage. Make sure you buy used (try London Camera Exchange) rather than new.
 
It's a decent entry-level camera, though it certainly isn't high pixel count
In my opinion 24 million pixels is high quality. Most of my cameras record 16MP still images and I'm very happy with the results from those.

Of course, mileages vary. :naughty:
 
24mp is more than adequate when you are starting out. Use that camera to learn techniques and composition. Money would be better spent on a decent photo editing suite, decent monitor and colour calibration tool. If you don’t have a tripod then budget for one. You may want to invest in a filter system at a later stage. The best way to improve your landscape photography is to go out and take photos, learn how to edit them ( plenty of tutorials on YouTube), get constructive feedback to correct any mistakes. Above all enjoy the hobby otherwise you will waste all the money you’ve spent. The sensor in the D3200 is still good by today’s APS-C standards and probably better than my three year old Canon 77D.
 
Last edited:
Pixel count isn't everything. Without pixel peeping it's hard to tell the difference between my 15mp camera and my 24mp camera. The more pixels on a given size sensor, the more noise you are likely to introduce.
 
Newer 24MP Nikon bodies are better in low light.... noise control has improved

Resolution hasn't increased in APS-C cameras for the past few years as 24MP is considered more than sufficient, 6MP was considered sufficient for A4 printing.

One of the reasons why higher MP counts aren't ideal is any movement (by the camera and/or subject) is accentuated on the final image, so your technique must match the resolution and shutter speeds (even if you have VR on the lens) must be fast enough to capture images sharply.

I echo what Rob-Nikon says, if you plan to change your camera get a D7*00 series camera. If you plan to get more lenses you have more options to buy and use older AF and AF-D Nikkor lenses (assuming you wouldn't be able to afford newer AF-S) which can be used on D7*00 but not on D3*00 and D5*00 cameras
 
Wondering having started to dabble in landscape photography got hold of a used Nikon D3200,
with a 24 pixel body this to me seemed to be a good starter level.
However seen some of the current newer models the pixel rate appears to have moved along a somewhat.
Although bit late now does anyone rate the Nikon D3200.

The D3200 is better in many respects than my first £3,500 Pro camera, which had 12mp

Your camera is fine :)

Dave
 
For both the @THE AVOCET and more generally - don't conflate pixel count with quality. A higher pixel count will only make a substantial difference if your lenses can resolve to that level (which relatively few can) although more pixels than necessary can *sometimes* make an image appear smoother and cleaner even when the lens can't perform to that level. But there's much more than that, particularly noise at higher ISO ratings, dynamic range, colour reproduction, a whole bunch of stuff.

Just don't whack it in auto and expect everything to be miraculously perfect straight off. ;)
 
I find that 16mp is more than adequate for my needs and on a pc screen it's difficult to distinguish that from my old D40 which only has 6mp. Unless you want to make bill board posters, or crop really heavily, 24mp is more than enough for anyone. Better spend the money on computer storage for all those enormous image files.
 
I find that 16mp is more than adequate for my needs and on a pc screen it's difficult to distinguish that from my old D40 which only has 6mp. Unless you want to make bill board posters, or crop really heavily, 24mp is more than enough for anyone. Better spend the money on computer storage for all those enormous image files.

High MP counts and being able to crop heavily are attractive to some people.

I have a Sony A7 (24mp) and a couple of MTF cameras (16 and 20mp) and sometimes crop to 100% for on screen use and I'm sure I've printed some heavy crops too. The biggest print I've ever done is A3 and my 6mp Canon DSLR's were good enough for me for that.
 
High MP counts and being able to crop heavily are attractive to some people.

I have a Sony A7 (24mp) and a couple of MTF cameras (16 and 20mp) and sometimes crop to 100% for on screen use and I'm sure I've printed some heavy crops too. The biggest print I've ever done is A3 and my 6mp Canon DSLR's were good enough for me for that.
Yes, I am aware, that's why I mentioned it. It wasn't a criticism.
 
High MP are often an overrated marketing tool to sell cameras, and unless you buy them for a specific reason then it’s not worth bothering about imo. If you want to crop heavily, and/or print VERY large and stand with your nose up against the print to assess all the detail then get a high MP camera, otherwise 24mp is more than ample imo. Don’t forget, even a 4k TV is only just over 8mp so if that’s you viewing medium 24mp is 3x more than you need. I personally find dynamic range more important for landscapes. You could argue that FF is better than crop sensor as it has to be enlarged less but again that’s only really relevant for the pixel peepers (y)
 
Yes, I am aware, that's why I mentioned it. It wasn't a criticism.

I didn't mean to imply that it was :D

I don't have high mp count cameras as 24mp isn't that much these days, but I do see the appeal but also a couple of potential issues, for me. The biggest issue for me is probably the file size. I know HD and memory are relatively cheap but my creaking old pc might just balk at the prospect of processing and then storing all the pictures I rattle off when I get the chance. Processing and saving 50 pictures from my A7 is task enough but then again some do take many more pictures and manage well enough, wedding and event photographers for example, and with higher mp counts too.

At the mo 24mp is more than enough for me but over time the choice will possibly be taken away for us and at some point we may be lucky to find anything only having 24mp on sale.
 
I have had 10MP, 12MP, 16MP, 18MP, 20MP, 22MP, 24MP, 36MP, 42MP.

In my experience the sweet spot is between 18 / 20 / 22.

I have 42 MP now and find it is very fussy about any movement on the shot and i found 36 MP much the same also.
 
Last edited:
I've shot with 45.7mp and now 61mp and tbh not seen any more of an issue with movement than 24mp or even 16mp :thinking:
 
I have had 10MP, 12MP, 16MP, 18MP, 20MP, 22MP, 24MP, 36MP, 42MP.

In my experience the sweet spot is between 18 / 20 / 22.

I have 42 MP now and find it is very fussy about any movement on the shot and i found 36 MP much the same also.

I found 24 woefully lacking, 36 good and have moved for a 50mp medium format - alas I couldn't afford the jump to 100mp offered by phase 1 and Hasselblad.

I am a sucker for the 100% preview mode. I like using it and seeing all the details in the scene then going out. I like I can print 36x24 and have it close and it looks decent. I like that I can supply large images for commercial use. The 36mp opened doors for me.

I took many landscapes hand held on my D810 with longish lenses - the VR on the latest and greatest 70-200 2.8 ensured sharp shots with a shutter speed even slower than 1/focal length. I put the lousy F4 on the front of that body with was an insult to a D810 - fine for a low pixel density body but not for a 36 mp plus system.

For landscapes, good tripod, good technique (self timer/cable release), mirror lock up or quiet shutter mode, proper focus, good filter/blend of exposures and a knowledge of editing and your're set. High MP means more detail, at a potential expense of dynamic range and colour depth.

I've shot with 45.7mp and now 61mp and tbh not seen any more of an issue with movement than 24mp or even 16mp :thinking:

I wouldn't expect you to. That sounds like a jump from D850 to A7r4 - how does the dynamic range and colour depth compare between the two.
 
Last edited:
For landscapes, good tripod, good technique (self timer/cable release), mirror lock up or quiet shutter mode, proper focus, good filter/blend of exposures and a knowledge of editing and your're set. High MP means more detail, at a potential expense of dynamic range and colour depth.
It stands to reason that the more pixels covering a real world feature, the more detail that can be recovered from the file but how big are you printing stuff (and through what printer) to actually see that difference?
 
I found 24 woefully lacking, 36 good and have moved for a 50mp medium format. I took many landscapes hand held on my D810 with longish lenses - the VR on the latest and greatest 70-200 2.8 ensured sharp shots with a shutter speed even slower than 1/focal length. I put the lousy F4 on the front of that body with was an insult to a D810 - fine for a low pixel density body but not for a 36 mp plus system.

For landscapes, good tripod, good technique (self timer/cable release), mirror lock up or quiet shutter mode, proper focus, good filter/blend of exposures and a knowledge of editing and your're set. High MP means more detail, at a potential expense of dynamic range and colour depth.



I wouldn't expect you to. That sounds like a jump from D850 to A7r4 - how does the dynamic range and colour depth compare between the two.
Well I actually went D850 > Z7 > A7RIV, but in answer to your question I prefer Nikon colours. However, I've developed a preset to emulate Nikon colours so that's all good. In terms of colour depth and DR I've not done any specific tests tbh. I've not noticed anything obvious in terms of colour depth. I don't like the way highlights are pulled back in post on the Sony although that being said I'm thinking that might be more of a lightroom thing rather than Sony vs Nikon as I noticed it when processing some old Nikon files. Shadow recovery is excellent on both, again not done any specific tests but I appear to have similar flexibility.
 
You will have to take thousands and thousands of images before resolution becomes the limiting factor in your photography. Narrative, use of light, composition, framing, depth of field, selection of the right shutter speed are all much more important.
 
It stands to reason that the more pixels covering a real world feature, the more detail that can be recovered from the file but how big are you printing stuff (and through what printer) to actually see that difference?

Often in the house and for sale 24inch x 16inch - not on my own printer don't have the money for something that good. In this print size you can see the D800 is better than the D610 - at smaller sizes yes not so important though. I frequently sell images commercially and they want the full res one for printing etc.
 
Just a quick thought on high mp count cameras showing movement. This is because they can because they're high res but if you downsize a high mp count picture to match the size of a lower mp count picture taken of the same subject at the same time they should show equal movement / or not.
 
Back
Top