I think I'm not really understanding this pixels business.

footman

footman

Messages
4,989
Name
Laurence
Edit My Images
No
My 2 main interests in photography are wildlife, mainly birds and macro.
For the birds I have a Canon 1D mark IIN and for the macro I have a Canon 40D.

Because I can't seem to get right next to the birds I have to crop the image. If I did this with, say, a canon 7D I would have more pixels in my cropped shot.

Does this translate to better image quality in general? At the moment my images are only viewed on the web but I'm starting to want to put prints on the wall at home.

I've seen the arguments for changing a 1d MarkII for 7D, such as newer technology, better sensor and of course more pixels! In the real world (my world) would this mean I would produce better images?
 
Swap the 40D for the 1D2n, use the 40D for the birds and you will crop less due to the lens factor.

The 7d will give you more pixels with less crop than the 1D2n and more pixels with a similar crop than the 40D it will also provide better AF than the 40D, better high ISO than either (allowing faster shutter speeds and thus more cropping).

As for producing better images I would suggest better knowledge of your subject and fieldcraft will probably be of more use. For years many outstanding images have been shot on the 2 cameras you currently own. Just changing your camera will not give you an immediate improvement in your images.
 
Newer kit doesn't produce better images. If you're having to crop to get close use the crop body instead. More megapixels would allow you to crop more but i'd be looking at trying to get closer to the subject than shelling out on new gear. Like Ed said, the crop body will give a FoV similar to 1.5x the focal length so you want to be using that for birds and wildlife.
 
Thanks for the comments.

I had to use the 40D for birds the other day having temporarily broken the 1D markII. It really struggled with AF compared to the 1D and I didn't enjoy using it for that purpose.

I'm not so naive to think that buying expensive gear will make me a better photographer, it's that thinking that having more pixels available will produce a better quality image for the size of images I produce.
 
footman said:
Thanks for the comments.

I had to use the 40D for birds the other day having temporarily broken the 1D markII. It really struggled with AF compared to the 1D and I didn't enjoy using it for that purpose.

I'm not so naive to think that buying expensive gear will make me a better photographer, it's that thinking that having more pixels available will produce a better quality image for the size of images I produce.
Click to expand...

That's a dangerous theory, and very over simplified. It's not just the number of pixels, but also very much the size of those pixels, not the mention the 'quality' of them - or rather the image amplifiers and processing electronics that go with it all. Sometimes, less is more.

It doesn't matter how many pixels you've got, when exactly the same amount of light falls on the same physical area. That dicates the potential number of photons that can be captured, and more pixels often means less of those because every one has a gap or wall of some sort between each, and more little walls means less light gathering area. (Don't believe stuff about gapless pixels... )

And then, if you have very tiny pixels, you need a very high resolution lens to have any chance of realising any extra detail. More to the point, you need absolutely flawless technique which in practise is very difficult to obtain on any consistent basis outside a laboratory. There are quite a few other considerations too.

What it boils down to, is you can't just crop your way out of it. There is no substitute for a nice big image on the sensor, which is why full frame continues to prosper for people who want max IQ, and why those huge and massively expensive prime lenses are so popular. As always, it's the best compromise that wins, not forgetting cost. And the cheapest way of doing it is to just get yourself closer to the subject!

If it was only about pixels, then put a spotting scope on a compact - digiscoping - would be the way to go, and obviously it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top