megapixel qusetion

suggs

suggs

Messages
2,053
Name
Harry
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

im looking around for a Nikon and ive noticed that some of the older models have a higher pixel rate then a newer model such as the D40 having 10 megapixel and the D70 at 6 megapixel, so im wondering why this is and should i be put off by a lower pixel model such as the D70 which seems to be priced lower than say the D40...


thanks in advance
 
Posted this in the other thread you started......

Nikon's naming system is a bit mixed up - the D70 is actually older than the D40 and D40x and isn't in the same family because it's of a smaller body design. The 10mp D40x actually shares the same sensor family as the D70's replacement, the D80.

Think it goes like this:

Budget/beginner
D50
D40
D40x
D60
D3000
D5000
D3100

Mid-range
D70*
D70s*
D80*
D90*
D7000*

Mid 'Pro' range
D100*
D200*
D300*
D300s*

High-end 'Pro'/full frame
D1*
D1x*
D2x*
D2H*
D2Hs*
D2xs*
D3*
D700*
D3s*
D3x*

Many of these overlap in terms of production availability. Haven't included E-series.....

Nikon actually have an archive on its website where you can check out technical specs :)

Up to D3 - http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/archives.htm

Current line-up: http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/index.htm
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the D2H and D2Hs - great pro cameras - esp the latter.
 
And any camera up to 6-10 MP is plenty enough unless you intend on printing massive posters. Don't get caught up on the more Mp the better thing. They aren't, in fact they can degrade quality when you have too many on a small sensor. If you aren't printing your photos at all, then Mp has very little relevance as at web sizes even a 3mp will look fine.
 
Last edited:
The D2Hs output looks 'fine' at 24" too :) I'm a big fan of that camera - and it's 4.1 Mp.
 
As Tom said - you need to look at the number of pixels and the sensor size together. It's all very well having 14Mp but if they are on a tiny sensor you could end up with over 30 million pixels per square centimetre of sensor. The top of the range tend to have much lower figures - usually 5 million or less per square centimetre.

The information at this link is useful, pixel numbers have increased since it was written but the basic information is sound.
 
awp said:
Don't forget the D2H and D2Hs - great pro cameras - esp the latter.
Click to expand...

Totally slipped my mind. :)

To the OP, personally I'd focus less on megapixels (although some of the higher MP models have sone great performance features, especially in low light) and look at what you need and what a particular model can provide.

If it's ultimate built quality and weather proofing then good used buys are the D2 range. If it's compact size then a D40x/D60 Might be a good used buy. Very general VFM with brilliant sensor performance a D300 or a D90 are hard to beat.

You also need to look at AF systems; the D40/40x/60/3000/3100/5000 (not sure about D50) don't have AF motors built into the body so you need to buy AF-S lenses to have autofocus. AF-D lenses use a screwdriver setup to focus the lens and these in-body motors are on the larger bodies like the D90, D200 and D3 to name but a few (those marked with a * in my list have on-body motors) :)
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify.
The D40 has the 6Mp sensor as used in the D50 & D70 the D40x has 10Mp.
The D40 has better low light & high ISO performance and also has better dynamic range that the D40x.
The D40x can capture finer detail in good light and also allows greater cropping whilst keeping a reasonable amount of pixels.

Not really related to pixels but the D40 has a flash synch of 1/500th while the D40x it is 1/250th.
 
The Megapixel race is pretty much just a marketing tool. Most consumers need something to look at on a page that tells them A is better than B. With cameras, there isnt a defining feature that makes A better than B, so the camera makers made one. Although MP do have real world meaning and uses, it got to a point where the makers were just adding on more and more, simply to make thier cameras "look" better when a standard joe public was looking through the argos catalouge.

You see an advert for Nikon A: 10 MP, Creative modes, HD video, 4.5 FPS
You see an advert for Canon B 16 MP, Creative modes, HD video, 3.5 FPS

Which will most people go for, obviously the Canon B, as it "looks" better on paper. What they dont say however is that Canon B will suffer from noise at ISO 600, due to the densely packed pixels, whereas Nikon A will be fine right up to ISO 1600.
Thats slightly exagerated, but you get the idea!

Basicly, MP mean nothing really today for the average user. Over 6MP and you'll be fine to print to A3 without issue. Look at the rest of the specs of the camera, and look up real reviews and samples of images.
 
specialman said:
Totally slipped my mind. :)

To the OP, personally I'd focus less on megapixels (although some of the higher MP models have sone great performance features, especially in low light) and look at what you need and what a particular model can provide.

If it's ultimate built quality and weather proofing then good used buys are the D2 range. If it's compact size then a D40x/D60 Might be a good used buy. Very general VFM with brilliant sensor performance a D300 or a D90 are hard to beat.

You also need to look at AF systems; the D40/40x/60/3000/3100/5000 (not sure about D50) don't have AF motors built into the body so you need to buy AF-S lenses to have autofocus. AF-D lenses use a screwdriver setup to focus the lens and these in-body motors are on the larger bodies like the D90, D200 and D3 to name but a few (those marked with a * in my list have on-body motors) :)
Click to expand...
 
The D50 does have the internal motor, and only being 6m pixels doesn't mean a thing unless you are printing to very large sizes, or are having to crop extremely small areas of the pic, I print to A4 and they are fine.
 
Thanks you very much for taking the time to answer my question, i was beginning to loose the plot a bit with all the different models lol.

what im after is a camera that isnt to hard to get to grips with, i want to take quality pictures of the family and days out but also live close to a large country park and theres some lakes that attract some lovely wild birds so would like to get some nature shots in, also i have a fancy taking some car shots possible a long the lines of the car parked in front of a derelict building maybe in B/W etc, would be keen to try some shots at air shows too, so quite a broad spectrum really..

only thing i have decided is i like the Nikon fit and feel when trying them in the shops, what i dont know is weather i need to spend D90 money or if i would be just as happy using say a D60 and a decent lens along the lines of a 18-70mm or the D3000 seems very good value at £340 new with a kit lens and about £100 less than the D3100..

i have seen this set up on ebay that seems very good value but again dont know if the body would be a good buy or not

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....660889&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_558wt_1132


or as another option this lens has been offered to me for £125 as local to me then i could look out for a used body maybe a D90..
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....055198&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_681wt_1132
 
Last edited:
The D70 is fine, but is quite old now. You will certainly notice the rather small low resolution screen. Another option would be the D80, which the D90 replaced. Its not quite as good at high ISO as the D90, but still performs very well.

The shooting scenarios you described cover pretty much every focal length there is, so you wont be able to do them all, without buying several lenses. For landscapes and people 18-70 is ok, but you wont get many good nature shots with that. You'd need something along the lines of a 70-300, but not one of the cheap ones.

Airshows, again for flying aircraft 300mm is the minimum really, for ground aircraft the wider the better.
You will soon discover there isnt a perfect lens that can do everything. You will need 2 or 3 at least. Most people are happy to start with something like the 18-70, but you may find you outgrow it as your skills get better and you find the limit of the lens's sharpness.
 
Oh and good glass is aways better than a good body. A D60 with a Nikon 70-300 Vr would be a lot better than a D90 with a cheap Tamron 70-300 for example. Its the glass that makes the picture, rather than the camera in most circumstances.
 
im thinking maybe the 3000 might be a good price V's quality starting point then, could sell the kit lens and replace with the 18-70 and build up some other glass as i progress then look to upgrade to a D90 etc at a later date if and when my knowledge warrants it as not sure i would get any better results for the extra layout at the moment..
 
Just to put the pixels thing in perspective, if it was just about the sheer number, then a 14mp compact would have better image quality than a Nikon D3 with 13mp. But it's actually the other way around - by about a million miles.

It's a hugely complex question - almost impossible to say that 'A' is better than 'B' according to published specs and the headline figures can be totally misleading. However, one of the beauties of photography is that the net result of every contributing factor is revealed by taking a photograph, and that is frankly the only way to tell.

Another confusing factor is that when a new camera comes out with more pixels than before, the image usually looks better. But that is mainly down to new sensor design, such as gap-less micro-lenses etc, and an improved processing engine that gets more image data and less noise out of the same exposure level.

One or two cameras have actually gone the other way and show improved IQ with less pixels. The (rather nice :) ) new Canon G12 compact has 10mp compared to almost 15mp for the G10, and is the better for it.
 
thanks, certainly has put the must have high pixel myth to bed.

looking around at lenses it would seem favourable to get a body with in built motor as unless im mistaken most AF-S lenses seem a fair bit dearer compared to same spec non AF-S ones.
 
Some AF-S are dearer, but not all. Older lenses can be had cheaper, purely because you have 50 years worth to choose from and there are more of them around.

If you want a in body motor you are looking at a D50, D70, D70s, D80, D90, D200 etc
 
Suggs, some of the older Nikon lens designs are very, very good, albeit without internal motors like AF-S lenses have. Some people are mad for the old Ai lenses from the era of MF 35mm bodies, because they are super-sharp for little cash (in some cases, not all though).

An in-body motor is useful in that sense; D80/90 is a good way to go, as is the D200/D300, the latter having pro build quality and a bigger, weatherproofed chassis.
 
Thanks

Ok while we are on this subject, so will all Nikon fit lenses fit all Nikon DSLR's regardless if auto focus or not?

and when manual focusing with a non AF-S lens is there any indication when in focus such as a beep from the body or is it all down to the user?

thanks again
 
All Nikon lenses from a certain point in time carry the f mount so should fit. Think its back to the 1959s. I think theres sone info in the lens section of the nikon website.

Don't know about a bleep in MF - think some do, in conjunction with an LED in the viewfinder. My D2x doesn't bleep as standard so can't check - maybe someone else can help there :)
 
I have just looked here at the conclusion and samples page for the D3000:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3000/

Gets a reasonable summing up, and the 'samples' pictures are impressive IMHO . . .

As it says, no 'live view', and no on-board focus motor, the camera is not expensive at entry level. Its replacement the D3100 I have seen hailed as the best entry level camera bar non! . . . ? As I say, that is only what I have read. :naughty:

I use the Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-f4.5 most of the time, great lens, and for long shots use a Sigma 70-300mm APO HSM (HSM=hi speed focus motor). A cheap lens at around £179.00 (Bristol Cameras price a couple of months ago) 'APO HSM' version is essential:

DSC_0008rw1fs.jpg


The above is a picture I took a few years back with a D70s using an early version of the Sigma 70-300, it was hand held at the full 300mm, supported on a post, also heavily cropped. The weather was overcast, so there is a bit of pp'ing. Gives you an idea what is possible from budget lenses and a 6mp camera, and I'm no expert as the picture demonstrates:lol:

CJS
 
Last edited:
suggs said:
Thanks

Ok while we are on this subject, so will all Nikon fit lenses fit all Nikon DSLR's regardless if auto focus or not?

and when manual focusing with a non AF-S lens is there any indication when in focus such as a beep from the body or is it all down to the user?

thanks again
Click to expand...

Some, if not all have Nikon bodies have rangefinders. When the thing is in foucs a small dot appears in the bottom left of the viewfinder. Also if you are back or front focusing, little arrows show you which way to turn the focus ring.
Im not sure on what bodies this feature is on though. The cameras only beep on focus when using autofocus. (if you want it to)
 
thanks, id be happy to take that picture..

i think from what you have all said that all the Nikon D series and above take very nice pics when combined with decent glass..

i guess i need to decide weather to buy a cheaper set up such as ive seen in the sale section ie D40 with kit lens plus other bits and bobs for £200 all in to get me going and spend some extra on another better lens, or to spend over double on a current model...

Really dont know which way to go on this one.......
 
Personally I'd ignore the D3000, if you're going cheap then get a D40, if you're going cheap new then get a D3100.

The advantage of buying second hand is that if you do decide to upgrade once the bug bights you can sell it on for little loss.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but there was something I wanted to query. Everyone seems to mention that higher MP is not always better and this I know, however my assumption was always that the higher the MP, the bigger the photo and the more you're able to crop. For example a bird in the centre of a 6mp camera may be 600px high, whereas on a 12mp it will be 1200px high....am I wrong in thinking this?
 
You are (almost, as 6 to 12mp does not give a x2 image height) right BUT you need VERY high quality lenses to be able to crop very well.

Also, as you crop into a high MP camera the noise becomes more apparent (the reason it seems low is that the noisy pixels are small enough that you don't really notice).
 
I cannot speak from personal experience as I am not a Nikon user but I have always heard very good reports of the D70,as far as 6 megapixels go I have a 20x16 print on the wall taken with a Canon D60 (6 megapixels) and it is pin sharp
 
ive decided to go for a body with inbuilt motor for sure, i have got a lens already 50mm AF f1.8D im leaning towards the D80 but if a D200 comes up at a good price id have that. the D70 would be a cheaper option but maybe a bit long in the tooth now days?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top