More megapixel..better photos?

Messages
64
Name
Peter Francis
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this topic has been discussed but I’m wanting your advice.I have a Nikon D750.I’m thinking of upgrading to a D850 and I’m aware it has a lot more MPs.I know MPs is not everything in photography but considering these particular cameras is this upgrade worth it?I’m not considering another brand as I have a few expensive lenses for Nikon.
 
Megapixels on their own isn’t going to mean better photos. There may be other benefits that may help get a photo but most of the time upgrades like this are going to give quite small incremental improvements. There is a point where spending more money will only provide minor improvements. It depends on the subjects and genres your interested where the benefits are useful to you.

There are some benefits of the D850 over the D750. It all depends if those improvements/benefits will help you get photos you can’t get now. What is the D750 not doing for you that the D850 will do?
 
Last edited:
Very high MP show up any tiny movement you make on the shot.

People really noticed it when the 36 MP cameras came out.

I hate to think how fussy the 46 MP cameras are about your technique and skills.
 
I know MPs is not everything in photography but considering these particular cameras is this upgrade worth it?
No. Almost certainly not. The 24 MP you have with your D750 is more than enough for most uses. If you can put forward an argument as to what you would actually do with all those extra megapixels and how that would help you, please go ahead. But from your initial post it sounds like you don't have any good reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: X30
There are some technical advantages to the D850 sensor but it won’t make you a better photographer that’s all about how we ‘see’ the world.

24megs is more than enough to create fantastic detailed super sized prints.

As was 12 before it ;)
 
I would say the D850 is worth it on the caveat you know what you are doing and are getting the best out of the D750.

If you pixel peep and enjoy doing this (I do) you'll get a lot more fun out of the D850. I quite looking at a full size picture, then running to 100% taking in the fine detail, then coming out again.

Also if you sell stock images the bigger files can help. I've sold loads and the best selling ones seem to come off the bigger resolution cameras. That said - print wise 24x16 I think up very close you can see an improvement - below that no - I don't see a difference at all

If you shoot and end up cropping a lot, the D850 has a lot going for it but if that's a routine thing - work on your compositions.

Downsides - not much. Up the RAM on your computer and storage capacity - neither have ever been cheaper. Lenses - you'll want (if you do not already have) the very best primes and zooms to get the most out the sensor.

The D850 also has, in my view, a better layout than the D750 and feels better in the hands. I see camera's a lot on workshops - never gelled with the 750 but the 8XX series hell yes.
 
Last edited:
There are some technical advantages to the D850 sensor but it won’t make you a better photographer that’s all about how we ‘see’ the world.

24megs is more than enough to create fantastic detailed super sized prints.

As was 12 before it ;)

All my 2018 bird and nature images in 2019 calendars were taken with 10meg bodies that were 10 or 11 years old coupled with a 25 year old manual focus telephoto.
 
I jumped up from the D700 to the D850 (rather than go halfway to the 750 or 810 as this will probably be my last body purchase) and whilst it is a big jump forward it comes with it's own caveats that have been mentioned above. It's taken me a while to get used to it, but I like the challenge and like the way the D850 feels and the control layout. My only disappointment is that the 24-120mm F4 that performs so well on the 700 shows it's limitations on the 850. (It can stay on the D700).
 
I jumped up from the D700 to the D850 (rather than go halfway to the 750 or 810 as this will probably be my last body purchase) and whilst it is a big jump forward it comes with it's own caveats that have been mentioned above. It's taken me a while to get used to it, but I like the challenge and like the way the D850 feels and the control layout. My only disappointment is that the 24-120mm F4 that performs so well on the 700 shows it's limitations on the 850. (It can stay on the D700).

if you downsize your images from D850 to 12mp equivalent on D700, you notice a fair amount of difference even with the 24-120 :)
 
Thanks all.Unless something happens to my D750 I’ll be leaving the upgrade
 
Very high MP show up any tiny movement you make on the shot.

People really noticed it when the 36 MP cameras came out.

I hate to think how fussy the 46 MP cameras are about your technique and skills.

The high mp kit will record movement that lower res kit doesn't because of the higher res whereas the lower res kit can't but most of the time you probably wont be viewing the high res picture closely enough to see it.
 
The high mp kit will record movement that lower res kit doesn't because of the higher res whereas the lower res kit can't but most of the time you probably wont be viewing the high res picture closely enough to see it.

Doesn’t mean it’s not there and for those of us who take huge pride in our work it can be hard.

It’s a fair point.

The D810 will record distant grasses moving even on a still day. The fine detail is incredible but it’s not an issue with lower mp cameras or m4/3rds.

You have to be critically accurate not just with the focus but the timing.

I was in Glencoe this morning - at the famous falls on the river Coupal. You’ll know the scene - the one with the waterfall and birch tree. The 810 will record a blurred branch or leaf on that tree just due to a slight wind movement. With all the will in the world if the wind gusts slightly during exposure (remember it’s a waterfall so the 1/focal length shutter speed trick won’t save you) so you’re gubbed. You not only have to focus well, but time well.

The rewards are worth it though.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a Nikon user but if I was I'd have upgraded to the D850. As you say MP's are not the be all and end all of camera bodies but the D850 has so many other features and improvements over the d750 that it must be a much more advanced camera.

Whether you would take "better" pictures with it is another matter.
 
I'm not a Nikon user but if I was I'd have upgraded to the D850. As you say MP's are not the be all and end all of camera bodies but the D850 has so many other features and improvements over the d750 that it must be a much more advanced camera.

Whether you would take "better" pictures with it is another matter.

AF, metering. Live view, dynamic range are all really quite good on the d750 to be fair and I’d go as far to say that It’s a better body than a 5d3 but not as good as a 5d4, 810 or 850

The layout, even better AF and the resolution are the reasons to get the 850 imho

The mid way ground is a d810 which I have - I’m not upgrading as whilst there’s a bit in it - there’s not £2000 in it. From a 750 I might as I feel the only area that camera lacks is resolution and build.
 
Last edited:
D810 and D850 are around £2500 even if you sell the 750 for £700 - 800 it is still a massive outlay and would you actually see or feel about £1750's worth of improvement???

I bought a 750 around a month ago (my first FX camera) and I am over the moon with the images it takes, I also like the handling of the camera as it suits my hands perfectly although I have never tried a 800 series to see what the difference is.
 
D810 and D850 are around £2500 even if you sell the 750 for £700 - 800 it is still a massive outlay and would you actually see or feel about £1750's worth of improvement???

I bought a 750 around a month ago (my first FX camera) and I am over the moon with the images it takes, I also like the handling of the camera as it suits my hands perfectly although I have never tried a 800 series to see what the difference is.

The worth is really up to the user. If you actually make good use of the new sensor and AF then it's definitely worth it.
D750 is a fairly older body now. It's previous generation to D850. It's 5 years old nearly? Hence it's so "cheap" in comparison.
I was excepting to see a D760 or an upgrade with the sensor in Z6 and AF module D850 but not sure if that'll ever happen now.
 
When I dropped the D800 I got the D810 while waiting for repair. Even though they both have the 36MP what I did find how the D810 without the AA filter made a difference.
the difference from my D300 to the D800 only really showed up when wanting to crop into a section of a photo, and more so with the D810. That is when a larger MP gains.
Unless you are doing photography professionally then the D850 could warrant the expense, However I am quite happy with the D810 and what it can do
 
Last edited:
Very high MP show up any tiny movement you make on the shot.

People really noticed it when the 36 MP cameras came out.

I hate to think how fussy the 46 MP cameras are about your technique and skills.
I don't get this and I don't think it's true.

If you make any tiny movement on the shot, it's the size of the pixels rather than the number of pixels that determines whether or not the camera movement affects the image.

However you never hear people say that you need to have top quality technique and skills when using an entry-level DSLR. But the pixel pitch on a D3500 is only 3.89µm, compared to 4.34µm for the D850.

And you never hear people saying that you need to have top quality technique and skills if you're thinking of downsizing to a smaller camera system, but the pixel pitch on a 26 megapixel Fuji (eg X-T30 or Fuji X-T3) or a 16 megapixel Olympus (eg E-M10 III, E-M5 II) is only 3.74µm.

The D810 will record distant grasses moving even on a still day. The fine detail is incredible but it’s not an issue with lower mp cameras or m4/3rds.

You have to be critically accurate not just with the focus but the timing.

I was in Glencoe this morning - at the famous falls on the river Coupal. You’ll know the scene - the one with the waterfall and birch tree. The 810 will record a blurred branch or leaf on that tree just due to a slight wind movement. With all the will in the world if the wind gusts slightly during exposure (remember it’s a waterfall so the 1/focal length shutter speed trick won’t save you) so you’re gubbed. You not only have to focus well, but time well.
Now this I do understand. For any given composition, more pixels = finer detail = more vulnerable to subject movement. But not necessarily more vulnerable to camera movement.
 
There are many trade-offs and reasons for which camera to use. Before moving to Sony I seriously considered the D810 and D850. Although higher resolution is nice, I preferred to have a greater dynamic range from a lower resolution sensor, and also lower body weight. Plus to make use of the resolution you need top lenses, which I didn't have.
 
Doesn’t mean it’s not there and for those of us who take huge pride in our work it can be hard.

It’s a fair point.

The D810 will record distant grasses moving even on a still day. The fine detail is incredible but it’s not an issue with lower mp cameras or m4/3rds.

You have to be critically accurate not just with the focus but the timing.

I was in Glencoe this morning - at the famous falls on the river Coupal. You’ll know the scene - the one with the waterfall and birch tree. The 810 will record a blurred branch or leaf on that tree just due to a slight wind movement. With all the will in the world if the wind gusts slightly during exposure (remember it’s a waterfall so the 1/focal length shutter speed trick won’t save you) so you’re gubbed. You not only have to focus well, but time well.

The rewards are worth it though.

It's like saying the McLaren 12C (or whatever) needs more skill at 200mph than my MX5 does at 80mph, the big issue being that my MX5 wont do 200mph.

The point is that the higher res kit is only capable of reveling things that the lower kit can't because it's higher res. This is even visible with my A7 24mp shots, if I look at full sized pictures at 100% I'll see issues that just aren't visible in a downsized picture.

The other day I was out taking pictures of wild flowers. It was a windy day and I got zero real keepers because the shutter speed had to be so high as did the ISO and I had to focus where I thought the flower might be when I pressed the shutter button and time it accordingly. After processing and down sizing some of the shots look really good and easily good enough for the purpose I took them... to give to Mrs WW for her to send them off electronically to her mam to view on a tablet. At 100% on my screen I'm not happy but a full picture on a tablet looks... nice and even, lovely.

I really don't see why this should come as a shock to people or why it should put people off higher res kit. Yes, the higher res kit will show movement in grass and leaves that the lower res kit simply isn't capable of recording and showing but the higher res kit gives you more choices as you can use it in exactly the same way as you use the low res kit but when the subject and conditions allow you can record detail that goes beyond what the lower res kit is capable of. And of course there'll very probably be other benefits too.

I remember the exact same discussions when the Canon 50D came out and I'm slightly surprised that they're still going on :D
 
Last edited:
Very high MP show up any tiny movement you make on the shot.

People really noticed it when the 36 MP cameras came out.

I hate to think how fussy the 46 MP cameras are about your technique and skills.

Actually less "fussy"... this is one area the D850 improves noticeably over the 36mp cameras, I find handholding shots with the D850 much more succesful than the D800 ever was
 
I know this topic has been discussed but I’m wanting your advice.I have a Nikon D750.I’m thinking of upgrading to a D850 and I’m aware it has a lot more MPs.I know MPs is not everything in photography but considering these particular cameras is this upgrade worth it?I’m not considering another brand as I have a few expensive lenses for Nikon.

Before spending your money you really need to look at why you're even thinking about upgrading.... is your current camera meaning you miss certain types of shots? Does it not produce image quality you're happy with? Is there something specific where you feel it is lacking?? Another question to ask is are you personally making effort to get the best from it... using correct techniques, taking photos in the best light etc.

Unless I was convinced my current camera was letting me down in some way as to affect the images I'm able to capture I wouldn't bother with spending more money

Simon
 
I don't get this and I don't think it's true.

If you make any tiny movement on the shot, it's the size of the pixels rather than the number of pixels that determines whether or not the camera movement affects the image.

However you never hear people say that you need to have top quality technique and skills when using an entry-level DSLR. But the pixel pitch on a D3500 is only 3.89µm, compared to 4.34µm for the D850.

And you never hear people saying that you need to have top quality technique and skills if you're thinking of downsizing to a smaller camera system, but the pixel pitch on a 26 megapixel Fuji (eg X-T30 or Fuji X-T3) or a 16 megapixel Olympus (eg E-M10 III, E-M5 II) is only 3.74µm.


Now this I do understand. For any given composition, more pixels = finer detail = more vulnerable to subject movement. But not necessarily more vulnerable to camera movement.

Indeed but I wouldn’t know from experience. I’m good at hand holding and the heavier cameras feel great in the hands. If hand holding take a burst of shots and keep some from the middle if in doubt - but a decent tripod and self timer/cable release with the mirror locked up is the way to do it for landscapes and architecture-the only things I shoot hence why I like big pixel count cameras. Except when the wind blows and I cannot use the 1/focal length rule.

The 1/focal length rule works well to hide blurred things in the scene but it’s not always practical. Timing is key - and that I’d file under “technique” when I think on it.
 
I don't get this and I don't think it's true.

If you make any tiny movement on the shot, it's the size of the pixels rather than the number of pixels that determines whether or not the camera movement affects the image.

However you never hear people say that you need to have top quality technique and skills when using an entry-level DSLR. But the pixel pitch on a D3500 is only 3.89µm, compared to 4.34µm for the D850.

And you never hear people saying that you need to have top quality technique and skills if you're thinking of downsizing to a smaller camera system, but the pixel pitch on a 26 megapixel Fuji (eg X-T30 or Fuji X-T3) or a 16 megapixel Olympus (eg E-M10 III, E-M5 II) is only 3.74µm.


Now this I do understand. For any given composition, more pixels = finer detail = more vulnerable to subject movement. But not necessarily more vulnerable to camera movement.

Yes obviously sensor size makes a difference. I did notice it on a d5500 personally. But the people who really noticed it and openly were talking about it at the time were professionals who went from D700 to D800.
 
Hi, a rather trivial effect of higher resolution is that you can crop more (if necessary) and still have a decent picture left.

I use a D800 for cars in motion, and am glad that I can crop.

When travelling, in cities, I like to use WA primes, and can crop, if necessary.

This is a reason, why the sensor of the new Leica Q2 has 47 MP, I think ... ---
 
You only really need super high MP count if you're producing work ready for print (i.e. big billboards), but as others have alluded to, as you increase the number of pixels, you increase how sensitive the camera is to shake etc, hence why you need more complex OIS systems.

For most people, a better lens will make more of an impact (i.e. once you've got a camera that has the main features nailed).
 
You only really need super high MP count if you're producing work ready for print (i.e. big billboards), but as others have alluded to, as you increase the number of pixels, you increase how sensitive the camera is to shake etc, hence why you need more complex OIS systems.

For most people, a better lens will make more of an impact (i.e. once you've got a camera that has the main features nailed).

That isn't actually true though, it's a common misconception though.

I have had photos displayed on large billboards none of them where taken with a super high MP count camera.

Because of the distance people are from a billboard when they view them image quality isn't actually that important.

The graphic designer guys that make the ad copy for billboards generally only use a small part of the image any way. A few years ago I had an image used on a billboard that was taken with 12 megapixel D700. The image was heavily cropped and still looked great.

I also had a few images a couple of years ago used in an advertising campaign, these where printed huge at least 10 times bigger than any billboard I have ever seen in the U.K. They where taken with a D750.

In saying that I did do a commercial shoot with another photographer a few years ago for a clothing brand and he asked me to use the D800 I had at the time because it was higher resolution. That was mainly just to give the graphics design guys a bit more to play with in terms of cropping for different ad formats though.

There are a few who shoot very high megapixel medium format for this type of thing, usually the fashion guys but not many.
 
Last edited:
Hi, it is always good when a professional states his view ...

There is a big difference between having the need and feeling the need.

An amateur, like myself, can happily do what pleases him, without looking at the financial side.

So, I am happy with my cameras Leica M9, Sony A7R2, Nikon D800 (and others), and lots of lenses.

We shall see what need(s) I feel next ... --- :)
 
Pixels aside the best thing about the D810 and D850 is iso64. That’s 2/3 stop better than a D750 at base iso. Which translates to lower noise/ more lifting of shadows and will be similar to a medium format at 160iso in noise terms.
 
Pixels aside the best thing about the D810 and D850 is iso64. That’s 2/3 stop better than a D750 at base iso. Which translates to lower noise/ more lifting of shadows and will be similar to a medium format at 160iso in noise terms.

The difference you have mentioned is negligible to the point of being no difference at all.
 
I know this topic has been discussed but I’m wanting your advice.I have a Nikon D750.I’m thinking of upgrading to a D850 and I’m aware it has a lot more MPs.I know MPs is not everything in photography but considering these particular cameras is this upgrade worth it?I’m not considering another brand as I have a few expensive lenses for Nikon.
I've not read all the responses so I'm sure that this has been covered to death already. I 'upgraded' from the D750 to the D850 but I wouldn't do it for image quality alone. I would argue that the D850 files are better than the D750 in certain situations but this is probably due to lack of AA filter rather than MP, don't forget computer monitors and TVs etc aren't able to display all the MP of the D750 let alone the D850. 4k TV's are only 8.3mp, and even the iMac 5k screen is 'only' around 14mp IIRC. According to test scores the D850 has marginally better DR, but I very much doubt you'd see this in the real world. Where the MP helped for me was wildlife when I needed/wanted to crop heavily.

Where the D850 is better is in build, LCD, viewfinder, frame rate, buffer and maybe a coupe of other little bits I've forgotten. However, there are a couple of negatives of the D850 in relation to the D750 and that is weight and noise handling, although I never found the latter an issue at all, I could still 'happily' shoot at 12800 ISO.
 
Back
Top