Crop Frame D5200-24 MP

[Nicks Pics]

Hi folks,

I'm looking at the Nikon D5200. Firstly I was just wondering: has anyone had experience with this camera? Or do you think it would perform nicely for birds and wildlife? The 5300 is also of interest; I it seems to be fairly similar with few slightly upgraded features.

I am slightly concerned about the 24 mp sensor being an overshot on pixel count. A popular perspective seems to be that more mega pixels might not actually improve quality if it means the pixels are smaller. Yet on the other hand, it seems that I have heard people attribute great detail in their photos to high pixel count thinking of it as an advantage. So this would be a point of discussion I would be interested in as well as any general approval or disapproval of this camera for my purposes, which are bird and wildlife shooting, and I also may need the 30 fps movie format.

Thanks for any input!

[Shadowman]

What sized images do you plan to print if any, mega pixels play a role here although you can print larger than the 20"x13" size calculated at 300 ppi? 5fps helps with BIF.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks for your thoughts John, I would like to be able to make prints, Do you think 24 mp would handle a 20X13, or so, sized print better than a 16 mp, or is that not large enough for it to matter? I am not real sure about how pixels translate into ppi or dpi output from a printer.

[NorthernFocus]

...I am slightly concerned about the 24 mp sensor being an overshot on pixel count. A popular perspective seems to be that more mega pixels might not actually improve quality if it means the pixels are smaller...

If you plan/need to shoot at ISO setting that will produce noise AND plan on either printing larger than 8x10/12 OR crop heavily, then it is true that more, smaller pixels aren't necessarily a good thing.

The flip side is that if you tend to shoot in good light and don't crop significantly, then more pixels means more detail which is rarely a bad thing. Even if you shoot at high ISO but only use the images for web content, then downsizing high pixel count images is an effective way of reducing noise.

But at the end of the day, talking about any sensor performance is relative. As in relative to what? What are you currently shooting or what are considering other than the D5200?

[Shadowman]

Thanks for your thoughts John, I would like to be able to make prints, Do you think 24 mp would handle a 20X13, or so, sized print better than a 16 mp, or is that not large enough for it to matter? I am not real sure about how pixels translate into ppi or dpi output from a printer.

Nick,

I've printed a 36"x24" image of the Bay Bridge, well lit scene and recently a 30"x20" full body backlit scene of two dancers with exceptionally good results. I've been lately pushing the D5200 shooting lowlight images with high ISO settings, part of the success has been camera capability, lens quality, and post processing methods.

[Nicks Pics]

If you plan/need to shoot at ISO setting that will produce noise AND plan on either printing larger than 8x10/12 OR crop heavily, then it is true that more, smaller pixels aren't necessarily a good thing.

The flip side is that if you tend to shoot in good light and don't crop significantly, then more pixels means more detail which is rarely a bad thing. Even if you shoot at high ISO but only use the images for web content, then downsizing high pixel count images is an effective way of reducing noise.

But at the end of the day, talking about any sensor performance is relative. As in relative to what? What are you currently shooting or what are considering other than the D5200?

Thanks for your thoughts Dan, What I am currently shooting is a 16 mp 1/2.3 sensor bridge camera with a long zoom, I'm hoping for better IQ and less noise. I am trying for general birds and wildlife, nothing very specific, and with that of course sometimes the lighting is bright, and other times rather dim. I often wish to use 1600 or 3200 iso, though I understand that would be pushing the noise limit for many cameras. I am also considering the d5300, and I was considering a used d7000, 16 mp, but it doesn't have a 30fps movie format. The thing is that most cameras at the d5200 level or higherseem to have 24 mp, or more, in the Nikon line, whether or not it's a good balance of sensor size to pixel size. I would like to be able to print some, but have not done it much.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks John, I missed your post while replying to Dan,

I've printed a 36"x24" image of the Bay Bridge, well lit scene and recently a 30"x20" full body backlit scene of two dancers with exceptionally good results. I've been lately pushing the D5200 shooting lowlight images with high ISO settings, part of the success has been camera capability, lens quality, and post processing methods.

Sounds like you have have had some good printing success with the d5200. I saw it well rated for low light on http://snapsort.com/cameras/Nikon-D5200-specs this website.

[Adrian]

If you do not already have Nikon lenses, I would have a good look at the Sony and Canon offerings as well as Nikon. Your mention of desire to do video triggers this remark.

For birds I would be pretty tempted by the Canon EOS 7D Mk II. Probably with a Tamron 150-600mm zoom and a walk around lens such as 24-105 or 24-70. In my experience Canon and Nikon are pretty much equivalent, but Canon is a better bet for video. Video has come on in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years.

You will be shocked at how much heavier this gear is to lug around.

For birds in flight (again in my limited experience and having just done a couple of bird photography courses) you need to be as close as possible, you need a bigger lens than you think, you need really good autofocus and focus tracking and you need a lot of practice!

To print anything at 30x20 first you need a super sharp, well composed shot. I would not be worrying overmuch about pixel count between 16 & 24 MP: we have a selection of cameras and frankly technique is the biggest limiting factor.

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Adrian

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks for your suggestions Adrian,

For birds in flight (again in my limited experience and having just done a couple of bird photography courses) you need to be as close as possible, you need a bigger lens than you think, you need really good auto focus and focus tracking and you need a lot of practice!

I'm thinking of starting with a good 18-55 mm (on crop frame) lens for video, and if I did so I may have to save a big lens purchase for some time in the hopefully soon future. I could say more about lenses now, but I don't want to start a rabbit trail I considered Sony very slightly, but felt safer to go with a more widely accepted brand. However, I assume they have some nice stuff.

[dje]

Nick I agree with Adrian on video performance ie Sony and Canon do it better. If you are really set on Nikon, i'd recommend you try out a D5300 and say a Canon 70D or 7D II in a shop comparing video performance - particularly how autofocus performs as the distance to subject changes.

Dave

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks Dave, I think Nikon have improved video features in the last several years, but I should look into it more.

Have you used the d5300 for video?

[dje]

Thanks Dave, I think Nikon have improved video features in the last several years, but I should look into it more.

Have you used the d5300 for video?

Yes Nick I think they probably have improved in recent years. I haven't tried the D5300 on video, just the D610 (and only one short test). My main concern with it was that continuous autofocus was slow to respond. I'm currently away from home but could do some more tests on it next week.

Dpreview should have info on this.

Dave

[xpatUSA]

I am not real sure about how pixels translate into ppi or dpi output from a printer.

I don't print but I may be able to help with that. Try thinking backwards as regards translation.

1) decide print size, say 20x13".
2) decide a reasonable viewing distance which tells you what ppi you might need - also you need to know your printer's preferred settings usually 180, 360, 720 and up or 150, 300, 600 and up. So, at 8 ft distance you might prefer 360ppi.
3) to figure that out in image pixels, multiply the print inch sizes by the ppi number. It will come to 7200x4680px.

Now you know that, on a pixel to print ratio of 1:1, your camera has insufficient pixels for that print size at that ppi. Do not panic! There are many ways to skin that particular cat and the printing cognoscenti here can give you better advice than I can.

My tuppence worth:

If, on the other hand, your printer does 300 ppi then - instead - your image must be at least 6000x3900px which is almost exactly the same as your 6000x4000px D5200 images (not much room for cropping though, well, none actually). So, some folks would print at 150 or 180 ppi. Others might buy a 36MP camera

Hope this helps . . .

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks very much for the explanation. I did not know that equation, but could you help specify what the print inch size number is as you mentioned here?

multiply the print inch sizes by the ppi number. It will come to 7200x4680px.

Thank you. I do not own the d5200, or d5300 at this point, just looking, but it is helpful to know what print sizes they could achive in making decisions.

[Inkanyezi]

I would like to be able to make prints, Do you think 24 mp would handle a 20X13, or so, sized print better than a 16 mp, or is that not large enough for it to matter? I am not real sure about how pixels translate into ppi or dpi output from a printer.

There has been a lot of confusion about these issues, and I think much of it remains in the answers in this thread.

I am not sure that I could resolve much or any at all of that confusion, but there is no direct relationship between pixel count and DPI of a printer. Moreover, a digital image does not have any inches, so your digital image does not have any PPI (pixels per inch), unless you specify a size, although you can set a PPI value, which will also specify a particular physical size.

Roughly, you can multiply the pixels per inch with five to get dots per inch.

You need not worry about the possible image quality output from your camera, regarding megapixels. It is sufficient for ANY size print. If you like to cover a huge wall or if you print more ordinary sizes as 8x10 or your suggested 20x13, all modern cameras have sufficient pixel count. You will not notice the difference between a 36 megapixel sensor or a 24 megapixel sensor when printing.

And no, you could probably not discern any difference between 16, 24 or 36 megapixels in a 20x13 print.

Some of the confusion arises from using different ways of representing resolution, either linearly or square. The pixel count is an area figure, while the PPI count is a linear figure. They should not be confused. You have to square the linear figure or draw out the square root from the area figure to compare them. A six megapixel image has exactly half the resolution of a 24 megapixel image, and 36 megapixel is 22 % higher resolution than 24 megapixel.

The 24 megapixel sensor has roughly 4000x6000 pixels, and with 300 PPI (pixels per inch), it represents an image that is 13x20 inches. It prints to that size in roughly 1500 DPI, and its linear resolution is about six line pairs per millimetre. Raising pixel count to 36 megapixel would give a resolution of about seven line pairs per millimetre at about 370 PPI, printing at about 1800 DPI. The difference would not be discernable from normal viewing distance, but looking closely with a loupe maybe...

In essence, your megapixels won't be critical, but there is a huge difference between a bridge camera sensor and a DX sensor, regardless of pixel count. The six megapixel D40 will produce better tonality and sharper images than the sixteen megapixel bridge camera, because the sensor is larger. It is not primarily pixel count that governs image quality, but other factors as lighting and image content as well as sharpness, contrast and dynamic range.

The problem with trying to explain it in words is that any verbal description might confuse even more. There is a rather comprehensive webpage that resolves some of the issues at: http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/index.html

If you want more megapixels, you can simply upsize your image with software. below is an example of an image upsized from 12 megapixel to 48. If you open it and set it to cover your entire screen, it might be about two megapixel there. At 100 % it will be two metres wide with a pixel pitch of 0.25 mm.

[Acorn]

I went through this hoop a few years back when I decided to purchase a digital camera. I had previously used film via a Nikon F3. My initial digital choice was a bridge camera with a 1/2.3 sensor. Also like yourself, photographing wildlife, particularly birds, it was not really up to the job in terms of large prints from heavily cropped images. I now shoot wildlife stills with a Nikon D7000 (16mp) and this provides the answer in terms of eliminating the noise I experienced with a bridge camera shooting at 400 or 800 ISO. I cannot comment from experience about video sequences from still cameras.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks very much for the explanation. I did not know that equation, but could you help specify what the print inch size number is as you mentioned here?

Certainly. By print inch size, I meant the size of the print in inches, for example 5x7, 8x10, 10x16, and many other sizes - some standard, some not. So, using the method that I explained, for an 8 x 10 print at 360 ppi the image size in pixels would be (8 x 360) by (10 x 360) = a 2880x3600px image. Don't be tempted to convert that image size to MP because camera images are usually 3:2 aspect ratio whereas an 8x10 print is 5:4 aspect ratio.

I am only talking about a straight relationship from image to print here. That is to say, you can print an image as large as you like from any pixel size but now the editor's print function will re-size your masterpiece and adjust the file it sends to the printer accordingly. Alternatively, you could re-size your image in the editor before printing but now you have a less perfect image than as-shot; however, this is indeed how most people print large images. Remember, early digital cameras were 1 to 3 MP but that didn't stop people printing posters!

Thank you. I do not own the d5200, or d5300 at this point, just looking, but it is helpful to know what print sizes they could achieve in making decisions.

Well, the D5200 is 6000x4000px. The biggest prints (without re-sizing) that can be made from that image size are:

150 ppi 26x40"
180 ppi 22x33"
300 ppi 13x20"
360 ppi 11x16"
600 ppi 6x10"
720 ppi 5x8"

[edit] you can find out camera image pixel sizes by going to dpreview.com and looking at the specifications in their camera reviews [/edit]

None of the above are standard print sizes, so you can see that 360 ppi would be needed for an 8x10" print. Note, too, that the ppi numbers above are printer 'native' values. In the editor print function that number can be anything but it may be that using the printer native ppi gets you a better print (my speculation). Others here will know more about that. Comments invited.

[Nicks Pics]

Urban Domeij, and Ted,
Thanks for the technical explanation, I think it sounds like a 24 mp camera will be usable for typical printing needs. I think perhaps I should come back and look over some of the printing info here when I get around to doing some printing next.

[Nicks Pics]

Update to thread: I am also looking into the Nikon D7100

[JR1]

Remember many "pro" cameras still shoot at 16/18mp

I know club members who have the 5100/5200/5300 and they love the camera and use it a lot for macro and sports

I use the D7000/7100 and love them for sports as the crop helps with tele lenses