Why upgrade for more MP

[chauncey]

It was eight years ago that I upgraded to a Canon 1Ds Mark III...I wanted a camera that convinced
me that any errors were my fault. At the same time I got addicted to Photoshop.
That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as
I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

[James G]

William, in general, I'd support your proposition. I suspect that sensor size is a more important influencing factor for most processing these days than pixel count.

I upgraded my Canon7D M1 to the Mk2 recently, but pixel count was irrelevant. Of more relevance was the improvement to camera functions (linked in part to sensor improvements) over the last 5-8 years.

I hesitate though to totally endorse the proposition because stacking and merging must be usable techniques for processing the image, and I've been in situations where this is simply not possible.

I'm thinking particularly of insect macro,where being able to fill the frame is not always possible and stacking/merging rarely works with live subjects. Under those circumstances cropping is often unavoidable, and the starting number of pixels available on the sensor becomes much more important.

But ... in respect of your last statement...

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

I wouldn't.... but I'm not interested in having the latest bells and whistles.... I'm still hesitating to upgrade to Photoshop CC from CS6 because it is only bells and whistles...(probably! )

[xpatUSA]

William, in general, I'd support your proposition. I suspect that sensor size is a more important influencing factor for most processing these days than pixel count.

I upgraded my Canon7D M1 to the Mk2 recently, but pixel count was irrelevant. Of more relevance was the improvement to camera functions (linked in part to sensor improvements) over the last 5-8 years.

I too upgraded last year from Sigma SD14 to Sigma SD1 Merrill. In your terms, quite a leap because they reduced pixel pitch and increased sensor size at the same time. Pitch went from 7.8um down to 4.99um and size went up from 1.7 crop to 1.5 crop. 4.7MP to 15MP in one hop!

[rpcrowe]

It was eight years ago that I upgraded to a Canon 1Ds Mark III...I wanted a camera that convinced
me that any errors were my fault. At the same time I got addicted to Photoshop.
That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as
I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

Stacking and merging are not an option unless one is shooting some (definitely not all) landscapes and/or still life shots.

Shooting anything that has any sort of movement and planning to stack or merge is not a viable option.

OTOH: I am not an advocate of changing cameras for some extra pixels.

I strongly suggest that many of us (and I definitely include myself in that category) do not achieve the ultimate quality which our equipment is capable of achieving.

[Steaphany]

...Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

It all depends on the depth of your pockets, your budget, and your desire for ever greater Bell & Whistle Factor. For some, even their budget ranks less than their desire for the latest Bleeding Edge Technology. Newness is all that matters to people like this and they are forever dissatisfied by their current gear when their favourite brand announces the Next Best Thing.

Like you, I choose to stay with technology that performs to my liking. ( Somewhat obvious from my signature )

[Mike Buckley]

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

For many people, artistic and technical accomplishments are only some of the goals. Many other goals, especially for hobbyists, are satisfied only by using the latest equipment being produced, whether the primary change in specification has to do with megapixels or any other number of details. There's not a thing wrong with people enjoying their hobby for whatever reasons they have for enjoying them.

[MrB]

Provided the technology has advanced, e.g. so that high ISO quality is at least as good, more pixels can be useful for image cropping - effectively increasing the reach of the lens(es) that you own or have with you at the time of shooting.

Cheers.
Philip

[george013]

With more MP you'll have to compress the image more to get a standard full-screen image, or a A4 print. I'm still not sure what the influence is on that.

George

[Shadowman]

I upgraded for other reasons (more focus indicators-first camera only had three, bracketing feature, fps, etc.) the extra mp just came with the upgrade.

[chauncey]

There is no question that moving objects create a challenge, but...it is not insurmountable.
Just takes patience.

[Manfred M]

For images that I display on the internet, frankly a 4MP camera would be more that sufficient as most screens out in the wild are running around 2MP, and the 4MP screens are growing.

More MP is useful for printing and in some circumstances merging images can give you excellent results. I've seen images done with a modern DSLR that were in the order of 2ft x 6ft that were quite acceptable, even though there was a good deal of upsampling involved in making the print.

If I were to regularly go for images to be printed at those sizes and greater, I would move to a medium format camera or even a film field camera and scan the negatives. Improved pixel density is one thing, but starting off with a larger image is probably a more logical progression.

[IzzieK]

...Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

I have not read any responses here yet, but let me say I am one example of upgrading and thinking before that, that I might improve my photography, my images per se. Let me just say, it did...and if some of you had seen some of my inputs, I had improved on quite a bit of them, well excepting my use of UWA. And I am happy with my improvements so far...so good. But not before knowing how this camera operates (D810). Now that I know how it does and what it can do for me, I am sticking to it. In the meantime, I am also learning the operation of my other lesser cameras (DX)...and capable of teaching basic operation to newbies with both FX and DX lenses...and also learned that some DX lenses just isn't compatible with FX lens as I thought it would be...go figure...

[NorthernFocus]

...Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as
I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

I need to learn that technique. How do you stack and merge birds in flight shots?

[george013]

I don't know why it's an upgrade.
Nikon has 2 topmodel camara's: the D800 and the D4 resp. 36.3 and 16.2 Mp.

A remark to the crop-possibility. With a crop you imitate a smaller sensor. This has consequences for the CoC and the angle of view and their associated items.

A smaller pixel means more sensitive for lens faults and diffraction.

More pixels mean more write time.

George

PS.
And the D4 with less pixels is about double the price of the D800.

[MrB]

I don't know why it's an upgrade.....
A remark to the crop-possibility. With a crop you imitate a smaller sensor. This has consequences for the CoC and the angle of view and their associated items.

There are often several physical factors requiring compromises to be made when choosing equipment, but decisions made also depend on the needs of the photographer. E.g. Someone who includes wildlife among their subjects of interest might welcome the crop-possibility of more pixels. A 1/2 linear crop (similar to using 2X zoom) would give only a 4MP image from a 16MP sensor, but a 9MP image from a 36MP sensor, good for at least an A4 or 12x8 inch print. In terms of this sort of practical application, this photographer might well consider more pixels to be a very useful upgrade.

Cheers.
Philip

[Dave Humphries]

I agree with Philip, when I upgraded from my D5000 (12MP) to the D7100 (24MP), there were two main reasons;

a) better ergonomics (in most respects*)
b) the sensor has a "1.3 x" RAW crop mode**, so I can shoot a 15 MP image, giving my telephoto wildlife shots more reach and still have a few more pixels to play with than D5000 images

* I do miss the variable angle LCD (the D5000 has) - as many may know, this is available on the D7200, but for that feature alone, I cannot justify the expense.

** Yeah, I know, it's just 'digital zoom' - and most of us avoid that like the plague, but the point is, it is a useful compromise of ratio vs pixel loss, compared to standard digital zoom which might be "2 x " losing 3/4 of the pixels. It leaves sufficient pixels to still artistically crop in PP as necessary.

[george013]

There are often several physical factors requiring compromises to be made when choosing equipment, but decisions made also depend on the needs of the photographer. E.g. Someone who includes wildlife among their subjects of interest might welcome the crop-possibility of more pixels. A 1/2 linear crop (similar to using 2X zoom) would give only a 4MP image from a 16MP sensor, but a 9MP image from a 36MP sensor, good for at least an A4 or 12x8 inch print. In terms of this sort of practical application, this photographer might well consider more pixels to be a very useful upgrade.

Cheers.
Philip

The pixel amount will be ok. But the needed coc will be half the used coc. So for the same print with the same sharpness you need a smaller diaphragm. It's more than only cutting a piece out off the image.

George

[MrB]

...when I upgraded from my D5000 (12MP) to the D7100 (24MP), there were two main reasons;

a) better ergonomics (in most respects*)
b) the sensor has a "1.3 x" RAW crop mode**, so I can shoot a 15 MP image, giving my telephoto wildlife shots more reach and still have a few more pixels to play with than D5000 images

...** Yeah, I know, it's just 'digital zoom'...

Dave, please correct me if my simple understanding of this is wrong, but I think that your camera's 'raw crop mode' is not quite the same as 'digital zoom'. In the raw crop, the data for each pixel in the image file corresponds to the actual light values captured by the equivalent pixel on the sensor, whereas if it was digital zoom, the 15 MP's captured data would have been messed about by up-sampling to produce a 24MP image file. I have no idea whether and/or how that might influence the processing and/or the final image for viewing, although intuitively to me it seems reasonable to guess that 'raw crop' should be a better mode than 'digital zoom', as you have the true raw data to play around with in PP.

Cheers.
Philip

[Dave Humphries]

You're probably technically right Philip, although it is still basically throwing away pixels - just not as many

Anyway, I'm happy with it.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

My first digital camera was a Nikon CoolPix 995. What is that, a 3.2mp camera?
I used that for 8(?)yrs or so, till one day my WIFE asked me if maybe we shouldn't think about UPGRADING the camera, well, because the kids were getting older and we'd be doing more stuff with them and their sports activities. This was about the time the D80 came out. I thought about it, but, and this is where she really got confused, I didn't act on it right away. Took me about another year before I said OK, it's time to go BIG. Remember, I was the father of two, both of whom had needs (besides food, clothing, shelter, computers, food, more clothes, well, you get the idea). And I am married to a woman whose taste in sewing machines runs circles around my need to upgrade the camera, which would also mean an upgrade would be needed in my computer to handle the bigger files etc.
See where this is going?
It's that danged slippery slope thing.
Anyways, one day I'm at a Cars and Coffee thing with a friend of mine who is shooting his D80. He asks me if I'd hold it for him while he goes to see a man about a horse. I ask if there's film in it and he just gives me a funny look as he hands it to me.
I was sunk, hook, line, sinker, the whole dang pole.
That camera fit my hand like a well worn glove. I fired off about 25 shots before he returned.
Needless to say, I had one by the end of the following week.
When my son showed up one day, on his way to Singapore for work, with a D7000 kit he'd just bought that day, I was green with envy. More for his ability at that age to go out and spend that kind of coin without thinking hard about it. The camera was pretty nice too. I upgraded the D80 to a D7000 about a year later. I've since supplemented it with a Nex-7 so I can use all my old lens with it. I've learned that the glass has a lot more to do with the image than anything else. Just like the speakers in a stereo system.
Most days I feel guilty having all this photographic technology available to me, knowing I don't even come close to getting the most out it.
Now, if I could magically turn my M3 into an A7ii, I MIGHT be happy.

Go for the mega pixels, more is certainly always better.