Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising
Pirate123

Winter Garden, US
25 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
Pirate123 Registered since 19th Feb 2013
Thu 06-Jun-13 02:02 PM

One of the selling points for the D7100 is the 24MP CMOS sensor. If you are never going to to do very large enlargements why would anyone shoot at 24MP? Isn't it just overkill? It would seem like shooting large, fine in the 1.3 crop mode which produces approx 15MP would be sufficient.

Bill Kennedy

Christiansburg, US
1171 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 0

Bill Kennedy Gold Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2013
Thu 06-Jun-13 01:07 PM

So you can crop!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Pirate123

Winter Garden, US
25 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 1

Pirate123 Registered since 19th Feb 2013
Thu 06-Jun-13 01:52 PM

>So you can crop!

I see. So if you intent to crop you can get a better quality photo by cropping from a 24MP vs a 15 MP file.

Bill Kennedy

Christiansburg, US
1171 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 2

Bill Kennedy Gold Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2013
Thu 06-Jun-13 02:31 PM

Yes, and I find that no matter how much time I spend composing the photo. once I get it on the monitor I can improve it by cropping.

I also find the 1.3 crop mode kind of a gimmick--all you are doing is cropping down the full size image and the viewfinder is showing the 1.5 crop limited by the sensor with a rectangular window showing the 1.3 crop. Why not just take the full size image and crop in post--gives you more options.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

billD80

US
2241 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 3

billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007
Thu 06-Jun-13 02:42 PM

I tend to crop about 2% of my images, and I exhibit/sell 20x30's all the time...

The D7100, with the right lens is capable of crazy resolution, though it may well go to waste on smaller prints. Still, it's nice having extra gas in the tank, plus the fact the AF is excellent.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

JPJ

Toronto, CA
1327 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 0

JPJ Silver Member Nikonian since 19th Aug 2009
Thu 06-Jun-13 03:54 PM

Another advantage, besides cropping, is the ability to down sample images to the size equivalent of a 16 or 12 MP photo which can be very effective in reducing the appearance of noise without applying actual noise reduction.

I was completely against the increase in megapixels, but after months of using the D800e, I am finding them overall to be a huge advantage.

Jason

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

MarkM10431

jacksonville, US
699 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#6. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 5

MarkM10431 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Apr 2013
Thu 06-Jun-13 09:08 PM

I also tend to think with the extra information being saved, especially with RAW images, you have much more to work with. I suspect (though I have yet to try it) I might be able to pull better HDR with a single 24 MP raw file than three 10 MP bracketed files from my old D80.. note to self to try that

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

RRowlett

Hamilton, US
1258 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 0

RRowlett Gold Member Charter Member
Thu 06-Jun-13 10:26 PM

Cropping at the sensor at time of capture to 15 mpixel is not the same as resampling the 24 mpixel image to 15 mpixesl (binning) or simply collecting a 15 mpixel image in the first place from a full-size DX sensor (with larger, more efficient, light-gathering photocells). By cropping at the sensor, you are basically using your D7100 like a 4/3 format camera, with all the disadvantages of smaller individual photocells with no frame-wide resolution compensation.

The whole point of the 24 Mpixel sensor is to achieve higher spatial resolution in the final image. If you don't need the spatial resolution, then you are best served by downsampling the image (binning) to increase signal to noise. This is done routinely in scientific imaging where we might use 2x2 binning to increase the effective size of a pixel--in this case each "pixel" is a combination of the intensities from each of 4 pixels. It's a little more complicated for a color camera sensor than a single-color sensor, but the principle of binning is approximately the same.

Cheers.

Bill Kennedy

Christiansburg, US
1171 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 7

Bill Kennedy Gold Member Nikonian since 17th Jan 2013
Fri 07-Jun-13 09:17 AM

"By cropping at the sensor, you are basically using your D7100 like a 4/3 format camera, with all the disadvantages of smaller individual photocells with no frame-wide resolution compensation"

Excellent point!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Rob_ZN

Durban, ZA
108 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#9. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 0

Rob_ZN Registered since 23rd Dec 2012
Fri 07-Jun-13 09:48 AM | edited Fri 07-Jun-13 09:49 AM by Rob_ZN

I think the simplest answer to that question is - "Because I can"

I shoot full resolution on a D800 and though I may not need to, it's nice to know that I can get a 40cm X 60cm print (or so) without resampling anything.

ndtking

Kitchener, CA
216 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 0

ndtking Silver Member Nikonian since 16th Jun 2008
Fri 07-Jun-13 10:05 AM

I think the only advantage of the 1.3 crop is a faster frame rate. If that is a concern, then go ahead and use the 1.3 crop - otherwise I think you're better off to start with the full 24MP and do cropping and resampling in post.

Gerry King
Ontarian Nikonian
Flickr Gallery:www.flickr.com/photos/ndtking

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

sabbey51

Saddle River, US
649 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#11. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 10

sabbey51 Gold Member Nikonian since 10th Jan 2010
Fri 07-Jun-13 03:10 PM

More data is always better than less data.

cockers

Plover, US
5035 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#12. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 11

cockers Gold Member Nikonian since 25th May 2006
Fri 07-Jun-13 04:14 PM | edited Fri 07-Jun-13 04:15 PM by cockers

Not if it is to be cropped of anyway.

Al

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

mudman2

Jamison, US
188 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#13. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 11

mudman2 Silver Member Nikonian since 14th May 2009
Sat 08-Jun-13 09:47 AM

>More data is always better than less data.

Same as audio +1

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

jec6613

Norwalk, US
1315 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#14. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 7

jec6613 Registered since 12th Feb 2013
Sat 08-Jun-13 10:51 AM

>Cropping at the sensor at time of capture to 15 mpixel is not
>the same as resampling the 24 mpixel image to 15 mpixesl
>(binning) or simply collecting a 15 mpixel image in the first
>place from a full-size DX sensor (with larger, more efficient,
>light-gathering photocells). By cropping at the sensor, you
>are basically using your D7100 like a 4/3 format camera, with
>all the disadvantages of smaller individual photocells with no
>frame-wide resolution compensation.

I think the point of the crop mode is that it gives you a faster frame rate and deeper buffer, with no other changes to the camera.

Also, the 24 MP does mean that noise is less noticeable at high ISOs when printed or viewed on a normal size screen, as the noise tends to average out from several nearby pixels.

km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
3576 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#15. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 13

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009
Wed 12-Jun-13 12:40 PM

Technically better but not aesthetically in either images and audio. Both rely on content more than resolution and bandwidth to determine whether a work is compelling. Many times additional resolution detracts from the message or idea.
I worked in an industry for 35 years where content or perception over shadowed technical quality by many orders of magnitude. The same in every photo and art gallery in the world
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Omaha

Omaha, US
566 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#16. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 15

Omaha Registered since 07th Jan 2012
Wed 12-Jun-13 03:15 PM

That's the fundamental truth of all of this. No camera has ever taken an iconic photo.

Visit my Nikonians gallery
Most of my Nikon photos end up here.

km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
3576 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#17. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 16

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009
Thu 13-Jun-13 05:16 AM | edited Thu 13-Jun-13 05:26 AM by km6xz

A good analogy was related to a long conversation last night. A friend and client came over last night for me to advise him about a new audio effects processor. He is investing a lot of money in trying to get pristine recordings of his original music. One 1954 built German mic he added to this home studio was $5200. A small rack mount summing buss was 2800, His cables, monitors, monitor amps additional mics, eqs etc is over $60,000 and nothing has been recorded yet. His whole focus is on getting a technically perfect sound.
I asked him to name a few important songs in his life that made a difference. He names several. I had to inform him of how they were recorded and with what equipment and the, technically inferior product they were. That made my point to him, no one cares or notices technical aspects of a song or photo or painting unless it is a bad song, photo or painting for content reasons. He could not describe any faults in those songs because the compelling song transcends the technical realm. The brain fills in what is needs to and ignores what it needs to if the core image intrigues or compels enough to capture the emotions or imagination.
No great song has been ruined by poor technical processes, nor has a great photo. But no bad song or image become desirable or evocative due to its technical aspects, any more than a painting became desirable because of technical aspects of the pigment or canvas, r brushes. In my friend's case I had to chastise him for getting caught up in the technical process of making rather than performing it. I have heard the songs on his project and nothing stood out as really interesting. Nothing on the production side is going to change that, whether he spent $1 or $1million. I find that the fascination for hobbyists in the creative arts often gets sidetracked into focus on technical details of lenses or minute resolution differences when it is usually a way of seeming to be creative, when they have nothing compelling to share. So for many, the hobby becomes the equipment, not use use of it in creating something that would be a new standalone entity of art. A lot, if not the majority have a hobby of photographic equipment and processes but not making photographs. There are far more posts on camera forums than photo forums.

This is where the idea of pixel peeping has harmed creative output much more than aided. Pixel peepers are almost alway equipment hobbyists, not photo art hobbyists. Hi-End hi-fi people are equipment hobbyists and seldom care as much for the music. They say they are great music fans but watching their behavior dispels that notion.

Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Bravozulu

Los Angeles, US
762 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#18. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 17

Bravozulu Registered since 04th Jun 2012
Thu 27-Jun-13 06:41 PM

Stan, that was great wisdom. Putting metrics on human creativity diverts a person's attention from the creative process to hardware fascination. Great for the camera manufacturers, but beside the point to the rest of us.

Gone are the days of the 36 exposure roll of film, which forced the photographer to be economical with his shots and to think ahead and look closely at the scene. I love the freedom of digital, and the unreal convenience of it all, but I think the point of photography is to get the human brain inserted in the process. To make aesthetic and technical adjustments that support the photographer's vision.

Think of what it means to cram 1000 images on an SD card. Wow. What a temptation to become a machine gunner.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

lautry

Panama City Beach, US
121 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#19. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 17

lautry Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Oct 2011
Tue 02-Jul-13 06:57 PM

a good response, Stan. I tend to "get over" my perfectionist tendencies as I get older. Your friend will come to realize one day he can have the best equipment and set up available but his aging eyes and ears will never let him completely appreciate it as they once might have when he was younger. Sorry for getting off post subject here.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

walkerr

Colorado Springs, US
16977 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#20. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 17

walkerr Administrator Awarded for his con tributed articles published at the Resources Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in multiple areas Master Ribbon awarded as a member who has gone beyond technical knowledge to show mastery of the art and science of photography   Donor Ribbon awarded for his most generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 05th May 2002
Tue 02-Jul-13 07:05 PM

Very well put, Stan.

Rick Walker

My photos:

GeoVista Photography

MarkM10431

jacksonville, US
699 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#21. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 17

MarkM10431 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Apr 2013
Tue 02-Jul-13 08:28 PM

>A good analogy was related to a long conversation last night.
>A friend and client came over last night for me to advise him
>about a new audio effects processor. He is investing a lot of
>money in trying to get pristine recordings of his original
>music. One 1954 built German mic he added to this home studio
>was $5200. A small rack mount summing buss was 2800, His
>cables, monitors, monitor amps additional mics, eqs etc is
>over $60,000 and nothing has been recorded yet. His whole
>focus is on getting a technically perfect sound.
>I asked him to name a few important songs in his life that
>made a difference. He names several. I had to inform him of
>how they were recorded and with what equipment and the,
>technically inferior product they were. That made my point to
>him, no one cares or notices technical aspects of a song or
>photo or painting unless it is a bad song, photo or painting
>for content reasons. He could not describe any faults in those
>songs because the compelling song transcends the technical
>realm. The brain fills in what is needs to and ignores what it
>needs to if the core image intrigues or compels enough to
>capture the emotions or imagination.
>No great song has been ruined by poor technical processes, nor
>has a great photo. But no bad song or image become desirable
>or evocative due to its technical aspects, any more than a
>painting became desirable because of technical aspects of the
>pigment or canvas, r brushes. In my friend's case I had to
>chastise him for getting caught up in the technical process of
>making rather than performing it. I have heard the songs on
>his project and nothing stood out as really interesting.
>Nothing on the production side is going to change that,
>whether he spent $1 or $1million. I find that the fascination
>for hobbyists in the creative arts often gets sidetracked into
>focus on technical details of lenses or minute resolution
>differences when it is usually a way of seeming to be
>creative, when they have nothing compelling to share. So for
>many, the hobby becomes the equipment, not use use of it in
>creating something that would be a new standalone entity of
>art. A lot, if not the majority have a hobby of photographic
>equipment and processes but not making photographs. There are
>far more posts on camera forums than photo forums.
>
>This is where the idea of pixel peeping has harmed creative
>output much more than aided. Pixel peepers are almost alway
>equipment hobbyists, not photo art hobbyists. Hi-End hi-fi
>people are equipment hobbyists and seldom care as much for the
>music. They say they are great music fans but watching their
>behavior dispels that notion.
>
>Stan
>St Petersburg Russia

Visit
>my
>Nikonians gallery>.




well said. D'you think Ansel Adams photos would be better taken with a D800? methinks not. (thought he may have taken more )

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

sabbey51

Saddle River, US
649 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#22. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 21

sabbey51 Gold Member Nikonian since 10th Jan 2010
Tue 02-Jul-13 09:31 PM

I doubt very much Ansel's pictures would be better with a D800, but I'm pretty sure mine are better with my D7000 than any film camera I ever had. I take advantage of the features it offers that allow me to create images I never could before, whether its chimping, cropping, or using LR and other tools for developing. That being said, I doubt a D800 would improve my results much - I don't feel like I've completed using up what the D7000 has to offer yet. Or to put it another way, there's little I want to do that a new DX or FX body would make much easier, let alone "better".

To me, new gear gets bought when I hit a barrier that the current stuff raises. Want to shoot sports indoors? That 3.5-5.6 zoom will make it hard and limiting. Shooting landscapes in the sun? A viewfinder-less camera, regardless of IQ, makes it hard. Want to do discrete candids or street photography? A D4 "works", but you're probably better off with a smaller kit.

Like Stan's friend, I also record music as a hobby. And like my approach to photography, my studio gear is chosen to solve a problem and not to somehow create "the best" setup. Except for guitars. One can never have too many guitars ...

walkerr

Colorado Springs, US
16977 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#23. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 22

walkerr Administrator Awarded for his con tributed articles published at the Resources Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in multiple areas Master Ribbon awarded as a member who has gone beyond technical knowledge to show mastery of the art and science of photography   Donor Ribbon awarded for his most generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 05th May 2002
Tue 02-Jul-13 10:51 PM


>setup. Except for guitars. One can never have too many
>guitars ...

My wife tells me it's definitely possible.

Rick Walker

My photos:

GeoVista Photography

MarkM10431

jacksonville, US
699 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#24. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 22

MarkM10431 Silver Member Nikonian since 15th Apr 2013
Wed 03-Jul-13 01:03 PM

that's funny.. i feel the same way about Sig-Sauers.. I'm always thinking i need one more...

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

rogermorris

Harrogate, UK
51 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#25. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 18

rogermorris Registered since 14th Apr 2013
Wed 03-Jul-13 01:14 PM

Good point about the capacity of modern memory cards, however after 50 years of SLR photography (35 with Nikons) I still check the 'frame counter' frequently, even if it says 485 to go!

RLDubbya

US
553 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#26. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 17

RLDubbya Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Dec 2011
Wed 03-Jul-13 02:10 PM | edited Wed 03-Jul-13 02:11 PM by RLDubbya

>This is where the idea of pixel peeping has harmed creative
>output much more than aided. Pixel peepers are almost alway
>equipment hobbyists, not photo art hobbyists.

Stan, I certainly agree in spirit, and that was a fine rant. Thank you.

However, I think that the equipment hobbyists are good for something: without their infusion of market capital, Nikon et al would probably not develop so many new products that permit us to express our creativity. So in a sense, they make an invaluable contribution to creative output.

It's just other's creative output that gets the help.

I'm truly thankful for this. When film pretty much died, I moved to a point-and-shoot camera. It seemed like, no matter which brand I used, they broke after about 12-18 months - usually the little motor that moved the lens in and out.

After replacing 4 or 5 of them, I wondered about making the move to DSLR. I thought I'd get something that didn't break under normal use as frequently (I hoped) and obviously would enjoy greater flexibility in creating my images. I was delighted to find that I could purchase an entry level D5000 that floored me with its capabilities at what I thought was an incredibly great price.

When my pictures started to be shared more with others, and I was invited to do some assignments, I needed a second body, and some additional flexibility. So I sprang for the D7000s. Again, I was delighted to find such an incredible instrument at such a reasonable price.

18 months later, as much as I'm affected by the dreaded NAS, I'm having a blast exploring making images with my dreadfully outdated D7000. I'm glad that there're better cameras available; someday I might outgrow my D7000, and it's nice to be able to upgrade.

Some of my favorite landscapes, however, were shot with those old point-and-shoot cameras.



sabbey51

Saddle River, US
649 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#27. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 23

sabbey51 Gold Member Nikonian since 10th Jan 2010
Wed 03-Jul-13 06:57 PM

>
>>setup. Except for guitars. One can never have too many
>>guitars ...
>
>My wife tells me it's definitely possible.


With all do respect to your lovely and wise wife, she is clearly mistaken.

vitalishe

Los Alamos, US
445 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#28. "RE: Why use 24MP?" | In response to Reply # 0

vitalishe Registered since 27th Dec 2012
Sat 13-Jul-13 11:06 PM

I assume your question is about the file size. Then ...
- If you shoot JPG, you can choose a smaller file size.
- If you shoot in RAW, chances are good you care about details. Then the more information you have the better (within reasonable limits).
An interesting idea is a smaller RAW. I read somewhere that Canon has this option. I assume it is easier just to keep the complete info in 24MP file that to devise a way to downsize is to a smaller file (which could be done in many different ways).

G