SANParks.org Forums

The web is full of information, some good, others not so good. However, when someone looks for specific information, or is looking for advice and guidance on a topic, available information can be, and often is, misleading to a novice on the subject.

As a novice in the photographic world, I have spent many hours researching photographic information available on the web and have come to the conclusion that the best way to improve your knowledge on the subject, is to continually debate the issues at hand. Many would agree that photography is both an art and a science and while the "artistic" ability is what I lack, I am slowly improving my science skills. However, like every learning experience in life, the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.

I do not have the answers, but I do want to understand more and more, as various issues get raised on different blogs on the web; no, not questions whether Canon is better than Nikon, nor whether a FX (full frame) DSLR is better than a DX (Cropped frame) DSLR. I would rather debate issues of supposed fact or fiction and help the reader (and me) get an understanding of OPINIONS and thus options available, as they pertain to wildlife photography.

Photography and its associated equipment is all about trade-offs, and it is seldom possible to cater for all requirements at any given time, even if you have every possible piece of equipment available and a comfortable truck to carry it around with you wherever you go. Anyone interested in travelling down a road of learning, teaching and debating?

OK, so I have opened a can of worms... lets start the debate and feed on our joint experiences.

Do megapixels matter? How many is enough and how many is too many?

My view? ... In typical consulting fashion, it depends......

This debate has been raging for a while (and will continue for years to come)and there are usually two sides to the story. So what is your opinion and why?

Scottm, I really like your thread and I am going to be watching with interest.

I think that I might be a novice birder and photographer for the rest of my life, due to a certain disregard for detail. This is another, interesting way to gain knowledge.

They don't actually.
Make a comparison between the 1DMK11 (10 MP) and the 7D (18MP). The MP count difference is almost a factor two, yet the photos from the 1D may actually be a tad better.

Then again, having more pixels gives you more pixels to throw away. So if, like 99% of the time, your lens is not long enough for the bird or whatever, you can crop away a lot.

So how it the timing of the first point raised?

Nikon have just announced their new bottom-of-the-range, consumer DSLR, the D3200, with 24,2 megapixels for less then $700.00

See here for some specifications: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d3200/spec.htm

OK, so Duques has made an opening salvo with

before he goes on to justify his statement and provide a different perspective for why they may count.

For sake of comparability, I will stick with what many photographers on this site have, and that is a modern DSLR with a cropped sensor, but the discussion is similar when comparing full-frame cameras and point & shoot cameras just as well. Comparing DX to FX is something that can be tackled at a later stage if the issue is raised.

So what are the advantages and disadvantages of each side to the megapixel debate?

A few advantages of a high-megapixel over low-megapixel sensors include:

The ability to crop further
The capturing of additional, finer detail
The ability to print larger prints

Some disadvantages include:

often faster frame-rates
better low-light capabilities
smaller files

While I have only listed three advantages and disadvantages for each (and there are many, many more for each side), any one of these may be a deal-breaker when considering your next camera. The issues that may affect your own style of photography will clearly influence your purchasing decision and each comes with its trade-offs.

So do you need a faster frame for action wildlife, or do you need the ability to crop further into the images owing to a problem with the "reach" your lenses? Do you need to print excessively large images, or do you need low-light ability? Clearly, many of what could be issues to you can be solved by throwing more money at the issue, upgrading your existing equipment, getting a second camera body, or possibly both.

So what are the deal-breakers for you that would sway you one way or the other when it comes to the megapixel debate? And which way would you jump if you had the opportunity (and why)?

I still believe that the ability and skill of individual behind the camera has the biggest influence in almost any given photographic situation and until my ability begins to be limited by my existing equipment, I will stick to the equipment that I have and keep trying to improve my artistic skills.

That is a very wise conclusion to make, one that more photographers need to come to.
The best camera, is the one you have with you when the action goes down!
And the camera doesn't make the photo, the monkey behind the camera does!
(although better "TOOLS" give you a better chance to nail that keeper!)

As the saying goes...
F8 and BE THERE

I quite like this topic...

The whole problem with cropped framed sensors is that you are unable to capture images in low light and high iso's due to the noise that occurs, this is due to the number of pixels being crammed into a little sensor. So often, yeah it may be nice to have the extra megapixels but then you do loose some low light ability.

Totally agree, I use a 550D which isn't the most high end camera on the market but it does the jobs I need it to do and when I can afford it I will upgrade but for the time being it'll have to suffice.

All you need to know as a photographer is how you equipment functions, once you have an understanding of this, your possibilities are endless.

But there will come a time where your equipment limits your possibilities.