# Can't get pixel count out of my head - 12.1 vs 24.2



## dennybeall (Feb 23, 2016)

So, I'm looking at some cameras and a used D700 is available but so is a used D5300. One is full-frame but only 12.1 mp while the other is crop-sensor 24.2mp.
Many people say full frame is better but it would seem that twice as many pixels would be better. The used D700 is more than the new D5300 so what do you do???? and why?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 23, 2016)

Have you ever picked up and squinted through a D5300's smallish pentamirror viewfinder system?

I would look for a used D600.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 23, 2016)

the D700 was, and still is, a formidable camera.
beautiful viewfinder coverage, built like a tank, FX sensor, great AF system, full compliment of accessible dials and buttons....
i would take a D700 over _*any*_ D5xxx or D3xxx camera, 7 days a week, twice on Sunday.

in nearly the same price range though, you could also look at used D600's, which is exactly where I went when I upgraded to FX.
They arent built as tough as the D700's, but you get the benefit of a newer AF system and 24mp sensor.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 23, 2016)

I still use a D700 on a regular basis, and it's yet to let me down.  I can easily get a 16x20 out of it, even with a little cropping, and as Jason mentions, the build-quality is many, many orders of magnitude above that of a DXXXX body.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 23, 2016)

Denny, this might be a case of where personal preference, habits, eyesight, carrying of the camera, and FX versus DX, and also sensor technology and allll those intangibles come into the decision.

The DxO Mark sensor comparison is pretty close in terms of dynamic range and color depth, but a good advantage to the D700 in lower light at higher ISO settings. The D700 being only about 12MP, has ~8.46 micron pixel size, the D3330 having 24 million pixels on a much smaller sensor, has pretty small 3.87 micron sized pixels. 

If you go to Nikon D3300 vs Nikon D700 Detailed Comparison, you see the differences between the two compared in a body/size/feature/model vs model, feature-centric way.

From imaging resource's comparison page:Nikon D700 vs Nikon D3300

The 3300 can shoot 24P and 60P video, can do in-camera panoramics by stitching m,ultiple frames together, and it a lot lighter and smaller. A LOT lighter, over twice as light as the D700. The real issue though might be the viewfinder magnification figures for the D700 at 0.72X _vs_  the much smaller, squintier D3300 at a rather dismal 0.57X magnification.

The D700 has 15 cross-type AF points, the D3300 has just one, right in the center.

The issue though as I see it is a *compact*, tiny, lightweight F-mount d-slr versus a *mid-sized* Nikon d-slr. Sort of 2-seater sports car vs family sedan.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 23, 2016)

There's not much to compare as all stated above.
Figure out what you want to use the camera for then make a decision.

back when i had my d7000 only I wanted more ... looked at the d7100 but it still wasn't great in lower light.  So I looked at the d700.  Loved the d700 .. tried one and still loved it.
But the D700 doesn't have video .. and I figured I might use video.  So I looked at the d600.
D600 does video, was the same approx price back then.  And it used ALL of my accessories from the d7000, and the same batteries.  So I didn't have to replace anything that I was using.

So I went with a d600.  Love it too over the d7000.  Low light sports, extreme cropping of long distant images was better than the d7000, etc.

But d700 vs d5x00 .. I'd get the d700
UNLESS I wanted something small, more of a travel camera especially if I was going to use video a little.  because the d700 CANNOT do video at all.  But you can whack a robber in the head with it and the d700 would be unfazed.

And if you don't have any FF lenses .. think of that added expense of swapping out lenses for new ones.  You can use older screw driven AF/AFD lenses to reduce costs.


----------



## Dave442 (Feb 23, 2016)

I would go with the D700.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 23, 2016)

How _*BIG *do you need to print???_


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 23, 2016)

I guess the two things I would look at would be, what sort of format are you going to be using for output?  If your looking at these primarily on a computer screen and don't need huge prints, the D700 might be the better option.

Second question I would ask, how much telephoto do you shoot?  If you find yourself needing to crop photos a lot fairly often, then the higher MP sensor would probably be the better option.  If you have more control over your shooting situations and can usually get close enough to what your shooting without difficulty, again the D700 might be the way to go.

However I'd price the D700 first - and compare that to maybe a  D600, last time I priced them the D600 wasn't that much more, so that might be something to consider.


----------



## dtmateojr (Feb 23, 2016)

the D700 runs circles around the latest and greatest full frames. Nikon got it right at that time. It was downhill after that. Get the D700 and you will have a camera that you could practically keep until it breaks.


----------



## cgw (Feb 23, 2016)

D700? 2008 roll-out. Not so easy to find in nice, low actuation shape.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 23, 2016)

cgw said:


> D700? 2008 roll-out. Not so easy to find in nice, low actuation shape.


Obviously you haven't been looking. Plenty on ebay come and go with low clicks from people upgrading.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Feb 23, 2016)

cgw said:
			
		

> D700? 2008 roll-out. Not so easy to find in nice, low actuation shape.



yeah, it's getting more difficult to find low-click cameras from the previous decade. If a higher-sepc'ds model like a D700 was owned by a serious enthusiast, or a wedding shooter, or anybody else who might easily have used it hard, or shot a lot of frames, such a D700 bought at-random and not checked for shutter count and carefully visually inspected very critically before buying could easily be a super high-actuation body that could conk out at any second.

OTOH, who was it that bought a used D700 a couple months back from a private party shooter with 13,000 or so clicks on it and super-minty? There is also a very large segment of high-end and semi-pro Nikon stuff bought by well-heeled enthusiasts who don't shoot many frames, OR who gave away their primary camera to a family member who really didn't use it "back then" and is now getting rid of "dad's old camera" or "grandpa's old D700", etc..

One of the real caveats in the Nikon d-slr era: the camera body tops and bottoms and corners and prisms do NOT SHOW much wear compared to the degree we saw on older, metal body cameras...Nikon d-slrs tend to wear very slowly, and really almost hide their age, so you have to really,really look closely for wear on the rubber, and on the few points that really show handling/carrying wear. This is one area where *buying condition* makes a huge amount of sense to me, meaning *Like New Minus* is far safer bet than Excellent Plus, and Excellent Minus could easily mean 285,000 clicks...


----------



## Braineack (Feb 23, 2016)

dtmateojr said:


> the D700 runs circles around the latest and greatest full frames. Nikon got it right at that time. It was downhill after that. Get the D700 and you will have a camera that you could practically keep until it breaks.



The D700 cannot render any of the detail the rest are showing.  Youre also viewing them all at 1:1, view the rest at a 12MP size and they'll look much better.

look at the blue feathers above, the D700 is rendering them as a blur, the rest are picking up individual strands.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 23, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Have you ever picked up and squinted through a D5300's smallish pentamirror viewfinder system?
> 
> I would look for a used D600.


Same here, check used Nikon D600/D610 you will get 24mp and modern sensor.

D700 vs D5300 too very different beasts, cant compare them, apples to oranges.
If forced to decide between these 2 cameras I would get the D700 if it was in excellent condition and very low shutter count.
If not then I would get a D5300, better a working new good camera then an old broken one!


----------



## Braineack (Feb 24, 2016)

Braineack said:


> dtmateojr said:
> 
> 
> > the D700 runs circles around the latest and greatest full frames. Nikon got it right at that time. It was downhill after that. Get the D700 and you will have a camera that you could practically keep until it breaks.
> ...



yeah, look at them at the same viewing size:





Which sensor is running the circles?  One of them has signicantly cleaner noise and more fine detail.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 24, 2016)

I chose the D5500 last Summer for many of the reasons described in this thread:  size, weight, convenience, pixels, modern features.

6,000 clicks later I'm satisfied with my choice.  Might transition to FF someday, as it was my initial bias but I just couldn't justify the added cost/size/weight at this point in my life.

There's no academically correct answer here- only the right choice for YOU.


----------



## dtmateojr (Feb 24, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > dtmateojr said:
> ...



I can make any image look cleaner by stepping backward a few inches. The question is, what's the largest print you ever did with your camera? A 2Mp camera can fill a billboard. Fact.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 24, 2016)

dtmateojr said:


> I can make any image look cleaner by stepping backward a few inches. The question is, what's the largest print you ever did with your camera? A 2Mp camera can fill a billboard. Fact.


Yeah, I am sure that you COULD 'fill' a 2MP billboard with something, but I was advised by the billboard company to provide at least an 18MP image, which turned out great.

That's MY fact.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 24, 2016)

dtmateojr said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...




I only care about how it looks viewed on screen.

and the D700 looks bad compared to modern FX sensors.


----------



## dtmateojr (Feb 24, 2016)

Braineack said:


> dtmateojr said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Viewed on screen the D800 and D600 look awful compared to the D700. Look at the comparison I originally posted. Night and day.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 24, 2016)

Would pick the D700 in a heartbeat. Its not even close to a competition.

Why ?

- Because my friggin lenses work the way they are intended.
- Much better high ISO.
- Much better controls.
- Pro features like HSS all present.
- Much better build quality, longer shutter life, battery life etc. Also higher fps (up to 8fps with battery grip).

The only plus of the D5300 would be the flipscreen, and the low weight and size.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 24, 2016)

dtmateojr said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > dtmateojr said:
> ...



I posted the exact same comparing in a scenario that people will actually view two photos at.  The D700 looks worse -- it's turned details into blury mush.

Your comparison is purposefully flawed to achieve your desired result.  Why would I look at two photos, but one larger than the other?

That would be like comparing how a D700 and D600 prints, but printing the D700 image a 4x6" and the D600 at 11x17".


----------



## jaomul (Feb 24, 2016)

I dont see that much of a difference. OK, one is better, but that's a photo looking at detail extremes as a chart comparison. Yes newer cameras do it better, but if you are only printing within a certain spec the older technology is also great. A d700 is not now a bad camera because there is a d800/810/610/600 etc


----------



## Braineack (Feb 24, 2016)

jaomul said:


> A d700 is not now a bad camera because there is a d800/810/610/600 etc



not all FX cameras are bad, just some are more bad than others.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 24, 2016)

Braineack said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > A d700 is not now a bad camera because there is a d800/810/610/600 etc
> ...



There's a good chance in five years time there will be an entry fx  d,something or other in the nikon range that has 48+megapixels with better dynamic range and noise properties than your d610 for even cheaper than your d610.

Graphs and massively large photos or 100% crops will show it is better than the camera of today, but existing, working d610s will still take photos as good as ever, and for the vat majority of people, they will be good enough, or indeed better than good enough. I'd nearly say that most don't print bigger than 12x8 regularly, where magazine quality requires about 9 mp


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 24, 2016)

Don't forget, some people crop a lot.  So that comes into play with the captured image original resolution.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 24, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Don't forget, some people crop a lot.  So that comes into play with the captured image original resolution.



Man isn't that the truth.  Some people post pretty much nothing but crop all the... oh wait, you said crop.  Ok, never mind.  

Lol


----------



## gckless (Feb 24, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Would pick the D700 in a heartbeat. Its not even close to a competition.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> ...



What about your lenses exactly don't work the way they were intended on a crop sensor? Besides the focal length, but I wouldn't list that under "work the way they were intended". Don't most lenses work better on a crop sensor?


----------



## Peeb (Feb 24, 2016)

gckless said:


> What about your lenses exactly don't work the way they were intended on a crop sensor? Besides the focal length, but I wouldn't list that under "work the way they were intended". Don't most lenses work better on a crop sensor?


"better"? Well I suppose they exclude the edges, so ... maybe?

Still, not sure I would say 'better'- just different.


----------



## dtmateojr (Feb 25, 2016)

Braineack said:


> dtmateojr said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



You said you only wanted to pixel peep on screen. I gave you pixel peep output straight from DPReview. I did not fabricate that data. 

So make up your mind. Do you want to print or do you want to pixel peep?


----------



## Braineack (Feb 25, 2016)

dtmateojr said:


> You said you only wanted to pixel peep on screen. I gave you pixel peep output straight from DPReview. I did not fabricate that data.



And in the pixel peep, the D700 doesnt look as good.  It lacks the detail all the other 3 sensors are able to capture.



> So make up your mind. Do you want to print or do you want to pixel peep?



I view my images on screen.  That means no matter what the MP count, I view them at the same size.

In your pixel peep, youre viewing them all at 1:1.  Where the D800 image would look MUCH larger on screen than the D700. I mentioned print size to equate the relationship.

I'll draw you a picture now,  but please don't get confused that I'm trying to view photos as line drawing in MS Paint now:




Now lets look at the same in relation to this 24" monitor I'm using:





I don't view photos in the above manner, and this is how you're comparing the two, for some crazy reason I like to view the image picture at once, so I resize both to view like this:





This is why I resized the dpreview studio shot comparisons so they were the same size.  I've also found the dpreview comparisons to be grain of salt worthy at best.  It reminds me of this little gem:






The Rebel T3 sensors runs cricles around the D800.  amirite?

How about use some real life exmaples:

like this one: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/D700_D800_03200_comp.jpeg
or this one: http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-vs-Nikon-D700-ISO-3200-comparison.jpg
or this: http://media.astrocamera.net/2012/1022/dark-compare.jpg
or this: http://phoblographer.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/small.png
Ohhhhhh you can almost make out the text "push" on the doors of the car in that last shot.

Damn, that D700 sensor LOOKS AMAZING!!!!!!!  














amazingly more bad.  






*Bonus points: *Replace 7360x4912 with 11x17" and 4356x 2832 with 4x6". #mindblown.


----------



## dtmateojr (Feb 25, 2016)

Braineack said:


> dtmateojr said:
> 
> 
> > You said you only wanted to pixel peep on screen. I gave you pixel peep output straight from DPReview. I did not fabricate that data.
> ...



Have you been infront of a 85" 4K tv? For your info, 4K tv is "only" 8Mp. At a distance of about 1.5m I honestly could not see the individual pixels. 8Mp is THAT good. 

Billboard size prints only require 1.4Mp. FACT. 

It means that you are just wasting disk space and electricity with your 36Mp every time you don't print big. If you are just viewing on your screen even 4Mp will do. FACT. 

And with your 36Mp, every time you shoot outside of f/5.6 you are wasting megapixels. Diffraction at f/8 strips away 6Mp and at f/11 it throws away 20Mp leaving you with 30Mp and 15Mp respectively. At f/4 or f/2.8 and wider are worse because of lens aberrations. FACT. It's simple PHYSICS.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 25, 2016)

dtmateojr said:


> It's simple PHYSICS.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 25, 2016)

Peeb said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> > What about your lenses exactly don't work the way they were intended on a crop sensor? Besides the focal length, but I wouldn't list that under "work the way they were intended". Don't most lenses work better on a crop sensor?
> ...


Actually, isn't it "worse" ?
My 24mm is now a 36FOV ... not exactly Wide Angle any more.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 25, 2016)

youre not using the image area of the lens that warps/distorts/blurs the image.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 25, 2016)

Braineack said:


> youre not using the image area of the lens that warps/distorts/blurs the image.


Yeah, this is what I presume was being referenced, but I agree with astro that the loss of FOV doesn't seem 'better'.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 25, 2016)

Well, for anyone that might be interested:

Camera Resolution Explained


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 26, 2016)

Braineack said:


> youre not using the image area of the lens that warps/distorts/blurs the image.


Without Warping, Star Trek technology wouldn't be a reality


----------



## sashbar (Mar 20, 2016)

In my view the better photographer you are, the less Mp you need.  I think one overriding factor here is the need to crop your images.

This happens mostly when you have not composed your shot correctly in the first place, or as some say you were not close enough.  Being "not close enough" or zooming not close enough is one of the most common beginners' mistakes.  So 24 Mk come handy for these shooters.  In most cases 16 Mp is sufficient.

On the other hand having a 12 Mp camera may force you to learn faster, as you will not have the luxury to crop heavily.

So, if you feel confident at thinking fast and composing correctly when shooting moving scenes, you should not worry about pixels. If you are not  sure and think "I will give it some space, just in case and crop later", then 12 Mp is probably not the best option.  Probably.


----------



## Peeb (Mar 20, 2016)

sashbar said:


> In my view the better photographer you are, the less Mp you need.  I think one overriding factor here is the need to crop your images.
> 
> This happens mostly when you have not composed your shot correctly in the first place, or as some say you were not close enough.  Being "not close enough" or zooming not close enough is one of the most common beginners' mistakes.  So 24 Mk come handy for these shooters.  In most cases 16 Mp is sufficient.
> 
> ...


I detest the 'disagree' button, but WOW was I tempted to hit it on this post.  Skill diminishes the need for MP?

Ummm, no.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 20, 2016)

sashbar said:
			
		

> In my view the better photographer you are, the less Mp you need.  I think one overriding factor here is the need to crop your images.
> 
> This happens mostly when you have not composed your shot correctly in the first place, or as some say you were not close enough.  Being "not close enough" or zooming not close enough is one of the most common beginners' mistakes.  So 24 Mk come handy for these shooters.  In most cases 16 Mp is sufficient.
> 
> ...



I've come up through the digital ranks from the 2.7 MP Nikon D1 and Nikon D1h, the 6 MP cameras, then the 12.2 MP Nikon D2x, then the 12.8 MP Canon 5D, and now have stopped at the 24 MP Nikon D3x. While I respect your photography, I think your point of view is ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous. I believe the exact opposite: the BETTER you are, the more your images DESERVE to be larger, and of higher quality.

Frankly, I think that the new Sony FX sensors in 24-million pixel size deliver the image quality we used to get with ASA 160 film on 6x6 rollfilm or 6x7 rollfilm, and that the 36-MP Nikon D800 and 810 series produces image quality that us easily, easily better even 6x9 cm rollfilm. And in the current era, I have to say, I am VERY impressed with the image quality of the Nikon D610 camera; for the money spent, it is a fantastic camera across a wide ISO range.


----------



## fmw (Mar 20, 2016)

You may be overthinking it, OP.  Until it broke the other day, I used a 10 megapixel Nikon DX camera for internet photography for more than a decade.  I ordered an obsolete DX camera to replace the broken one.  It has more pixels but it isn't really that important.

There certainly are advantages to a larger format.  You can see the 4X5" format camera in the picture of me at left.  It outperforms every digital SLR ever made in terms of image quality.  But since we are talking about small DSLR's for amateur use I think you can pick either product and find it to be very satisfactory.


----------

