Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Best 24 MP DSLR today? Waterproof? Need help please

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62489 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
9 Sep 2013 - 1:22 PM


Quote: You don't need 24Mp unless you want to print big, image quality suffers in every other department when the pixel density is high.

If the OP cannot get as close as ideal to wildlife starting with higher MP permits good quality after cropping.
The OP might also sometimes "print big".
I do not know where you have been for the last few years but each new generation of DSLR's delivers more resolution, greater dynamic range, better noise performance image size for image size and better video. With Nikon you often get better AF as a bonus.
Going from D200, to D300, to D7000 and then D7100 together with D3 to D3s and then D800 in every case gave me higher resolution, better dynamic range and better noise for the same size image. I am sure Canon performance has improved too Smile
Like video or not, LiveView uses the sensor as a video device to display the image, so video is in the camera anyway.

Last Modified By LenShepherd at 9 Sep 2013 - 1:24 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Sep 2013 - 1:22 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Steppenwolf
9 Sep 2013 - 1:27 PM


Quote: You need to bear in mind that some of the top professional DSLRs, costing 4-5k, have resolution of 16-18 Mp in the interests of best image quality.

I'm not sure that it's "in the interests of best image quality". Isn't the main reason for this very low pixel density (by modern standards) that it allows a) the camera to shoot ISO12800 without problems and b) the lower amount of data collected allows the camera to shoot higher frame rates for longer. These are specialist cameras for a niche market of professionals. I suspect that their image quality would struggle to match that of a D800 36Mp in more normal situations - i.e. ISOs of 3200 or less. In normal situations collecting less data is not a recipe for best image quality.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139505 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2013 - 4:12 PM

A full-frame 36Mp camera like the Nikon D800 has been shown to be only a little better than an M4/3 16Mp camera like the Olympus OM-D.

So unless the OP is planning to make huge prints for, e.g., exhibition the hunt for pixels seems a bit pointless.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315488 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
9 Sep 2013 - 7:50 PM

How about a Pentax

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-pentax-k-5-ii-black-digital-slr-with-18-55mm-...

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62489 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
10 Sep 2013 - 4:27 AM


Quote: A full-frame 36Mp camera like the Nikon D800 has been shown to be only a little better than an M4/3 16Mp camera like the Olympus OM-D.


While there is a little more to it than that including "a little better" is important to some photographers, as is lens range, electronic viewfinder response speed, flash system etc; when it comes to the final choice the latest 4/3 is generally better than crop and full frame DSLR technology was 5 years ago

Steppenwolf
10 Sep 2013 - 8:47 AM


Quote: A full-frame 36Mp camera like the Nikon D800 has been shown to be only a little better than an M4/3 16Mp camera like the Olympus OM-D.

So unless the OP is planning to make huge prints for, e.g., exhibition the hunt for pixels seems a bit pointless.

The differences in quality between the larger sensor cameras and the smaller sensor cameras gets smaller all the time. In a few decades there will probably be no difference at all in quality - and the ISO range of the smaller sensor cameras will be so good that there's effectively no difference in that either. By that time M4/3 may also have as good a lens range as Nikon - possibly.

The argument about pixels will also be well and truly dead. People will buy a camera and they won't even know how many pixels it has - just like they now buy a PC and don't know what the speed is. Sensor technology will have improved to the point that there's basically no difference in noise (at very high ISOs) between sensors of different pixel densities, so there will be little point in not collecting all the data you can. Most of the time the extra data will be of little use admittedly - just like modern PCs are way faster than they need to be for most purposes - but you might be able to crop your picture to radically change your lens's AOV without losing too much definition, so long lenses might not be needed.

It's just funny that each time the manufacturers up the pixel count there's a chorus on the various forums about how there's no point, blah, blah - and you'll only end up with a mass of diffraction patterns, et cetera. It's happened ever since the pixel count went beyond 6Mp - to 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24 and up. After a while the higher counts become accepted and people realise their advantages. As Benjamin Franklin said "Time makes more converts than reason".

MichaelMelb_AU
10 Sep 2013 - 9:26 AM


Quote: ... As Benjamin Franklin said "Time makes more converts than reason".

Very true. More people go to McDonald's these days than a good restaurant. And their MC burgers became much healthier last 5 years. Smaller and healthier. It's been said that in some 10 years they will be as good as home made meat pie.Tongue
Returning to cameras - some guys compare iPhone to DSLR. How do they manage to keep their face straight with that is quite a mystery for me. Sure, small sensor cameras showed more improvement than DSLRs, but the latter ones never needed as much of improvement, and my 8 year old EOS10D is still better than two year old Fujifilm superzoom. I know it as a fact - 10D images attract more votes in my portfolio. And -o horror!- in some circumstances 10D is better than 2y.o EOS550D. When I go hunting for a good night image 550 stays home. However, I like 550 much more in daylight. Time makes more converts than reason.
Indeed.

Last Modified By MichaelMelb_AU at 10 Sep 2013 - 9:32 AM
RavenTepes
11 Sep 2013 - 1:18 PM

I'd go for a Nikon D7100.

About a month ago, a huge thunderstorm hit my area. So what am I to do in that situation? I grab my camera, a reasonably wide coverage lens, a tripod, and head out! The rain was so bad, that in my efforts to get to a spot where I could start shooting, I had to drop down to roughly 15km/hr, as opposed to the 65km/ hr speed limit because I just couldn't see. I finally made it to where I was wanting to set up. After maybe 30 seconds outside, my clothes were soaked to beyond maximum capacity. But I ran a few test shots, settling at 20 second exposures. At any rate, whilst I didn't get anything worth mentioning that day, I did come to realise just how well weather sealed the D7100 is. I wouldn't go as far as to taking it under water without a housing unit, but when I got home, I checked it thoroughly, and everything was perfect.

I would like to point out that taking it into that kind of extreme weather probably wasn't one of my brighter ideas, and realistically, I wouldn't want to bring it back out in those conditions without SOMETHING covering it, but I know that it can handle that kind of situation and come out like a champ.

scottishphototours


Quote: especially if shooting thousands of exposures a day at sports events in shitey weather.

Good to see that the Epz swear filter hasn't yet been setup to understand "shitey" weather!!!!!!!!!!!!

strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
13 Sep 2013 - 12:06 AM

If you can get along to something like the wildlife photographer of the year exhibition. there you should be able to see plenty of poster size prints of excellent quality and lots of stuff to inspire you. Then take a look at the cameras used, you will find ancient (in digital camera terms) 10D & D100 images that look just fine. You will see some from entry cameras and lenses that some people will tell you are useless, and you will see some from the latest and best kit. What does it tell, you, pixel count is just one element you need good lenses, good technique, a certain level of focus accuracy, and either good luck or skill Smile The D700 only 12mp but you do not half see some great images.

Yes mp count is going up and of course it will ,but is it that important in the real world where people look at real images not in the virtual world where small sections of images are tortured to death. But there is also the need to think on focusing performance and robustness to withstand the weather

If wildlife photography is your bag then there are probably a set of lenses you want, pick them from the various brands and then see what cameras you can afford to throw on the back. Get a decent tripod. If you can, go out photographing with some good expert wildlife photographers. The tips and techniques are worth a lot. Watching one show me how to bait for an animal and how to choose where you placed the food so the creature was well lit against an interesting background was educational. Picking up tips on behaviour from animal handlers helps too.

Go out for a morning walk with a landscape photographer. I remember watching Keith Henson puff ever harder on his fag in the early morning sunlight as I moved myself round a ledge for a shot. His concern at what point to leap forwards to grab his Canon 16-35 back off me when I would move myself over the edge. He made a point as I was framing a shot about looking for the light on the land. It was a sun rise what did he mean, but if you looked around from it you could see the light casting lovely shadows an bathing some parts in a soft warm glow. Learning to see was vital and just about any camera could capture it if I could learn to point it in the correct direction at the right time.

I am not saying do not get new kit, but temper it with picking up skills so that as you go out to buy kit you know what you are getting and why. Then go out and buy a 36mp monster. Grin the good news is the modern range of cameras offer performance that would have been seen as outstanding 10 years ago.

Last Modified By strawman at 13 Sep 2013 - 12:14 AM
shenkophoto
13 Sep 2013 - 1:55 PM

Why don't you look at the Sony A77

aberdaron59
13 Sep 2013 - 7:07 PM

a good sony for the money is the a65 but if you don,t care
about video look at the a900 you get full frame for a
fraction of the price of the a77

parallax
parallax e2 Member 5119 forum postsparallax vcard United Kingdom
14 Sep 2013 - 1:06 AM

The Nikon D600, or Canon 6D, those are your choices in terms of body and lens choices.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62489 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
14 Sep 2013 - 7:12 AM


Quote: The Nikon D600.

Why Nikon 24x36 format?
The OP does a lot of macro work and wildlife work where a D7100 has mor plusses than minuses over the D600.
The OP has not expressed a need for very high ISO's where the D600 has an advantage, and has implied a desire for macro detail - you do not get that at very high ISO's with any camera.
The D7100 is built in some respects to a higher standard than the D600. The D600 has a "dumbed down" viewfinder compared to the 50% more expensive D800 which, although slightly brighter, is less suitable for judging depth of field. The D7100 costs about 500 less than the D600, and has no disadvantage for the work the OP has in mind.
Which camera the OP buys is personal choice, but my advice is, if Nikon, the D7100 is the best choice for the OP's needs.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.