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

Megapixel "Penis Envy"

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

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

User_Removed
3 Nov 2012 - 10:56 AM

Ever since downgrading to a Nikon D800 back in March, I have come across many (and I do mean many) photographers who ask "Why do you need 36 Mp?". Usually I simply respond that I don't need them but I like having them. If I am in a mood to be more tolerant of their photographic penis envy, I might explain that, particularly in wildlife photography, it can be an advantage to heavily crop an image rather than use a humongous lens or get too close to the animal. A high resolution sensor allows for much greater cropping than a lower resolution one.

The truth of this was brought home to me very graphically last night.

I had just bought a very cheap secondhand old Nikkor 600mm f/4 manual focus AI-S lens on eBay and took it out to Loch Leven to try for some photos of the rising moon. While I was out, I noticed a bright star/planet in the east and took its picture. Even with the 600mm lens, the object was just a speck in the viewfinder.

Only when I got home and really zoomed-in to the image at 100% did I realise that it was a planet, probably Jupiter, and that my photograph included two of its moons. The planet itself was grossly over-exposed and there was a bit of tripod-shake evident at high magnification. If I had known that I had captured the moons at the time, I would have spent much more time getting the exposure right and using a mirror-up mode and a stabiliser on the tripod, etc., etc., etc. Next clear night, I'll be looking for Jupiter again and will try to get a decent image of those moons.

But, just to show what a 36Mp sensor can capture with a normal telephoto lens (as opposed to an astronomical telescope), here is the image of the moons, cropped to exclude most of the overexposed planet:

jupmoons.jpg

To see what it came from, here is the whole frame - and bear in mind that those moons were not even visible to the naked eye.

jup.jpg

.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
3 Nov 2012 - 10:56 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139463 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 11:07 AM

That pic could be anything, LF. Lol! Wink

I agree about croppability though. However it does depend on more than just the number of megapixels.

GarethRobinson
GarethRobinson e2 Member 8993 forum postsGarethRobinson vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 11:54 AM

I would be more interested in seeing how this lens performs on your D800 for wildlife not bothered about cropping more full frame un-cropped images, lots of feather details etc. Im on the fence of going fx or waiting on the dx d300 replacement and getting the same lens or the old 500mm f4-p.

Gareth

Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 913403 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 11:59 AM

What I would like to know is:
With long lenses, you can blur the bg nicely.
But if you use shorter lenses and then just crop the photo, surely the bg blur would be different?

GarethRobinson
GarethRobinson e2 Member 8993 forum postsGarethRobinson vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 12:09 PM

Cole you would be correct reference the blur.
I hate having to crop images, to me pixels are there to be used not binned.

User_Removed
3 Nov 2012 - 12:14 PM

AH .. now I know why I was drooling over 36 MP's SIGH ... next year .....

but I agree with the whole idea that with wildlife you have to crop. Sometimes its a choice between shot that needs to be cropped or no shot at all.

I also use cropping to tighten up composition you don't always have time to get absolutely spot on 100% right when aforementioned wildlife usually only gives you a few seconds to even get any kind of shot. Focus is first priority... fiddling with composition can be done later.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139463 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 12:18 PM

So long as the cropped photo still has enough pixels to produce an acceptable end-result, I don't see a problem with cropping at all.

Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 913403 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 12:23 PM

I have no issue with cropping either.
But when people say in wildlife photography, you can just crop rather than using long lenses, surely that is not entirely true?

User_Removed
3 Nov 2012 - 12:23 PM

So long as the original was crisply in focus you can get away with quite a severe crop.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139463 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 12:29 PM


Quote: you can just crop rather than using long lenses, surely that is not entirely true?

The effect may be slightly different, but with subjects far away, I'm not sure the difference is as much as it would be for nearer subjects.

I have a horrid feeling we are into 'circles of confusion' territory! Wink

GarethRobinson
GarethRobinson e2 Member 8993 forum postsGarethRobinson vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 12:33 PM

How to confuse an irishman put him in a round room and tell him to piss in the corner.Tongue
Thats your circles of confusion.
yeah im irish

Last Modified By GarethRobinson at 3 Nov 2012 - 12:35 PM
User_Removed
3 Nov 2012 - 12:37 PM

a long lens has its own issues and overzooming has its own problems too. And I don't think that is what any one is saying - at least not as I understand the OP's point.

When you are out photographing animals that are not terribly cooperative, understanding that you can crop a photo if it's still sharp enough (ie the need for MP's comes in) regardless of what lens you were using, widens your opportunities for a good shot.

There is often a huge gap between what you could get if bird/buck/bug sat perfectly still and let you fiddle with tripod and lens and set up and focus and lighting ad nauseum and the reality of what you can get in the moment before bird/buck/bug buggers off to somewhere you are not.

Snapster
Snapster e2 Member 2120 forum postsSnapster vcard England
3 Nov 2012 - 5:48 PM

On a geeky note, yes the bright star adjacent to the moon was Jupiter.
There's a great app for the Ipad where you point the ipad at the sky and it tells you the constellations and planets viewed.

widtink
widtink  2406 forum posts Scotland2 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 6:21 PM

really !! cool , shameavnogotwan Wink

Rod

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315397 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 7:37 PM


Quote: Ever since downgrading to a Nikon D800 back in March, I have come across many (and I do mean many) photographers who ask "Why do you need 36 Mp?"

Down grading ? just seems like a waste to me.

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.