• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Will More Megapixels Help Me Here? (2 Viewers)

Appreciate the input everyone. I am planning on upgrading my kit, with a new body + lens. Looking at the D7200 + 80-400mm AF-S VR. I probably can't afford both at once, so will stagger my purchases. I've got a trip to Australia coming up. If I could only buy one before I depart, which do you think would offer the biggest improvement? The body or the lens? I figure the lens, but am curious to hear any input. And again, thanks for all the help.
 
Last edited:
Appreciate the input everyone. I am planning on upgrading my kit, with a new body + lens. Looking at the D7200 + 80-400mm AF-S VR. I probably can't afford both at once, so will stagger my purchases. I've got a trip to Australia coming up. If I could only buy one before I depart, which do you think would offer the biggest improvement? The body or the lens? I figure the lens, but am curious to hear any input. And again, thanks for all the help.

The 80-400 is a nice lens and if you can run to it ok but do some on line checking with the Sigma 100-400 and depending how long you can wait Tamron are going to launch one.
 
Last week I visited the German North Sea coast. In two days I saw 14 new species. In such a situation it is extremely valuable for me to have the Nikon V2 + CX 70-300 for birds in flight. The camera nails almost every bird that flies by. The example below, a spotted redshank, was one of the birds that I had seen before. It can nevertheless be a problem for me to ID a single, fast flying wading bird. Other birds were closer, this one might have been 40 or 50m away.

The bird in the photo looks more like a (Common) Redshank. Legs and bill look too short for a Spotted Redshank.
 
The bird in the photo looks more like a (Common) Redshank. Legs and bill look too short for a Spotted Redshank.
Many thanks for the hint! Looking at the photos again, you are absolutely right. One photo clearly shows the white on the upper side of the wings. That's a new species for me, great. I had met migrating spotted redshanks in the Black Forest, now I recognize that the "common" is more common at the coast. :t:
 
Glad to be of help. They can often be tricky to separate, rather like Bar- and Black-tailed Godwits, amongst others.
 
Appreciate the input everyone. I am planning on upgrading my kit, with a new body + lens. Looking at the D7200 + 80-400mm AF-S VR. I probably can't afford both at once, so will stagger my purchases. I've got a trip to Australia coming up. If I could only buy one before I depart, which do you think would offer the biggest improvement? The body or the lens? I figure the lens, but am curious to hear any input. And again, thanks for all the help.

I'm going to set out a dissenting view and suggest you change the camera first. The D7200 will be a significant improvement, not just in IQ - more megapixels, higher DR etc. - but in usability. Having two dials to change shutter speed / aperture and a decent size top display means shooting in manual with auto ISO is easy. Admittedly with your 300mm lens you won't have as much reach as the 80-400 you are contemplating buying, but the additional MP will allow for fairly heavy cropping and still give more than adequate record shots (I have the 300mm PF and D7200). The other advantage over the D5xxx series is you have twin SD card slots, which increase the options for (e.g.) shooting in RAW and letting the shots spill over to card 2 for higher capacity, or shooting RAW +JPEG for quick sharing.
 
To take better pictures you don't need more megapixels, you need a better lens.
It's the lens that dictates the quality of the image not the number of megapixels.
 
To take better pictures you don't need more megapixels, you need a better lens.
It's the lens that dictates the quality of the image not the number of megapixels.

But the OP states he has a 300mm lens - surely capable of capturing a quality image?
 
Can I go against the grain here and suggest a decent bridge camera such as the Canon SX50 which has an amazing zoom - 1200mm - and is portable for birders wanting to carry a scope, tripod and binoculars. No, you'll never get your pictures published by National Geographic but as an aid to id and pictures ok for personal use mine has been amazing. I would never use it for aviation shots, my favourite photography, when my SLR and various lenses come out, but then I would never be lugging a scope and tripod around then. As I am fortunate to travel a lot with work including short trips abroad it is so easy to throw into hand luggage and has helped me get reasonable pictures of stuff I would otherwise have missed. Not for everyone and it will never replace my SLR but been a constant travelling companion for years. It won't suit bird photographers, but maybe birders who want a photograph.
 
Thanks for the additional input. I do realize that a longer and better lens will produce a better image (both by getting me closer, and rendering a more crisp image). I guess my ignorance is more around if and how a higher resolution sensor could potentially lead to a sharper image when employing a significant crop. For the photo I posted:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/lA46AU1TtMgbPs592 (Original + Cropped Image)

Would a higher resolution sensor have resulted in a sharper cropped image? Am I losing detail there because the image is too low a resolution? Or am I thinking about this wrong?

Thanks

(Original image taken zoomed full at 300mm)
 
I started with a Canon 350D (8 MP) + Tamron 70-300. Birds were frustratingly small. My photos looked similar to your example. Adding a 1.5x TC helped, going from the zoom to a 400mm prime was another improvement. In behind sight I'd say that 600mm is the minimum to have fun at birding. My gut feeling is an upgrade with more MP is less important. My Canon SX50 hasn't as many MP as a 650D or the Nikon J5, but if you shoot at 1200mm equivalent, it is less urgent to crop in the first place.
 
I would suggest you are thinking wrong. Just adding mp's is still going to give you a small image unless you add big lenses and you are adding weight and cost all the way. For the type of field photography you want have a good look at the super bridge cameras like the Canon sx50. You'll get close up pictures you won't need to crop, portability, no lens changes from a close up dragonfly to a distant bird all at less than $350.
 
I would suggest you are thinking wrong. Just adding mp's is still going to give you a small image unless you add big lenses and you are adding weight and cost all the way. For the type of field photography you want have a good look at the super bridge cameras like the Canon sx50. You'll get close up pictures you won't need to crop, portability, no lens changes from a close up dragonfly to a distant bird all at less than $350.

I agree entirely with Foxy! My point and shoot bridge camera a Lumix FZ1000...current cost £500+ has given me images that I wouldn't have believed possible...and so light to carry around. For me the Essentials are: Lighting (from behind), Subject, Posture and Proximity (Yellow Warbler) shot from within 2m+...the rest within c3-4m...and all at 8mp.

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • P1250030.jpeg  Stncht. 1..jpeg
    P1250030.jpeg Stncht. 1..jpeg
    197.8 KB · Views: 41
  • P1340386.jpeg  Imm.Anna's 1..jpg
    P1340386.jpeg Imm.Anna's 1..jpg
    134.3 KB · Views: 42
  • P1510101.jpeg  Mand.2..jpg
    P1510101.jpeg Mand.2..jpg
    348.4 KB · Views: 40
  • P1560184.jpeg  Def.Yellow 9..jpg
    P1560184.jpeg Def.Yellow 9..jpg
    391.1 KB · Views: 47
  • Credsrt. Shutters 1..jpg
    Credsrt. Shutters 1..jpg
    86.5 KB · Views: 51
I agree entirely with Foxy! My point and shoot bridge camera a Lumix FZ1000...current cost £500+ has given me images that I wouldn't have believed possible...and so light to carry around. For me the Essentials are: Lighting (from behind), Subject, Posture and Proximity (Yellow Warbler) shot from within 2m+...the rest within c3-4m...and all at 8mp.
Cheers

Great shots, and the Yellow Warbler is superb. - I was tempted to suggest a bridge camera myself, but the OP showed a Merlin in flight, and bridge cams are not the best choice for BIF. It can be done, of course ... What's your experience with the FZ1000?
 
Great shots, and the Yellow Warbler is superb. - I was tempted to suggest a bridge camera myself, but the OP showed a Merlin in flight, and bridge cams are not the best choice for BIF. It can be done, of course ... What's your experience with the FZ1000?


The new Sony RX-10 IV might be the answer if the OP were to consider a bridge camera.



Chosun :gh:
 
Thanks all for the input. My wife actually does have a bridge camera. Not sure the model, about a 5 year old Nikon that I believe is ~600mm equivalent. I admit it is great in certain situations. The zoom is tremendous. Often though I am frustrated by it in how slow it is to zoom, autofocus, and release. I think once used to zooming/AFing/releasing with a DLSR, it's hard to enjoy doing the same with a compact (my opinion, I realize not shared among most). Much of my own frustration comes from fast-moving birds in flight, or birds that are skulky and move in and out a sight very quickly. At this point, I think I have gained a decent understanding of what the different types of solutions offer.

I still remain curious: can you get sharper cropped images with more MP? If not, what does high resolution do?
 
What does higher resolution do?
Well, for the everyday user, not a great deal.
If you are going to blow your pictures up so they can be posted on a billboard or the side of a bus then it may have use.
But if all you are going to do is look at them on a computer screen then, truth be told, once you go over 8mp (and possibly really as little as 5mp) then it's a waste.

The reason you see such numbers trumpeted with a fanfare by marketing departments is because it is a lot easier and cheaper for manufacturers to boost the pixel count than it is to put in a decent lens and sensor. And the overwhelming majority of the population has no idea what the technicalities of a lens or sensor data mean so it's wasted on them.
But they know that 20mp is bigger (and therefore better) than 10mp, so it must mean the camera is better. And the advertisers play up to that.
But anyone who knows anything about photography will know that's just smoke and mirrors. Again, once you go over 8mp (for a hobby photographer) it's pointless. Instead of looking at the megapixel count you should be looking at the quality of the lens - that's what decides whether you get a good picture or not.
In fact, too many megapixels can start to distort the image when looked at in sizes normally found in print or on screen - it's something to do with the compression (it was explained to me by a press photographer, who said that he takes his pictures with the camera set at 5mp).
My camera can take images at 20mp but I have it set at 10mp.

It doesn't matter how many megapixels there are, if the lens is incapable of taking a sharp picture then you'll end up with a blur.

In the same way a motorcyclist shouldn't scrimp money on a cheap helmet, or a camper buy cheap when it comes to a sleeping bag, a photographer should be focussing their money on a quality lens. That's the most important thing.
 
Great shots, and the Yellow Warbler is superb. - I was tempted to suggest a bridge camera myself, but the OP showed a Merlin in flight, and bridge cams are not the best choice for BIF. It can be done, of course ... What's your experience with the FZ1000?

The Pallid Harrier shots were taken through a slight mist, and the sun was NW to my lens (not ideal).

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • A Pallid Harrier and Hoody, No.4..jpg
    A Pallid Harrier and Hoody, No.4..jpg
    204.1 KB · Views: 54
  • P1360122.jpeg   Buzby 1..jpg
    P1360122.jpeg Buzby 1..jpg
    91.7 KB · Views: 48
  • P1130428 (2) Stone Curlew in flight Fuerteventura Aug.'15.jpg
    P1130428 (2) Stone Curlew in flight Fuerteventura Aug.'15.jpg
    225.7 KB · Views: 50
  • Grn.Wdpkr.2..jpg
    Grn.Wdpkr.2..jpg
    82.6 KB · Views: 41
  • P1420468.jpeg  Flying Treeper.jpeg
    P1420468.jpeg Flying Treeper.jpeg
    79.5 KB · Views: 48
You can get good shots of birds in flight with bridge cameras but not so easy as an SLR. But playing the percentage game, the 5% of the time I get a realistic chance of a good flight shot seems a shame to persevere with tiny images that need cropping to blurred images. A bit self-defeating?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top