D7000 - High Megapixels and bad press

<p>I keep reading about how the higher megapixels of the D7000 is a negative for those who do not have “great glass” (my words). While I appreciate the heads-up this offers, I am curious if there have been any scientific studies on this comparing images produced by a higher MP camera (e.g. D7000) to those shot with a lower MP camera (e.g. D90) using the same lens. I’m interested to know to what extent this difference can be seen by the human eye, and at what crop factor. I just want to make sure this is reality not some blown out of proportion bad press that many are chiming in on solely based on theory (i.e. without first hand knowledge and experience). If it is a reality, then this is bad news for those of us (the majority, I would think) who do not have serious glass, and bad news for Nikon too (why would they add such a feature on a camera as capable as the D7000 in the first place?) as the more this issue gets out, the less likely the masses of people are going to upgrade (myself included). I’m interested in the D7000 over the D90 for one reason, less noise at higher ISO, which I need for birds in flight with slower lenses. But, will I sell my 18-200 VR II or my 70-300 VR because the image quality will be worse on the 7000 opposed to the 90? Maybe, or maybe I’ll just buy a speedlight and keep my D90 and lenses.</p>

<p>It has everything to do with people blowing things way out of proportion. </p>

<p>You should keep your D90 unless the feature-set of the D7000 adds something substantial and significant to either your image capture or the final output of your photographs.</p>

I've now had the chance to use both extensively. I think the problem you're talking about has been misstated. The

higher MP of the D7000 does not cause photos taken with less than perfect lenses to be less sharp, except when

pixel peeping. If you display two images side by side on your screen, one taken with a higher MP camera than the

other but both DX cameras, and both photos at 100%, the higher MP shot may appear blurrier, because it's been

magnified more, which magnifies and flaws - hand shake, lens softness, whatever. But if you print the two photos at

the same size, the high MP photo will appear sharper.

 

A D7000 will not generate worse output from those two lenses than a D90 will. I've been using lenses of similar quality

on mine (18-105 and Tamron 70-300 for example) and it works fine. Of course, in many situations, I know that if I

used better lenses I could end up with sharper photos.

 

But remember, sharpness is about technique more than anything else. If you're in situations where a flash would be

useful, adding a flash and learning to use it well is probably going to be more helpful to you than a new camera.

<p>Absolutely - the D7000 can show more detail; the question is only whether your lenses can provide that detail to the sensor. Use the D7000 to show only as much detail as a D90 and the result won't be worse - all that's at issue is whether the lens is the weakest link in your image, and a change from D90 to D7000 may mean that the camera's sensor is no longer the limit.<br />

<br />

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml">Here</a>'s a related discussion from Canon's perspective, where a 15MP sensor shows lens issues that a 10MP sensor doesn't.</p>

<p>In general, the issue is that with more megapixels you are going to have an opportunity to see more issues with your lenses--even good ones. It is just physics really, the higher resolution of the sensor is going to show the areas where the lens just can't keep up.</p>

<p>Just a for instance that isn't a strictly digital thing. I used one MF film camera for a couple of years that produced wonderful results for my commercial clients. I scanned my film to create 50mb 8bit files and the results were wonderful. Another client wanted higher output--150mb 8bit equivalent. As a result of what I saw scanning this size, I ended up selling the camera and getting a different brand as the flaws of the system became so apparent. The client liked the results but I knew they weren't where they could be with the system I replaced it with. The images were softer in general and there were more issues in the corners as well as other problems became visible.</p>

<p>Higher MP just exposes the weaknesses of any system. I hear about very large MP cameras coming out from Canon and Nikon, maybe as many as 40mp and I personally am wary that either system can hold up at that size.</p>

<p>I have always maintained that higher MP is a good thing but it has always been with respect to the ability of the system to handle that higher resolution.</p>

<p>Andy L describes it very well. I haven't seen the issue on a D7000, but I have noticed that 100% crops with the same lens going from a 6MP D50 via a D80 to a 12MP D300 became fuzzier (tripod shot, with flash). At normal sized view, no difference to be seen.<br>

So, the higher MP count shows less mercy on the lens flaws. Except, 99% of the time, the flaw is me anyway. And frankly, bird in flight with f/5.6 consumer lenses - odds are the sensor resolution is the least of your worries.</p>

<p>Suggesting that a D7000 requires better quality lenses than, say, a D300 isn't really comparing apples to apples. Yes, a 16MP sensor may more clearly reveal optical imperfections in a given lens than will a 12MP sensor, but in most cases only if the final image is printed at a larger size that corresponds to the increase in pixel density. In other words, a 12 MP D300 file is 4288 x 2848 pixels, which will make a 9.5" x 14.29" print when scaled directly to 300 ppi. The D7000's 4928 x 3264 sensor scales to a 10.9" x 16.4" at the same output resolution. Your lens' optical imperfections would be more apparent in the larger print from the D7000, but if you were to print both at 9.5"x 14.29" then you won't notice much difference at all. If you were to print the D300 file at 10.9" x 16.4" then the optical imperfections would be there too, but wouldn't be rendered with the higher resolution of the D7000. Imperfections like subtle chromatic aberrations "hide" better in lower pixel-density files.</p>

<p>Basically, if you are buying a D7000 so you can take advantage of the resolution to make larger prints, then yes, you may wish to consider upgrading lenses to keep up with the performance of the camera. If you like the D7000 based on its all-around specification and performance, then I would get the camera first (it is excellent), and then make your own judgement about what you'd like to do in the lens department.</p>

<p>I have been "taking pictures" for forty years or more, but have never spent much time on the technical side. This discussion is a surprise to me.</p>

<p>I had always heard that more MP means more info for the camera to use to make a good picture. That's why there has been a steady move to more MP. It has always been my understanding that more MP means better enlargements, so that leaving an image in its native size would produce a better picture if there are more MP available to capture the image.</p>

<p>I am replacing my D90 with a D7000 (ordered on Saturday) and using the same lenses: 18-200mm, 18-105, 70-300mm, and 50mm. Fortunately, I do not have to please clients, just myself. I am sure I will not be disappointed, since I love what my D90 has been able to do (with my help).</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>One thing to consider--and I don't think most do--is that all digital camera output requires a bit of sharpening. Many times the raw processor is set to a default number that is designed to work with the average camera. What I found moving to larger MP cameras--or larger scans--is that the amount of sharpening needs to be increased for a larger MP file. I am not talking over or final sharpening, but that first shot at the raw stage that pulls an image together.</p>

<p>Anyway, something to keep in mind for those of you who are upgrading or have recently.</p>

<p>Robert: I think website photozone has tested lenses on different mpix count bodies ... and the testing looks pretty thorough.</p>

<p>I think this discussion is a bit silly really. Before perhaps your body was the limiting factor, now your lens will be the limiting factor. This is the basic idea right? <br /><br />And somehow you are afraid that your photos won't be as good anymore.<br>

Maybe they would be better still if you went backwards with your body, maybe a D1 or a D100.<br>

This does not make sense to me at all.</p>

<p>Here's the biggest flaw in this discussion:</p>

<p>We are all assuming that either a) the lens is the limiting factor in the final photo (D7000) or b) the camera body is the limiting factor (D90).</p>

<p>None of the tests assume that the photographer is the limiting factor which is, under most circumstances, the real culprit.</p>

<p>So the moral of the story is:<br>

Look at yourself for flaws and reasons the photo didn't come out the way you wanted before your equipment.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>One of the critical issues with a medium that relies on technology is to understand the limitations of the equipment you use. That is what this thread is about and I don't think most are arguing the talent of the photographer, which is moot in this discussion--and should be.</p>

<p>Most shooting film understood that if they were using 35mm that they couldn't compete in certain areas with those shooting 4x5 while the converse was also a valid statement--even today with digital.</p>

<p>Getting more MP can solve certain issues but it is important to understand that it can introduce new ones. Just like a lens that is great on DX format might be a bit dodgy on FX because of edge issues.</p>

<p>I have made my living from photography for over 20 years and have several different systems and rent others as well as certain other equipment to overcome the limitations of what I own. There are compromises along the way, but generally an optimal solution to each situation.</p>

<p>Knowing the limiting factors of any equipment is vital and working with those limitations--optimizing--is an important element in creating successful images. Not caring or ignoring the limitations can serve you on some level but doesn't give you the tools or knowledge to optimize your work.</p>

<p>Does your job involve shooting Air Force test targets? If not I wouldn't worry about it although the difference between the D90 and D7000 is small enough that I would just keep the D90 and not upgrade.</p>

<p> One of the often overlooked issues with regard to sharpening RAW images from higher and higher MP chips is that the most commonly used software uses <strong>pixels</strong> as dimensions, ie PS CS2 Unsharp Mask uses Amount (as a %), Radius (in <strong>PIXELS</strong>) and Threshold (in Levels)</p>

<p> This physical distance gets smaller and smaller as the pixel count (ie <strong>density</strong>) rises, so direct comparisons are hard to make with a RAW image from a D50 and a D7000. A radius of 6 pixels on a D50 is physically much larger than 6 pixels on a D7000 so the effects of the same sharpening settings have vastly different results on the final image.</p>

<p> I'm well aware that usually I'm the weakest link, but when I get it right, it's nice to have the equipment to record it!</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"I’m interested in the D7000 over the D90 for one reason, less noise at higher ISO, which I need for birds in flight with slower lenses."</em></p>

<p>I upgraded from the D90 to the D7000 for bird photography, and am very happy I did it. The reasons I did it were, in decreasing importance:</p>

<ul>

<li>Better autofocus (definitely better than the D90)</li>

<li>Higher ISO (I'll go 2/3-1 stop higher than the D90)</li>

<li>6 fps (extra frame rate is nice for BIF)</li>

<li>More MP (for cropping reasons rather than full sized image quality)</li>

<li>Dual SD cards (only needed it twice, but it was nice to have it)</li>

<li>100% viewfinder (has come in handy a few times)</li>

</ul>

<p>As many explained above, the images from the D7000 have never seemed "worse" to me than those from the D90 and often look better. I shoot mostly with the Nikon 300mm f/4 (w/ and w/o a TC1.4) but also the 70-300mm, 18-200mm, 18-105mm, and the new 35mm f/1.8. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the D7000 apparently has a strong filter and requires more sharpening. I use Aperture 3 and I increase Apple's initial image sharpening for the D7000. I also tend to sharpen more at the end. </p>

<p>I'm really happy with the results over the D90, though I would not have upgraded just for that amount of image quality improvement. I really got it for the features.</p>

 

I'll take the extra MP any day!

<p>I upgraded from a D90 to D7000 in February.<br>

Here's nearly the first picture I ever took with the D7000<br>

http://vufindr.com/2011/03/17/wintery-woods-sprague-road/<br>

I was SOLD at the point when I processed this photo.<br /><br />I believe quite firmly I couldn't have made a capture of this quality with the D90. <br>

I LOVE the greater dymanic range of the D7000 over the D90. I carry both bodies with me every day, and don't mind shooting with the D90, especially when it has a prime lens on it (55mm or 35mm), but when dealing with any subject that requires a high dynamic range, I want the D7000 in my hand. <br>

Since I use the same set of lenses on both cameras and use both frequently, I can tell you, I see no difference in image quality between the two cameras other than the higher dynamic range of the 7000.<br>

To me the D7000 is good as it gets at the price range.</p>

<p>The higher MP body (D7000) will show more detail with any lens at any aperture. Go to dxomark, and compare same lens on different bodies. The output resoltioun is a combination of sensor resolution and lens resolution. Increasing any of the two increases output resolution.</p>

<p>My experience is limited to DSLRs with "only" 12 and-a-bit megapixels, but I can clearly see the difference between a good lens and a poor one even at this meagre resolution. It seems reasonable to assume therefore, that more megapixels will simply allow the defects in a poor lens to be more easily seen.</p>

<p>However, we need to take into account that the overall definition of an image comes from a combination of the lens and sensor, so a better sensor will nearly always result in a better image, or at least an image that's closer to being an exact replica of what the lens alone can provide. This has been realised by the industry for some time, and the current focus (pardon pun) of development is as much on lens technology as on simply providing more pixels. The long and the short of it is that good glass is a must for the best image quality, but this has been the case from the very beginning of photography.</p>

<p>I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond to this post. For those videophiles out there, I would like to try and draw a comparison between a DSLR with high megapixels and the screen resolution of an HDTV. This analogy could help me (and possibly others) to better understand this issue. So, here we go: We have one standard definition TV with 480 lines of resolution and one HDTV with 1080 lines. Both TVs are 50”. Let’s equate the 480 with a 12 MP camera and the 1080 with 16 MPs. We have one standard definition dvd player connected to them both. We watch a standard definition dvd. Which TV looks the best at the same viewing distance? If I understand what I‘ve read in this post, the 480 will look best because the 1080 will magnify the imperfections of the standard definition video source. So, what are our options for improving the quality of the picture? We would have to buy a high definition player (and disc) capable of reproducing 1080 lines of resolution to go with the 1080 HDTV. In this scenario, can we relate the standard definition dvd player (and disc) to a sub-par lens? Where the imperfections of the sub-par lens will be exaggerated by the high megapixels of the image sensor? If this is true, I’m wondering if the camera industry will move in the direction of manufacturing and marketing certain lenses to be high MP compatible.</p>

<p>Robert, from all I've read I believe your analogy is a little faulty. It might be better to say that with a standard video source, the two 50" TV images will look about the same. If, however, your put that standard video source on a 72" HDTV, the flaws in the signal might now become more apparent and look worse than on the 50" TVs.</p>

<p>So if you're happy with your D90 images in the size that you use them (web size, 8x10" prints, etc.), you will be at least as happy with the D7000 image. If you crank up the size because you now have four more megapixels, lens flaws might become apparent.</p>

 

Robert, the TVs being the same size means the imperfections won't be magnified. You're analogizing to the situation

where you print the low res image and the high res image on the same size paper. If you want an analogy to the

situation where you're comparing the images side by side at 100% so that the high res image magnifies the

imperfections, think of the 480p TV as a 48" screen and the 1080p set as a 108" screen.

<blockquote>

<p>If I understand what I‘ve read in this post, the 480 will look best because the 1080 will magnify the imperfections of the standard definition video source.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your analogy was going ok until this. Lets try this one.<br>

You have an old car with ordinary tires. You buy a nice new car but put your old tires on it. Which car will drive better. The answer is the new car will drive better, but not as well as it would if you had better tires.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>None of the tests assume that the photographer is the limiting factor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nor should they. These aren't tests of photographers compared to other photographers. The tests are of mechanical results under the exact same conditions. Knowing that a skilled photographer will likely obtain a better image with a point and shoot than an unskilled person using uber pro gear doesn't tell us that a skilled photographer should just use a point and shoot then. Indeed, it tells us nothing.</p>

<p>We just seek the empirical data and can make up our own minds as to whether any personal limiting factors will outweigh any mechanical utility.</p>

<p> </p>