Megapixels: is it worth buying a new camera for more?

Nikon does make a 70-200mm f/4 that's supposed to be good, but no one seems to talk about it and I don't know anyone who has one.

Now you do - I own one and my wife has one too. I gave my 70-200/2.8 VR (1st version) up for it - about half the weight and optically excellent.

. Between VR/IS and very good high ISO performance these days, I'd often prefer to carry a good f/4 zoom that should-at least in theory-be easier to make better than a comparable f/2.8 and of course would weigh a whole lot less.

My thinking exactly. Of course, Nikon (and others) often put less effort into the slower aperture lenses (maybe to keep the cost down).

Walking around with even a 24-70mm f/2.8, much less adding on a 14-24mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 on either a separate body or just in a bag can be uncomfortable

If you need f/2.8, you'll have no choice. I don't need it - hence my Sony mirrorless kit which consists of 12-24/4, 24-105/4, and 100-400/4.5-5.6. Covers a lot of ground. The 70-200/4 fits also neatly within a DX kit together with a 16-80/2.8-4 and a 11-20/2.8.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Dieter Schaefer

My experience is more megapixels make doing fine detail edits easier. For example, you want to clone something smallish out of the shot, if you have more resolution then you can zoom in more and be more selective in what you remove and what you leave behind; same is true when working with selective layers. Also, going from 24 MP to 36 MP I have seen increased acuity and have more cropping latitude at lower ISOs (noise will become the gating factor in how much you can crop regardless of MP as you start relying on higher ISOs).

For film, cropping was always a reason for smaller grain, and so more resolution for digital images (or scans).

 

Shutterfly says at least 3MP for up to 20x30 inch prints. That considers that you usually view them from farther away.

(There are minimum resolutions that they will print, and also ones that they warn you, but will do it anyway.)

 

Noise per pixel will increase as pixels get smaller, everything else equal.

(Though it rarely is.) That will give high (spatial) frequency noise, which will tend to disappear when viewing

from a distance. (That is, the distance at which lower resolutions would be fine.)

 

In any case, 24MP is fine for many uses.

Noise per pixel will increase as pixels get smaller, everything else equal.

In theory, this is true, but in practice it makes little difference.

 

There is an absolute maximum luminosity a pixel can deliver, it's saturation point (100%) beyond which no further increase can occur. There is an absolute minimum value too, but unlike the upper limit, cannot be approached due to noise. Once you reach the noise floor, decreasing the exposure further has no effect. In other words, dynamic range is determined by the noise level at low exposure. We find that the maximum dynamic range of modern sensors is in the 14 to 15 stop range, regardless of resolution. All else being equal, the effect on noise by increasing the ISO (gain) has less effect on large pixels than smaller ones.

I would get familiar with Lightroom/Photoshop before I invested in additional gear. Software has come leaps and bounds recently and many of the issues you wish to see improved may actually be addressed with proper post processing techniques. I think this is critical given the photography you do.

 

Best of luck,

 

Bob

Nikon does make a 70-200mm f/4 that's supposed to be good, but no one seems to talk about it and I don't know anyone who has one.

 

I have one. It is a good lens but not particularly exciting. When doing long studio shoots, a lighter telezoom makes the ordeal less heavy on my arms and it delivers a pleasing image. I also thought it would be great for travel. However, there are a number of drawbacks. I find the sharpness to be good to excellent at average distances but I've found the sharpness disappointed both when doing close-ups near minimum focus distance as well as at long distances. In between those, I find the image quite pleasing. It is enjoyable to shoot with and light to carry around. However, the autofocus tends to jitter a bit in indoor lighting and focusing on approaching subjects doesn't yield the consistency of the f/2.8 version (current or previous). Finally, the VR behaves erratically in winter conditions, one time it would not activate at all (I went out of the car and it was fairly but not extremely cold, and turning VR on / off did nothing) and just yesterday, after I had been out a couple of hourse, it started to behave strangely, the viewfinder image was shaking horizontally. This was quite annoying. An hour later it seemed to behave normally. So in the end I am not completely happy with it, even though I do think it's a good lens, it's not my favorite. In my opinion, the FL 70-200mm f/2.8 is a by far better lens. However, there is of course a weight and price difference.

 

Nikon (and others) often put less effort into the slower aperture lenses (maybe to keep the cost down).

 

Yes, this seems to be the case.

 

Between VR/IS and very good high ISO performance these days, I'd often prefer to carry a good f/4 zoom that should-at least in theory-be easier to make better than a comparable f/2.8 and of course would weigh a whole lot less. Walking around with even a 24-70mm f/2.8, much less adding on a 14-24mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 on either a separate body or just in a bag can be uncomfortable.

 

Right. The weight does add up, and having the option of lighter-weight lenses is important.