Bring on the MPs

[shots worth sharing]

OK, I'm not a reflexive, "more-is-better" kind of guy but the more MPs is pretty attractive.

 

This shot was taken with the k10d and 300mm lens + 1.4 TC at a distance of about 40 feet (12.2M.)<div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

With a reasonable crop, I'm down to just 3.61 MP.<div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

PS The softness of focus has no bearing on the "are sensors outstripping lens resolution?" debate: it's the result of a hurried, early morning quick shot.

[mountainvisions]

The problem as covered in a prior thread is for your image to be any good, you need to be perfect.

 

Those 3.96MP will print a fine 5x7 print, even an 8x10...my question is how big are you planning to print? For

web use 3.96 is a bit excessive.

 

Cropping brings flaws in an image out. I've got plenty of digitally cropped 4MP images that just don't look great

after camera shake and focus issues. But at the full 4MP (the non cropped versions) look pretty good as 8x10s.

 

Just something to consider before everyone starts demanding more pixels so their 21mm DA pancake can take 600mm

effective images. Does sound appealing though!

[shots worth sharing]

You're absolutely right about perfecting technique, Justin. My point is that more pixels is an viable (and potentially more cost effective) alternative to huge (and hugely expensive) lenses. I have a 3.5 MP crop out of the K10d which would pass as a decent 8x10 to an uncritical eye but it would look appreciably better as a 5mp crop out of the k20d (or a 7MP crop from the k30d ;~). But, as you say--and this example illustrates--, this strategy places a premium on technique.

[a few images]

Hey Dave, great shots..

 

Mine isn't some MP beast, maybe about a 50% crop from the K10D and a Tamron 70-300 Di something. My question is, is

this bird that I photographed the same as yours? Is mine also a downy woodpecker?<div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

Consulting Sibley, I'd say mine's a Downy and yours is a Red-bellied. Is there an expert in the house? What I'm really after is the Pileated which has been showing up recently but I'll need a Bigma, a k20d, a lot of luck and, of course, flawless technique to stand a chance.

[a few images]

Dave, I swear I have seen one of those!! That pileated wood pecker! I can't recall where I've seen it though. Maybe here in NJ or possibly down in NC, I can't remember.

 

By the way, the one I posted is about the size of a blue jay..

[shots worth sharing]

The size of a blue jay is certainly not a downy--I think my id may actually be right.

 

As to the pileated, I'd think either of those locations is plausible. It's a really impressive bird, isn't it? It's great to have them here in our park. They'll stick to the larger, farther tree, though so it'll be a long shot if I get one but I've got the 300mm & tc & tripod at the ready.

 

More MPs would help, too ;~)

[dogbert]

Pixels have their value but they are not a complete substitute for a longer lens. To put it simply, the more pixels you pack in the harder the lens has to work and at about 12 megapixels for APS-C the resolution of the lens becomes fairly limiting.

 

For point and shoots with their teeny sensors even though some of them are now about 12 MP, the effective resolution has not really increased from when they were in the 4-5 MP range.

[shots worth sharing]

"Pixels have their value but they are not a complete substitute for a longer lens."

 

You're certainly right, Geoff, but it's my best strategy until I win the lottery. It also has the virtue of

forcing me to work on technique which, as Justin suggests, is the critical factor.