Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
I'm new to DPS and this is my first post. I've searched and searched for an answer to this question but I can't find an answer anywhere and I know someone out there can answer this.
Would the Nikon D3 or D700 produce a higher quality image since they both have full frame sensors? The D3 is 24 megapixels and can produce an image size of 6,048 x 4,032. The D700 is around 12mp and can produce 4,256 x 2,832 images. (It seems like the D3 would but that's why I'm asking)
If you were to take identical pictures with each camera and enlarge each image to 16" * 20", which one would look better? Or could you really tell a difference at that size? How big would it have to be to see any difference?
I'm just curious how important megapixels are to full frame sensors and ultimately the quality of the image.
|
Strictly speaking, the D3 has 12.3mp as it shares it's sensor and processor with the D700. The considerably more expensive D3x, however, does have the 24.5mp you cite.
At a 16x20 size, you'd likely see a difference. Having twice the DPI (dots per inch) definitely helps with print quality. The thing here is that we assume all pixels are created equal: which they're not. A D3x (or any 12mp crop-body camera) has a very dense sensor, thus meaning that high-iso noise is greatly increased. While this may be necessary to get a shot, the consequent uptick in noise would be a detriment to overall image quality.
That is to say, that depending on the actual image and the situation in which it was taken, the images could be exactly the same, or their qualities could be inversed, depending on the situation. A D3, for example, will have better image quality than it's D3x brother if higher ISO levels are involved, as the loewr pixel density of the sensor means less overall noise.
The flipside of this coin, however, is that a D3x image can be downsampled (re-sized to a loewr resolution). In some cases this may prove to be a factor as the downsampled D3x image may be as good or better than the D3 image even if the original D3x image was worse at a 100% view.
There are tons of different factors that come into play for prints. Overall image quality is best, btu resolution does play a part. That being said, I've made 24x36" prints with a 10mp D80 that are quite good: I can only imagine that the lower noise levels (and slightly higher resolution) of a D3 would improve the prints. At similar settings, a D3x would simply blow my D80 images away as they both have similar pixel densities, the D3x simply having 2.5x more actual pixels. In this situation, the D3x prints would be considerably better than the D80s.
One of the big reasons to go to a D700 or D3 is because of these low noise levels at higher ISOs: a D3x (or, conversely, the Canon 1Ds MkIII) offers a similar noise level to the crop body cameras but at a significantly greater resolution. The ultimate tradeoff is a decision only you can make, and often after experimentation with both models.
That being said, pixels and other factors aside, if a picture is blurred by motion blur, poor focus or simply bad technique/execution, there is no saving it, regardless of resolution. As well, any discussion of high and very high resolution cameras has to include the medium format crowd, which, despite their price tag, will give considerably better results.