[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Samanax

The D3 images would look better at larger sizes because of the higher megapixel count. The D700 images would still look pretty darn good, but at half the megapixel count you would see a difference between the two when the images are enlarged.

When viewing them on your computer monitor I think the images from both cameras would look pretty similar.

Thank you for your input @Samanax. That's what I thought but I was trying not to get too caught up in the megapixel race.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

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.

Yes - thank you. I checked my stats after posting this and you are correct.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

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 lower 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 lower 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.

Interesting points. I've never thought about downsizing an image to get better image quality. So, the less you try to cram into a sensor the better your image quality depending on the situation...am I reading that right? It seems like it has a lot to do with what you're shooting and for me that could be a number of things.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

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.

Again...very good points (I really appreciate your insight). I don't think I'll be able to play around with each of the cameras to see what I like best. But, this has given me a lot to think about. I am leaning towards a full-frame camera since I used to shoot a ton with an old Nikon N70 and I'd love to have a file that's comparable with old slides and negatives.

I'm not going to be doing a ton of printing anyway but it's those times where I get a good shot I want to be able to enlarge it. And, like you said, if the image sucks to begin with it doesn't matter what kind of camera you have - there's no saving it.

Originally Posted by Mr Guy

Os did a pretty good job of explaining why that's a qualified maybe. The media has coined the term "Megapixel myth". A lot more factors into the quality of an image than the megapixel count, and it's certainly fallacious as a blanket statement to say that you should be able to get more details from a larger sensor without knowing numerous things that will have a very real impact on quality, especially because "more details" doesn't really mean anything that's intrinsically measurable.

Are you getting "more details" because you have less noise reduction? More expensive lenses? CCD over CMOS? Better ability to focus? Sharper focus? Better predictive autofocus? More autofocus points? Sharper glass? Less motion blur? Less camera blur? Faster shutter speed? More effective stabilization? A tighter crop? More zoom? Macro? Better sensor quality?

There's a lot that can give the impression of superior image quality that isn't really about the megapixel count.

Not to mention that how large you print something and have it look good depends on how close you intend to view the print. You can make a billboard from a 1 megapixel image, you just need view it from billboard distances...

Great points @Mr Guy – It seems like there are more variables in today’s cameras than there used to be. You bring up some great points that I wasn’t thinking about in my original post/question. I’m trying not to get too caught up in the megapixel myth and as you’ve pointed out there’s more to a great image and print.

I would like the ability to print something at least 16*20 and it look good from a short distance. I wouldn’t have to look perfect under a microscope but I’d want it to look good hanging on a wall where you might view it from ~4 feet or so.