Foggy River Sunrise, Calla Burr nature sanctuary, Michigan Image # LA-7574
With some recent print orders, I stumbled upon this image in my archives. When I saw what camera I made it with, it made me think of an interesting contrast of the times in DSLRs and the complete flip in what people chose to complain about. It was made close to 8 years ago now with my very first DSLR, the Nikon D2H, with only 4 megapixels. Back then the megapixels wars were in full gear, and Nikon took some criticism for not keeping up with the Joneses and releasing only 4 MP in a camera when many were going 6 or 8.
Now, the D800 is coming soon, with a whopping 36 MP. The key complaint? ”Holy pixel gluttony – that’s too much!” :-) Even though I am on the waiting list for one, I am still reminded that what is most important is that you are making the most of the camera you have and where you are at. The number of megapixels wasn’t going to make me any more likely to be in this spot on this morning. To this day I still sell and publish many images created with my D2H. What matters most are the images I created during the times that I had it. I am sure they will bring about great memories and sales for years to come.
Tags: Equipment notes, Michigan landscape pictures
http://t.co/1xjuh7fT - posted on 22 hours ago
Funny how what used to be plenty is no longer enough. I just sold a series of photos taken with my “obsolete” Canon 20D. Of course that camera is a “whopping” 8MP, but it put out – and still puts out – some good and saleable files.
This is a lovely image. The golden light on the fog is amazing. I’d love to see a print of that.
Given that we are living through the dawn of the DSLR, I suppose it should be no surprise there is a state of rapid change. It seems to be slowing down though. Heck, 36 MP – no one will ever need more than that!
<— I'll try to revisit this statement in 5 years. ha.
Mark, you well know photographers and just people in general have to have something to complain about. It’s when they’re not complaining that you have to start worrying.
It’s a beautiful photo, no matter how many MP’s are or aren’t there.
Earl recently posted..How do photographers wait?
True Earl. I tend to mostly filter it out. Thanks on the photo. With so little activity for me this winter so far, I don’t mean to look too desperate in pulling up 8 year old images.
In going through my older photos, I noticed some really nice shots that I made when I had my Nikon D40, having all of 6 MP. I’ve enlarged a couple of this to 12 x 18 and they look lovely! And, at least to my eye, it’s hard to tell the difference between one taken with the D40 and the D300, at the same ISO of 200.
I will be interested to hear your feedback on the D800, especially with regards to the end result, the print. I’ll be interested to hear if you really see much more detail in the final print. Sure, at the 100% level, lots more detail and a whole lot of room to crop! I think that, if any thing, appeals to me the most, the ability to crop, if necessary. Sometimes I will take a photo vertically, but then later, see that a horizontal crop makes it even stronger. That’s where the extra pixels would certainly come in handy!
Finally, that is an absolutely lovely photo, regardless of the cameras or pixels.
Paul recently posted..Missing the garden
Thanks Paul. I have run into that horizontal / vertical thing a few times myself. So I will definitely be trying that deliberately in the future. I regularly enlarge D2H images to 12×18 no problem. At 16×24, it becomes highly subject specific, but for the most part, still pretty good with certain enlarging and sharpening techniques. Landscapes tend to take on a more painterly look in the small details. With my D700, I routinely go 24×36, 30×45 and up. I am expecting the differences to be subtle, but noticeable. I don’t pay much attention to 100% crops on screen in reviews because I can’t translate that into what it looks like in print.
Having all those megapixels is one of those things that will probably be a cool if it’s up there sort of thing but not really a factor in most professional photographer’s decision making process. I sell more images from the 20D than from the 5D Mark II and the camera question almost never comes up. The MKII has better files for sure but the difference is not so great where I’m disappointed when I have to use the 20D such as when my MKII was in the shop this past fall. A bigger concern to me is the cost of upgrading computer equipment to match these file sizes. Right now I’m doing well with my Mac Pro but if I didn’t go top of the line I wonder how a lesser computer would be handling my files.
I am a little concerned about that Richard. My Mac Pro is fairly beefed up on RAM already, but I can see hard drive space disappearing pretty quick.
get again highlighting that it’s the photographer and not the gear. I’m quite happy with my D300 for now
I’m not at all tempted by the new FX cameras because they dont suit my style of photography. I might be a little more interested in a D400 depending on what it has to offer. My friend is getting a D800 too, I hope you both enjoy 
scuba_suzy recently posted..Singapore & Cambodia 2012
The D300 is a fine camera too Suzy, no need to replace it. I will probably keep my D700 for my u/w use, given I just invested in a housing for it!
Love the feel of this image. As mornings are a favorite time of the day for me this image does tickle my “like it” button. I still have one of my D100′s and have some good images from them. The D300 is in my camera bag so that is what I primarily use. The larger pixel count and computer upgrading is not on my list for this year so I will look forward to your feelings on the D800. I actually think you will like it and it will fit your photography.
Monte Stevens recently posted..Taking Action
Thanks Monte. I particularly like watching fog drift across a landscape. The way it interacts with various elements is just fascinating to me. I have actually been doing just fine with my D700 – I am not sure I NEED a D800, but I have had some requests for higher res images, so I consider it a “business investment.”
What I meant by “fit your photography” I’m referring to your business. You sell some fine prints do that camera will probably be a good fit.
Monte Stevens recently posted..Taking Action
This one so stunning it made me gasp when it came up on my screen. What a huge kick I got out of the story behind it. In that flash of connection with the image it became a “fact” in my mind that it was your latest and greatest catch. This is a terrific lesson for all of us. Just as you so aptly said it wasn’t about the megapixels. It was about the moment and being there. Bushels of talent didn’t hurt.
Anita Jesse recently posted..Hanging Pictures
I agree that a 36mp camera probably wouldn’t make this a better photo. But since you have to compete with other photographers for $$$, the D800 is a good investment. It would be on my short list if it were a little less expensive.
Ken Bello recently posted..The QUAD
It’s the “Image Quality” vs “Quality of the Image” issue. Your wonderful image may or may not be improved by more pixels, but certainly there are sizes at which it is not improved. As always it’s more important who the artist is than what camera is being used. I will always prefer a stimulating image or painting of lower “quality” than a boring piece of great “quality”.
I don’t understand the fascination with more pixels. You do need enough pixels to meet your needs for post processing/display/print size. Once this is met, I am not aware of any benefit for more pixels.However, ther may be drawbacks of larger file size, slower image processing, smaller detector/potentially more noise. You have the right perspective in focusing on getting the most out of whatever camera you have in hand. The D800may be a great camera for you to purchase, but I bet it is because of other features than the number of pixels.
Roger Carr recently posted..Photo Nuts and Post: Steps to Effective Post-Processing
I think for the most part, the pixel wars are over when it comes to standard consumer DSLRs… 12 MP is quite enough for most people. The camera manufacturers now seem to be setting the bar up in the Medium Format realms to attract those markets and needs.
Mark recently posted..Interesting tangents
36 MP pixels sounds really over the top. The only benefit I can think of for have that many pixels is for the purpose of large format printing etc. The file size would be massive and would be take an age to open the file. Even browsing thumbs on a fast machine would be a chore.
It’s a legitimate concern Dan. Scrolling thumbnails shouldn’t be too much of an issue if you are using a database driven program like Lightroom since the previews are generated at import. However, I think import times are going to lengthen for sure on the same hardware.
Mark recently posted..Interesting tangents
A lovely image, as always.
I wonder about 36 MP as well. For most purposes, it seems like a waste. I’d love the detail, but I’m not sure that my print buyers would notice the difference. I’d love to see the difference that removing the AA filter would make, though. It’s going to be interesting to see how Canon responds…
I’ve been reading about the D800 and I’m tempted to get one even though I’d also have to get some lenses for it (all mine are Canon). I’m enchanted by the idea of so much detail, and such large images would give great latitude for cropping, especially to create a panorama across the middle of a horizontal frame. From what I’ve read, you can also set the camera to DX mode to take smaller pictures that are still large. From my point of view, you can never have too many pixels, but as some of the other commenters have said, I managed to get good pictures even when my early digital cameras had only 6 or 4 megapixels.
Steve Schwartzman recently posted..Gauras and paintbrushes