Megapixels Aren't the Only Factor

It seems that megapixels has become the byword for better in photography; the more megapixels your digital camera has the better it is, but is it?  I have been a Nikon user for 16 years now and a Nikon DSLR owner since 2006.  Then it was 6mp and everyone was happy. Then 12mp became the standard for Nikon with the D3S / D700 / D300S / D90 (the D3X has 24mp)  range of cameras, and this only changed with the 16mp D7000 in 2011, but Canon went one better with 18mp across the board, while the other manufacturers pushed the range even further.  

However Nikon stuck with the 12mp and worked on keeping digital noise in check.  Nikon have become the leader in high speed sensors that have pushed the boundaries of shooting in very low light.  Now Nikon have launched their latest flagship DSLR in the shape of the D4, which 'only' has 16mp, which is still smaller than the offerings from Canon and Sony (24mp), and the replacements for the D700 (D800?) and D300S (D400?) are almost certain to follow suit.  Is this a mistake? Personally I don't think so.  The D4 has so many more attributes other than less megapixels and Nikon professionals have all placed their orders for the new camera.

Yes, the more megapixels you have the bigger the prints you can produce.  But how many A3 or bigger images do you print every year?  Personally I only print a few (my last being a 75cm x 30cm panoramic) and my 12mp Nikon can produce quality enlargements to rival the larger sensor cameras, so I don't really feel the need to have more.  I'm not knocking Canon or any other offerings from the main stream manufacturers but I feel that people have got hung up about the size of their sensors without looking at the 'bigger picture' if you excuse the pun.  

The same thing happens when people look at cars. They see a big power figure and top speed but that is only half the story.  If the handling is rubbish and the car wont corner, then what is the point of all that power.  You only have to watch Top Gear to see exotic, high performance cars get slated because they just wont go round corners.  If we lived in Roman times with straight roads we wouldn't need cars that go round corners but we live in the real world and while on paper certain items stand out, it is when you use it everyday you find out what is really important.

It is the same with cameras and there is so much more to how it operates in the real world than the number of pixels a manufacture can pack into a sensor.  Nikon produce cameras that I like to use and produce the images of the quality I expect.  I look on with interest how the Nikon D4 shapes up when the pros get their hands on them and start using the camera in real life situations.  Me? I'm eagerly waiting for the D400 - please can we have some news on a launch date soon Nikon?


UPDATE: Since I wrote this article Nikon have launched the D800 with 36MP, which I don't think many people were expecting.  While this doesn't detract from the reasons for my article it will remain to see if this new camera can cope with that many pixels and still retain the Nikon trademark noise quality.  Personally I think Nikon will have tested this camera to death before its launch and I'm confident it will live up to the launch hype.  Will I buy one? Probably not because of all the extras that I'd have to buy to run this camera, not least a more powerful laptop to cope with the new file size.  However is this the shape of things to come in DSLR technology?  I wait for the launch of the D400 with baited breath.