Bigger Telephoto or Higher Resolution?

My current longest telephoto lens is a 300mm ED Nikkor used with a Nikon D300s. If I were looking into purchasing a 600mm telephoto lense for around $9,000-$10,000 would I be better served to purchase a 24 megapixel camera (for $7,999) and sell my 12.3 megapixel camera?

I know that it takes more storage space for a 25 mp photo but I am wonder what the technical advantages to either options would be.

I am curious if this thought is a common consideration.

Jeff, if you have that kind of money to spend. Always go with better glass. ALWAYS! New camera bodies are announced and come out monthly . Glass stays the same or GETS better usually.

The only advantage to going with a higher count pixel camera body is....................if you print REALLY large. And even at that, you can go really large with 12.3 mpx like you are shooting now.

Also, the resale on pro glass is really GREAT.

The new Canon MK IV (cropped sensor) sells for about $ 5000 and a new 500 mm lens is about $ 6000.

Case solved for your budget - new camera and new glass.

Lots of pixels also allow some serious cropping. However, in this case, If reach is the only criteria, the D300 has slightly more "reach" than the D3x. By this I mean that if the subject is farther away that you have glass for, you will have more pixel on the subject with the D300. But there are many other reason to upgrade the camera. It is just a better camera (as it should be for the price).

There is some argument for upgrading both, just not a D3x or 600mm. Aren't these delightful decisions?

I own both the D3x and the new 600mm, and if I had to choose between the two then I would choose the 600 without hesitation. It is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. I am assuming you would be using the 600 for bird/wildlife like I do, and in that case the D3x is probably not the best choice on the back of that lens. I use the D700 99% of the time with that lens for the iso speeds. That lens is so sharp that it will show any motion blur with ease, so unless you are in bright sunlight you will be be at higher iso to capture the subject. The D3x holds no candle to the low noise D3/D700 in this respect. More frames per second and low noise for low conditions (i.e. sunsrise, dusk, in the shade of a woods) is key behind this lens. I would get the D700 with the upgrade battery pack for the 8fps and the 600...trust me in saying you won't miss the extra resolution with that combo.

I think that's really no contest here. You don't gain ANY reach by buying a D3x. You actually lose some, because the pixel density of the D3x is lower than that of the D300 (the D300 is a DX camera, the D3x has an FX sensor). I don't quite understand the question, it seems.

If there were a hypothetical 24 MP DX camera (Canon comes close to that with the 7D), then, my advice would be to go with the glass. By cramming more pixels into the small sensor, you're pushing the lens' resolving power to the limits, and probably beyond the limits, so that after cropping (to increase the reach of your 300 mm lens - which really isn't increasing reach, just making the image smaller), you end up with much less image quality than with a 12 MP DX camera coupled to a 600 mm lens.

To double the resolution of a 12MP camera, you do not multiply by 2, you multiply by 4. I haven't seen a 49MP 35mm body yet, but I'm sure we will eventually. Buy the glass. You'll be better off in the long run.

Sigma 300-800 F5.6 will give you even more reach - and will be as sharp if not sharper than a 600 with a 1.4 converter. You will also have to consider a mongo tripod and gimbal head, but before you do, check out the work that Romy Ocon has published at http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/rmo - he work is exquisite - and he is not afraid to exploit his gear to the limits - he is a Canon guy, but also uses quite a bit of Sigma gear as well - I am sure you would be hard-pressed to tell which were taken with L glass and which with Sigma.

Rent both the lens and the camera and see what you think. Big purchases such as these shouldn't be made based on the thoughts of just the people commenting on this topic (although highly qualified). Rather the purchase should be made based on your own requirements and expectations. My gut feeling would be that a bigger lens would have more pros than the better camera if you are trying to get a tighter frame.
Be also aware that if you buy the 24mp camera with the larger image sensor size, the corners of your pictures will be less sharp.
This link might help: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
Happy hunting!

All depends on what you shoot and what your output is. You need to tell us that to help you better. After buying and using the D700, I don't think I could go back to a DX format. Personally, I would love to have a 600mm f/4 or better. However, It does not match what I shoot. And the higher mp bodies have some interesting limitations that the smaller mp FX bodies do not have. The D700 can do SOME things better than the D3 or D3x.

You (not being personal) really have to go beyond the equipment envy or the more expensive equipment will make me a better photographer. If you have a D200 and you shoot birds from a large distance, the 600mm WILL help you out. If you shoot much closer things in darker light or are fast moving, then the d700 might be a better purchase. If you shoot for billboards or very large prints, then maybe you would be better suited with the higher mp camera (if it is FX). There are just too many combinations of what people do to give you any advice without knowing the answer to my first sentence!!!! I wish I had $10,000 to ask the question!!!
Troup

Thank you all for your replies. At this time I have no intention of buying more photographic equipment. I had just recently purchased a Nikon D300s to use with my old Nikon AI-S lenses. I was just wondering how increased resolution correlated with higher magnification. I did not realize that the number of pixels 24mg contains is not twice (but less) than 12mg sensor (bad math skills on my part). It was an academic question. From a previous post of mine concerning comparing the quality of photos degrading from my 300mm lens when shooting it with an old Nikon FE and then with my new D300s...I found out last night while shooting RAW with Neutral exposure setting that the 300mm lens still is very sharp. It was the camera's built-in auto processing software that was messing me up.

Thanks again.

Of course, 24 MP is twice the pixel number of 12 MP. But it's not twice the linear resolution.

I've always picked lens over camera when it comes to $$. I've never once been disappointed or regretted the choice. Lenses you keep. Cameras come & go. Don't forget tripod, head, and gimbal.


Kent in SD

With the 1.5x "magnification" a smaller sensor gives, I find my long telephotos very difficult to stabilize. I had what I would consider moderate success using a 500mm on a big-a** gimbal head, with an additional under-camera brace AND a sand bag. It is a wiggly long lens, I will admit: the old Nikkor 500-4 P EDIF, but still - braced and weighted like that I would have expected better performance. Of course, I never shot a ~750 mm lens back in my film days....

Pete D.