Do more pixels mean sacrificing flexibility?

[Cindy-Clicks]

I own a T3i and it is litterally falling apart on me after just 19 months, due to the sheer volume of photos I take.  I decided to get an upgrade but with the new 24 pixel camera I have,  I have had nothing but problems from the start.  With the T3i,  I frequently shoot with my Tamron 28-300 zoom and  I can consistently take  beautifully clear shots at 1/13 sec at 300mm, hand held.  

I have been told that when you increase pixels the camera gets pickier and needs a tripod.  The way I shoot, I find a tripod to be a great hinderance.  I find it difficult to believe that a more expensive camera will do less for me than the T3i.  I would like to know what your thoughts are.  I will take this camera back and buy another T3i body if that is what I need to do.   I show my work in galleries and was hoping to get less pixillation on larger prints.  I might want to get the new 16-300 lens I hear Tamron is coming out with, if I stay with the T3i. 

[cicopo]

You haven't said what new body you're using but that Tamron is just a mid grade lens & part of the problem, but so is the increase in pixel count. At 18 Mpixels a shot with lets say a 4 pixel softness from camera shake or a less than perfect lens or BOTH is now a 6 pixel smear because you've gone up 25% in pixel count & so has the smear.

[Cindy-Clicks]

So it looks like this Pentax K-3 is going back.  Unlike most photographers I have met,  I use my camera as a tool, much like a painter would use a brush.  I want a camera that will do what I want it to.  When you use the camera as a technition would use a wrench, you may allow the camera to dictate, but that is not my style.  I am very particular about my work and if I think the clarity is good, you can bet that it is, at the shutter speeds I have been using.  I should not have to adjust my shooting style for the sake of the camera.  One of the reasons why I have received international awards for my work is because I don't stay confined inside the box.  There is no perfect camera for me, so I will just try to get the best one I can find that will work for my needs.  I am just disappointed that I can't have more pixels.  

[twagn]

---

@Cindy-Clicks wrote:

One of the reasons why I have received international awards for my work is because I don't stay confined inside the box.

---

I'd love to see the pic's that have recieved international awards. Can you post a few?

[Cindy-Clicks]

One of them was taken with film.  This is a recent one but I just found out today that another one got shortlisted in an international competition in England.  This one was shot at 1/6 sec, hand-held.   Its not like I have numerous International awards yet, as I have only been shooting full time for 19 months, but I exhibit all over the US in gallery shows.  

[twagn]

I'm a fan of abstract nice! Pixel density on a small sensor is not favorable IMO. It's a selling point that unfortunately many noobs fall for and camera manufactures thrive on..more MP is of course better!. Canon has held the fort at 18mp on it's APS-C sensors. Sony and Nikon (which use Sony sensors) play the more MP is better game.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Would moving to a full frame solve my issues with shutter speed though?

[ebiggs1]

Not trying to sound condescending but you are a “true” photographer? Not just a hobby seeker? And you are trying to make a name for yourself in the field?

Than you say you are using a T3i, and or a Pentax K3? With a Tamron 28-300? And these are your “tools”!

There is a reason the worlds best photographers use Canon and of course that other brand (starts with a N).

If I found myself in your shoes, a 5D Mk III and a EF 24-70mm f2.8 along with a 70-200mm f2.8 would be my next purchase, and soon.  (BTW, the 5D Mk III has a full frame, 22 MP sensor in it.  Exactly what you are after.)

You will have the satisfaction knowing you have the best equipment made in the world. If this combo doesn't get your shot, nothing will.

Now this is my humble opinion and worth every penny you paid for it.

[Cindy-Clicks]

Thank you but I wasn't quite ready to lay down that kind of cash for a camera.  Obviously if I have used up my T3i in just 19 months, I am pretty hard on them.  I know the 1D is a tough camera that could stand up to abuse, but we are talking big bucks and no more pixels than what I already have.  I just found out that Nikon is coming out with a new, lighter 18-300 lens and I really need that kind of range for my style of shooting.  I miss shots by taking lenses off and on, not to mention the chance of getting dust on the sensor.  I have not invested enough money into lenses yet to be tied to a certain brand at this point.  I did my research before I made my decision, and the reviews for the K-3 are off the charts, from multiple sources.  But if the full frame will allow me to shoot at low shutter speeds in low light with a longer telephoto, hand-held, then it may be worth considering.  I have a Tonika 11-16 for landscape and I am thinkng about investing in a true macro lens.  But can I use the wide-range lenses on a full frame camera?  I just want a lot of flexibility.  I don't care what anyone else is using.  I am my own person and I tend to be more rebellious and don't mind breaking a few "rules."  

[MikeSowsun]

Shooting hand-held at 1/13 sec at 300mm is pushing the limits of any camera.   

When you switched from a Canon T3i to a Pentax K-3, I assume you also changed the lenses you were using. This alone can have a big effect on your photos.  

Did you know that the K-3 has the image stabilization built into the camera and not the lens? Canon has always had image stabilization built into the lens itself with the idea that it can better be tailored to the specifics of each lens.  Which lens were you shooting with on your K-3? Is it possible you had the stabilization turned off? What shutter speed and focal length were you getting unsatisfactory photos?

Pixel Density does have an effect on "motion blur", but so does the effectiveness of the Image Stabilization.

Going to a Full Frame camera can help you in two ways:

1)  FF cameras generally have lower pixel densities and will reduce motion blur

2)  FF cameras are able to use higher ISO settings without seeing digital noise. Using higher ISO will let you increase the shutter speed and further reduce motion blur.