Birding Camera Optics Question

[pstra...@gmail.com]

Need assistance understanding pixel pitch effect on resolution.
Due to life changes, I am now birding using my camera at the limits of its abilities.

My Nikon D7200 plus 300mm zoom lens is aging, and I want to replace it with a Z 6 iii mirrorless with 200mm zoom plus 2x telextender. The D7200 has 3.89 µm pixel pitch, the Z 6 iii has 5.92 µm. Am I correct that, all things being equal, this means worse resolution at the same distance?
I had been thinking that better image stabilization, larger sensor, and newer electronics would be an advantage, then it occurred to me to check the pixel pitch. I really don't want to spend thousands of dollars to make my remaining birding years worse. Any advice greatly appreciated.
The picture attached (I'm thinking red tailed hawk) is taken at the limit of my D7200 rig.)  I hope this image clarifies my dilemma. Image taken in North Boulder CO on 2 24 2026.

[Caoimhín Perkins]

A larger pixel size means lower resolution, yes. If you image a photo made up of squares (which is what a digital image is), a photo with smaller squares will have smoother curves on it as opposed to noticeably blocky shapes from point to point. This becomes more of an issue when you really zoom in; it will not be as big an issue for things nearby. The trade-off is that smaller pixels have a smaller “bucket” to collect photons, so in low light conditions, like twilight or night, smaller pixels need more time to create a brighter image than sensors with bigger pixels. Just something to think about if you plan on looking for nightjars and owls.

[Caoimhín Perkins]

Also just want to add that smaller and smaller pixels does not necessarily mean better. 3.89microns is good but going below 2microns (I believe?) presents issues with diffraction which will create more pixel noise.

[Kevin Schutz]

I'd suggest going to a good local camera shop and seeing if you can test out what you're considering to purchase.  Some places may rent equipment.  The real question is how you perceive the quality of the resulting images, and how will you view/enjoy them.  Will images be consumed on a notepad/laptop or printed, and at what scale.  Virtually all major brands are putting out fantastic offerings today.  And tomorrow's offerings may be better still.  As we age, most individual's eyesight will degrade anyway, so we may not be able to discern detail to the Nth degree anyway.  Try to balance this reality against what your end goals are, how you personally perceive images when viewed and your overall enjoyment factor.  If new equipment is easy to use, if it will add to your fun and enjoyment,  and if it will motivate you to get out and photograph more, then go for it.

KS

El Paso County

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to cob...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds
* All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate.
* Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/membership/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cobirds+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/65806d90-8c31-4b43-bdb5-9c13754aaea8n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Kevin Schutz

[Pieter Strauss]

Thank you all for your helpful suggestions.
I guess if these decisions were easy, anybody could make them.
The Z 6 iii is probably the best body for me, along with the FTZ ii to work with my current lenses.
But as the discussion shows, I will most likely need another telephoto zoom, and that's the hard decision.  None of them meets my needs. There's a wonderful x to 200 coming out soon, but it would need the teleconverter. The existing 100 to 400 S looks good, but it is very heavy. And so it goes.

Thanks again for the effort you have put into your comments.

--Pieter