I got a question please guys.
Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.
Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?
The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.
Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.
This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.
Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!
Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.