Stripped down D4 rumor

TaoTeJared

The Leica M Monochrom was the one that came to mind!

That's a joke - reaching for the moon and suggesting an $8,000 camera doesn't prove a point.

There is a clear need in the Nikon range for a 50MP body since that is the highest resolution demanded by the print mags like Vogue.

Magazines don't use Hassy and other Medium Format systems for the resolution. It is the expanded color and greater color bit depth (accuracy) why they use them. It has nothing to due with resolution or megapixels for magazines. The printing presses can't even barely print a 12mp image to it's actual quality.

10 years ago they were making billboards with 6-8mp cameras. There is next to zero need for a sensor over 36-40mp body for Nikon's customer base. Those that need the High MP MF bodies with always use those - and that market is very small. Nikon needs to pull over Pentax and Canon users, not the MdFmt world.

NSXTypeR

I didn't say DSLR, did I? I said, "recent high end camera".

The Leica S2 would be a high end MF camera that doesn't have video. It's a MF in a DSLR style body.

Photobug

Yes...+1 for Msmoto.

Also agree that the video option will be there D4 mini or D400 because its cheaper to build with video...more components shared from other DSLRs.

The new entry level "small" DSLR must be announced this year. Hopefully the D400 will be announced soon...I hope. As Msmoto has said in the D300 Forum September brings great hope for the D400.

NSXTypeR

I don't know if you can go any lower than the D3200, but I guess if Canon can so can Nikon.

SquamishPhoto

10 years ago they were making billboards with 6-8mp cameras. There is next to zero need for a sensor over 36-40mp body for Nikon's customer base. Those that need the High MP MF bodies with always use those - and that market is very small. Nikon needs to pull over Pentax and Canon users, not the MdFmt world.

What on earth are you talking about? They never made billboards from the photos shot with 6-8MP cameras. And Im gonna go out on a limb and say that Nikon's customer base is obviously much broader than your imagination, because most rumours suggest that both Canon and Nikon are likely to produce bodies with MP counts well exceeding that of the D800. So, as much bluster as you want to put into your declarations it doesn't lend them a drop of credibility, it just makes you come off a little pompous.

Ade

6-8 mp is certainly more than enough for billboards designed to be viewed at a distance.

And there are plenty in Nikon's customer base who would like 50+mp images. D4x, bring it.

TaoTeJared

What on earth are you talking about? They never made billboards from the photos shot with 6-8MP cameras. .

Billboards require usually 5ppi-10ppi (large/50ft long view) to 72ppi for closer views. Some newer printers can even utilize resolutions up to 250ppi for close view applications but that is only in the last couple of years.
8 years ago I worked for an outdoor advertising agency and people were utilizing Canon 20Ds, Nikon D100s and one had the Nikon D2x when it was released. Designers didn't know what to do with that much and had to ratchet down the resolution. The high end shooting agencies were using a 6mp Leaf MF backs.
You can't rewrite history.

A few groups talking about it
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigital/discuss/72157628825657427/
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QyaM
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/29030803
Lamar billboards current needed specs.

SquamishPhoto

Your'e the one rewriting history. Billboards were and in many cases are still done with MF film. I don't really care who you worked for and what they did, but your idea of how things were done is pretty ignorant. Designers didn't know what to do with that kind of resolution?!!? Have you never heard of film scanning?....seriously.

SquamishPhoto

6-8 mp is certainly more than enough for billboards designed to be viewed at a distance.

And there are plenty in Nikon's customer base who would like 50+mp images. D4x, bring it.

Sure, basic billboards without any real detail, but anything advertising for national pro sports, fashion or product display where detail mattered would've been done with film as it would've been work fielded from an industry pro. But, yeah, Tao is right, no one needs MP at all...thats why he bought a D800.....

PB_PM

As we all know, the gap between want and need is greater than the Grand Canyon.

FedererPhotography

@TriShooter

You are right -- video is a big part of weddings (though not as big as manufacturers would have you say). But very few photographers do video at the same time or with the same cameras that they do their still work with. The fact is, if you are taking a video of a seminal moment... you aren't making a photograph of it. And if you are making a photograph of it, you aren't making a video. In the end, that means you need one set of gear and people to do the video and one set to do the stills...

TaoTeJared

Sure, basic billboards without any real detail, but anything advertising for national pro sports, fashion or product display where detail mattered would've been done with film as it would've been work fielded from an industry pro. But, yeah, Tao is right, no one needs MP at all...thats why he bought a D800.....

I guess we know who never climbed a billboard in their rebellious adolescence.
The billboards I worked with were for NFL, GM, Sonic, McDonalds, and almost everything under the sky. Very few billboards out of the close to 500,000 in the US alone are fashion or sports teams and almost zero NEED MedFrmt size. If you talk to any photogs who shoot billboards most of them will say "it's what's expected" (by the observing client) or "what they have always shot," not for the need. It's the same with most advertising for magazines etc. Pretty much the same story why you don't show up with a Nikon V2 for a wedding or commercial shoot with the excuse that it has more MP than a D3x. If you used flash you probably could make images look just as good to the client.

I have a D800, but that is because that's what came out, it was time to upgrade and I didn't feel like spending $6000 for a D4. Lack of choice, not desire for MP is why I have it. I have never needed 36mp, haven't needed it, and probably never will. I use my feet and have Zooms when I can't. I personally rather have the 16mp sensor of the D4. I do think the sweet spot for needed resolution is somewhere between 16-22mp that would cover most photogs and pros. I think Canon's 5DMkIII really hit the nail on the head with it's sensor and balancing resolution with ISO noise.

I'm sure we will see 40+mp sensors but that doesn't mean there is a need. I would rather see dynamic range raised into the 14-16 stops, 16bit color and better color recording and DR at higher ISOs. That would be a real evolution in sensors.

Golf007sd

I would rather see dynamic range raised into the 14-16 stops, 16bit color and better color recording and DR at higher ISOs. That would be a real evolution in sensors.

+1. This is what I want in my next pro-body from Nikon.

Lcky

I would rather see dynamic range raised into the 14-16 stops, 16bit color and better color recording and DR at higher ISOs. That would be a real evolution in sensors.

+1. This is what I want in my next pro-body from Nikon.

This is what I want in the next pro-body Nikon..