Your Move Nikon..50 MP?

Ironheart

Uhhh, diffraction? The smaller the sensor sites, the closer you are to the size of the airy disk. Play with the calculators here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

FrenchRiviera

Uhhh, diffraction? The smaller the sensor sites, the closer you are to the size of the airy disk. Play with the calculators here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Diffraction is an optical issue , more resolution only permits to see it
Diffraction doesn't degrade quality but limits improvement .
Aperture zone to which you can benefit a better image quality due to increased resolution will become narrower and narrower ... until a point where we won't have anymore benefit .

For exemple , on OMD EM1 , best quality is close to 4.0 and you can see diffraction effects from 8.0 ...

autofocus

I want the next camera to have a Coffee warmer on it so when I'm sitting in a blind waiting on wildlife I'm comfortable.

Parke1953

autofocus that will be part of the I AM Advancing firmware update.

FlowtographyBerlin

There is a very narrow market for this sort of camera (D300).

What about the astro D810? Kinda blows that entire argument right outta the water doesn't it?

+1

Done. Nothing more to add. Topic closed.

Seriously, all this mere guessing of why a company does this and not that is just ridiculous. You can rant and cry for whatever you think they should make, yes, but rationalizing why "NIKON", like it was some kind of god out there, is not making a product like the D400 is complete BS. Sorry. But it's true. You can bet that:

a) They're spending LOTS of budget on market research before they decide to make a certain product. A lot.
b) They're still only a group of humans. They make mistakes and strange decisions. Sometimes it's the cat of the director's friend's uncle not liking the design of a product, and it gets kicked. Or they just have other priorities. NO ONE KNOWS.

These discussions about why Nikon, or any other company is doing something wrong and how they're missing out on this and that often reminds me of all those hobby experts in front of the TV watching sports games and yelling about how the coach doesn't know how to make his team score.

[/rant off]

FlowtographyBerlin

Oh, nice summary of what I was saying:

I want the next camera to have a Coffee warmer on it so when I'm sitting in a blind waiting on wildlife I'm comfortable.

Exactly.

Sports

@FlowtographyBerlin - you're right that we don't know, but you're on a rumor site, so it should not piss you off like that, that people want something or try to analyze, guess, or whatever.
Personally, I find it more than reasonable to expect successors to old products - unless they were failures.
A good supplier is a stable and predictable supplier.
Nikon's Expeed CPUs are based on Fujitsu CPUs, and I'm sure Nikon expects Fujitsu to design new versions with higher performance at predictable intervals. Would Nikon accept if Fujitsu let a cat decide?
I'm sure the coffee warmer symbolizes people's weird feature requests, but the topic is the complete opposite, as I see it. It's about Nikon delivering or not delivering the obvious products.
The thread asks about a 50 MP response, and the discussion on when, how, etc. is a valid discussion on a site like this. And the same goes for the D400, even though the topic is not exactly red hot anymore.
PS Regarding your item a) Canon, too, spent lots of budget and market research, and came to the opposite conclusion than Nikon, it seems. Why is it a bad thing to discuss this?

ForrestShooter

And what are you going to print and sell with this 50mp camera to justify the purchase? 5x7´s ? 4x6's ? I've sold thousands of small prints and few large prints. Long live the D800 !

Sports

@ForrestShooter - I totally agree, 95% (or 99%) of us don't need 50 Mp. But let me remind you about what people said when the D800 was announced:
"We don't need 36 Mp."
Now, people say "Long live the D800."
Anyway, it's not about what is needed for a certain print, it's about what Nikon believe they can sell.

snakebunk

The difference between 36 and 50 mp is not very large. I think the goal should be to store all information that the best lenses can deliver.

spraynpray

In spite of what is known to be fact regarding what makes the best image quality, people are still won over by the glamorous numbers of higher megapixels so I think the manufacturers will carry on boosting mp for kudos and sales, then when they hit the limit for lenses will switch to better dynamic range and hi ISO noise - only boosting megapixels when new lens tech makes it possible if at all. That's when the numbers game will be even more fun than it is now. 20 stop dynamic range anybody?

kenadams

"The commercial for this lens I'd like to buy says it will outresolve a 30MP sensor ... does that mean I can't use it on my D700?"

Marketing...

Msmoto

Sales information, IMO, only for the purpose of selling, would suggest I cant use good lenses on my D4 with "only" 16 MP.

This MP race is very much like the horsepower race in the USA in the 1960's and 1970's with automobiles. For example, the Chrysler 300 was the benchmark for awhile, but eventually was surpassed by others.

A motorcycle I have owned was capable of close to 200 mph (320 kph) yet there are not a lot of places to ride that fast.

If there is an advantage to 50 MP, I think it might be in the post processing ability to do things such as cropping and perspective control which can really expand an area dramatically at one end of the image. So, while my D800E is quite adequate, I can see the utility of more pixels.

And, some of us just like to have the fastest, biggest, most unique, most expensive, most....etc......LOL

paulr

To each his/her own, No matter what,? the camera is the tool, the photographer is the ?

snakebunk

I think Nikon is doing a pretty good job working on all aspects of a camera. They have increased the number of pixels but also fps, high ISO capability and other things. Don't you think?

donaldejose

I just produced a seven foot wide (printed at 300dpi) panorama for a client. Because they are lighter I used my 24mp D750 and Nikon 50mm f1.4, They did fine. My panorama was over 100 mp. Although I think my 36 mp D800 with my Sigma Art 35mm f1.4 or Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 likely would have done better, I did not use them and did not need them. You can create a 100 mp image with a 24 mp sensor. Still, if a 56mp body comes out I will lust after it even though I must admit I do not need those megapixels.

ThomasHorton

From a marketing perspective megapickles are a wonderful tool. It is a number that is easy to incorporate into advertising. It is self-explanatory. 50 is more than 42; which in turn is more than 36.

Marketing advertisements want to emphasize that the customer is getting more with their product. Megapickles are great for that. It is an easy concept for a layperson to understand. Buy our camera and you get MORE megapickles than our lousy competitor's camera.

Most other things about the quality of a camera/sensor are more complicated. Advertising people hate complicated stuff. It makes their heads hurted.

It is very difficult to imprint, in time/space of an advertisement these more complicated quality factors.

If you wanna sell cameras, you have to make the camera appeal to the potential customer. A nice clean self-evident number like megapixels is a handy and expected factor in digital cameras these days.

Imagine if a camera manufacturer stopped advertising the number of pixels but instead started advertising pixel density and pixel size where smaller may be better? How many customers will understand no less appreciate that information? The 0.01% of potential customers who visit photography forums?

So yes, Nikon as well as the other camera manufacturers will continue the Megapickle race -- For three very good reasons

1. It is what the customer expects
2. Making a camera with higher megapixles will probably not result in a worse camera.
3. The competition is continuing to run the megapickle race.

Which camera manufacturer will stop running in the race first? Don't we call people who do that losers and quitters?

A camera manufacturer may *choose* to limit the number of pixels, but the potential customer may perceive this as the manufacturer can't keep up with the competition. No manufacturer will take that risk.

BVS

It's fine to advertise MPix. It generates hype/buzz and comes with a certain prestige factor. At the same time though, I'd like to believe that the majority of people buying high res cameras (D810, 5DS, A7R) understand that pixels aren't everything and know what their needs are, although I could be wrong...

ThomasHorton

At the same time though, I'd like to believe that the majority of people buying high res cameras (D810, 5DS, A7R) understand that pixels aren't everything and know what their needs are, although I could be wrong...

You have a more optimistic opinion of photographers than I do.

WestEndFoto

I think that the argument is a little more nuanced. While resolution (expressed as megapixels) does not trump everything, in my view it is the most important measurement for what I shoot (controlled lighting, tripods), followed by dynamic range and then low light performance (for someone else, such as a news photographer, this might be reversed). However, this is only true up until the sensor surpasses the resolution of the lens.

If you think that resolution does not matter that much, then a smaller sensor like an APS-C, Micro 4/3rds or even a CX might be all you need. No need to spend more on bigger lenses and cameras.

However, if resolution is important to you, then the larger the format of the lens (FX>DX>CX), the better the optical quality of the lens (prime>zoom, expensive>cheap), the more image space of the lens is used (FX on FX>DX on FX) and the more pixels resolving the image (36mp > 24mp), then other factors (engineering design and skill, technology generation, marketing choices etc.) being equal, more megapixels is better than less megapixels.

However, your resolution is only going to be as good as the weakest link in the above chain. I cannot resist a good belly laugh when I see a superzoom on a D800 or a camera phone with more than 3 megapixels).

spraynpray

From a marketing perspective megapickles are a wonderful tool. It is a number that is easy to incorporate into advertising. It is self-explanatory. 50 is more than 42; which in turn is more than 36.

Marketing advertisements want to emphasize that the customer is getting more with their product. Megapickles are great for that. It is an easy concept for a layperson to understand. Buy our camera and you get MORE megapickles than our lousy competitor's camera.


Which camera manufacturer will stop running in the race first? Don't we call people who do that losers and quitters?

A camera manufacturer may *choose* to limit the number of pixels, but the potential customer may perceive this as the manufacturer can't keep up with the competition. No manufacturer will take that risk.

Very good post (you hit the marketing mentality right on the head) and one that meshes with mine except in that the place they must stop is when the sensors out resolve the lenses and then, 'Best Image Quality' (dynamic range/low noise) will become the strong selling point. Photography is about image quality after all. IMHO.

kenadams

From a marketing perspective megapickles are a wonderful tool. It is a number that is easy to incorporate into advertising. It is self-explanatory. 50 is more than 42; which in turn is more than 36.

True. It's understandable from the pov of the sellers of course. Doesn't make the whole approach any better, though. Not that I care that much about it, it's just how it is - but I find this approach lacking. Does *anybody* in here know how many GHz the CPU on your computer is running on? Back in the 90s (uh-hu), when my dad got our first PC, we had a 486 w/ 66 Mhz. Now *that* was a figure you could remember and brag about to your friends. It also somehow started the whole Megahertz race. Today, I'd be hard put to tell you what my MacBook runs on. I'd venture a guess and go with 1.7GHz, but to be sure I'd have to look.

My point is, if one of those metrics proves to become rather insignificant, maybe because revolutions gradually become evolutions and then iterations only when you run into barriers based on the laws of physics, marketers will quickly choose another even less significant metric to catch our attention. Again, does anybody know how much L3 cache their 486 CPU had? In all probability, it didn't, at all.. however, in these parts, the size of the L3 cache has become close to as important as the GHz value. Not saying that's not deserved in a way, since it speeds everything up to have a large cache, but I'm just wondering what's next. Metalurgy on the CPU parts? "This CPU was built at 3 degrees less temperature than our competitors' product"? If my mom goes out and buys a new laptop, good luck explaining an L3 cache to her.

In the world of cameras, it's mainly MP and autofocus points (no, no, *cross* autofocus points!). Now that everybody has realized, MPs are stagnating, I wonder how long it will take until the first print ad talks about dynamic range.

tcole1983

Wow this thread got long in the tooth. No wonder I was 106 postings behind.

donaldejose

Distinctions have to be meaningful to be significant distinctions. There is a real distinction between the dynamic range of Canon and Nikon sensors but that distinction is not meaningful when you have a properly exposed portrait. Therefore, it is not a significant enough distinction to cause people to switch from Canon to Nikon even though Nikon sensors offer clearly superior dynamic range. A recent example on NR is Coastalconn's switch from Nikon to Canon because Canon offers a crop sensor body with high fps while Nikon does not. Look closely at the images Costalconn is producing with his "deficient dynamic range" Canon sensor. As long as he has the basic exposure right the Canon sensor provides sufficient dynamic range in the image. Thus, the dynamic range distinction is not a significant distinction. Another example is printing at 9x13 out of a desktop inkjet printer at 300 dpi. The difference between a 12 or 16 or 24 or 36 megapixel sensor won't be significant. I recently printed a seven foot wide panorama at 300 dpi from a 24 mp sensor; didn't need 36 or 50+ megapixels to print 7 feet. The megapixel race is becoming invalid as Ken Rockwell has been saying (in his usual exaggerated form) for some time. Will dynamic range take over? I don't think so because it too is becoming irrelevant. Frames per second? Irrelevant to most people. 173 focus points on the D5? That may be the next big distinction for advertising purposes. Fast on sensor focus points? That would be very important to those who like to shoot at f1.4. We are approaching a point with full and crop frame DSLRs where they all are sufficiently adequate for the purpose that they become generic items like computers are all capable of word processing, e-mail and internet browsing.

spraynpray

Not so sure about your conclusion on dynamic range Don. Don't forget we are looking at CoastalConns images on a screen. I was judging some printed images just last night and the difference in dynamic range of different cameras was apparent. I'm with you on mp though.