Your Move Nikon..50 MP?

paulr

I have two friends who are experienced photographers, both have bought the Canon 50 million pixel camera. Both are complaining about post production with images from their cameras due to the small size of the pixels. Sharpening seems to be a problem and any error with slow shutter speeds show a definite blur.

spraynpray

Funny you should say that @paulr, I just came to this thread to post something similar. A friend of mine has also just bought this camera and he has said that he finds it very hard to hand hold it. He even turned his nose up at placing his very good Gitzo tripod on an unsound footing (seaweed on rocks) as it would result in blurred images. When I mentioned pp'ing the images, he said 'yes, that's the other thing. My high spec MAC is very much slower. I stitched three images in a small pano and had a 1.7 Gigabyte file!'.

I still feel 24mp is enough, but 50+ would likely make me more problems than it is worth so I will pass.

WestEndFoto

I am sure there were problems like this when people upgraded from 3 to 5 megapixels.

spraynpray

Not really. We are now at the stage where you can easily create larger images than you will ever actually print out. The jump from 3 to 5 mp was essential.

Those pro's that actually need to print high quality images so large are a lot rarer than hens teeth I suspect. ;-)

donaldejose

I agree with spraynpray. I just printed a seven foot wide panorama shot with my D750 and the Nikon 50mm f1.4 lens. I have a D800 and a Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens but didn't use them because I was experimenting with whether or not my new D750 would be adequate. They are perfectly adequate. I am sure the D800/Sigma Art combination would be better but not really needed to make a large and sharp pano print. Yet, I must admit if I am shooting only one frame off a tripod I would want to use the D800/Sigma Art combo. When Nikon offers a 56mp body I will want one even though I don't need it to print 7 feet wide. When Nikon offers a D5 I will want one even though I don't need it. Need and want are two different things which is good for Nikon because they must sell a lot of equipment people want but don't need.

rmp

A few years ago I took a picture with a D200/18-200 mm combo and my wife loved it. She wanted to have it blown up to 4'x6' on canvas. My printer called me before he started the printer and asked me if I really wanted to embarrass myself. :-/ Never again...

Now, I use a D810 and pro lenses -- ONLY.

Bring on the 50mp! Please, I never know when lighting will strike.

WestEndFoto

Why all this emphasis on printing? I don't even own a printer and never will so this is irrelevant. How many people still use a typewriter?

I want sharper lenses and more megapixels.

spraynpray

I don't own a printer either (doesn't mean I never get prints) and the point is, that even if you did it would not have a large enough capacity to print such large prints that you would be able to see a problem even with 24mp, let alone 36 or 50+.

No, the big beast will be the domain of those whose want triumphs over their need as Donald said.

WestEndFoto

No one needs anything more than an IPhone which is why they sell so well. So sure it is all about want. But how is it relevant? Why should want stop at 24 megapixels, where I still cannot achieve sharp eye lashes on full body shots.

Resolution has a long way to go before I will stop thinking about it.

donaldejose

"Sharp eyelashes on a full body shot" are great! But how are the photos viewed? If they are viewed on a computer monitor or even on a 4K ultraHD monitor that monitor is unable to display all 24 megapixels. All computer monitors and even 60 inch HDTVs will have to downsize (throw out pixels) from a 36mp sensor. The highest resolution you can get today is 4K which displays 3840 x 2160 and that is only 8.3 megapixels of image. While your computer monitor may only be displaying 72 dpi you can print at 300 dpi.

Pistnbroke

Perhaps some did not comprehend the prblem ...the range of FX Zoom lenses suitable for weddings is poor ...24-120 is not long enough and strange at 85mm. 28-300 is poor IQ so being able to use a DX lens and get a D7200 equivalent image looks good to me ...and there is a weight saving ..OK for birds and wide angle do it in FX and crop or enjoy the quality.

Of course if they can junk those pro controls as well or put a proper memory lock I would be very happy ..but thats another of my stories...

WestEndFoto

"Sharp eyelashes on a full body shot" are great! But how are the photos viewed? If they are viewed on a computer monitor or even on a 4K ultraHD monitor that monitor is unable to display all 24 megapixels. All computer monitors and even 60 inch HDTVs will have to downsize (throw out pixels) from a 36mp sensor. The highest resolution you can get today is 4K which displays 3840 x 2160 and that is only 8.3 megapixels of image. While your computer monitor may only be displaying 72 dpi you can print at 300 dpi.

Zoom or crop.

snakebunk

We can rename this thread "Too many pixels" so that we don't need a new one when it's time for 72, 100 or 150 mp :-).

donaldejose

To distinguish between "need" and "want" I would say I "need" more than 12 mp and thus would not buy a D3 or D700 even for $800 on e-bay. Others may feel different. I would say I "need" 24 mp but would accept a 16mp D4 or a 20mp D5. However, it seems to me the D750 is a lot of camera for the money. Remember the 24mp D3x for$8,000? It was not good over ISO 800 and shot 5 fps in JPEG. Today's D750 is good up to 3200 or 6400 ISO (depending upon your preferences) and shoots 6.5 fps for one fourth the cost. Sure it won't last a long and is not a rugged but you can wear out three D750s and still have spent $2.000 less money than a D3x.

To further distinguish between "real need" and "want" I would say that if most of what I do is shooing portraits for facebook or for printing at 5x7 or 8x10 I do not need more than a 12 mp D3 or D700. Still I suffer under the illusion I will take a great shot which will be displayed poster size.

Finally, consider how those of us on NR share our photos: PAD. What is the mp displayed on PAD? We are limited to posting 640 x 506 which equals one third of one megabyte. If you have a 3 mb sensor the image will have to be downgraded severely to post on PAD. So what are we all really looking at anyway?

rmp

On a recent trip my family and I took over 3000 pictures with phones, a V3, and a D810. Out of those pictures we kept on a disk a little over 400. Out of those we used 94 to make a coffee-table-book (11"x13".) No one can tell which camera took which picture in the book. When I look a slide show on a 4K monitor or 4K TV of all 400 pictures I cannot tell which camera took which picture. So, I agree that if your final display is 4k TV or small prints, 24 MP is all you will ever need.

Two of those pictures we decided to have printed on metal. Granted those two prints are only 3'x4' so I probably could have made the prints if the V3 had been used. Still, I am very glad those two were taken with my D810 and the old 24-70 mm.

I guess I am one of those nuts that wants to blow a picture up to 8'x10' look at the sharpness of the eyelashes and then print the 8"x10" for my table-top-books.

Then, if (when) I get that magic, 1-in-a-thousand shot, I can print it any way I what. I guess a (this) man must have his toys.

spraynpray

@rmp: "I guess a (this) man must have his toys." Absolutely. Now we are getting near the mark. :P

I wonder why people think that a 56mp monster (which is a lens resolution and PC speed killer and can't be hand held) is a good idea? Now, I am not saying that they won't make one as I have long since given up trying to guess what Nikon will do, but one will not find a home with me. Ever.

paulr

Spraynpray. Ever is a long time.

spraynpray

No, seriously Paul, I will never need that amount of resolution, limitation on usage or difficulty to PP. My images are appreciated by my clients as they are - 24mp - and that includes the 6 x 4 foot reproduction of a wedding party taken with my D7100 and a Tokina 11-16@14. All of the guests are easily recognisable at 24mp so why go to more? We don't need to check their teeth for cavities do we?

paulr

Spraynpray This image is 20% of the original image taken at least 500 meters way hand held with a D810.
The advantage of High res is you can still get high quality images from very large crops due to resolution.
the problem is where is the limit for the 35mm sensor in pixel volume without new technology changing the wey sensors interpret the information.
https://flic.kr/p/xw23iJ

haroldp

At about .7 micron pixel pitch, the photosite is smaller than the half wave of the longest visible red and becomes a filter.

Since in my lifetime I have seen many other 'theoretical' limitations smashed through by clever folks, I expect this will be resolved as well, but it presents the first challenge of physics to resolution.

I expect astronomers (or military users) rather than photogs to drive the next breakthrough.

... H

snakebunk

Like paulr I am thinking that the size of the sensor will eventually be the limit. By the time we get beyond 144 mp I think it is time for a new format. With mirrorless technology I think a medium format camera doesn't have to be bigger than current DSLRs (I don't know this).

Like others have said the advantage of many pixels is cropping. In worst cases I am probably down to 5%. With a medium format 200 mp camera I could probably crop down to 1% given excellent optics (I am guessing again).

Of course the file format/export must evolve. If you know that 24 mp is always enough you should be able to tell the camera to make 24 mp raw files. Like sraw but better.

Back to the current situation I think 36 mp is still pretty great. I wish Nikon keep coming out with incremental releases of the D800 series for a long time, improving on all aspects where mp is only one.

PB_PM

Like paulr I am thinking that the size of the sensor will eventually be the limit. By the time we get beyond 144 mp I think it is time for a new format. With mirrorless technology I think a medium format camera doesn't have to be bigger than current DSLRs (I don't know this).

IMO design a new type of lens, that does not rely on glass (which is heavy) is more important than making physically smaller camera bodies. I don't think making smaller medium format cameras is going to solve all the weight problems related to that format.

Pistnbroke

Sorry to be thick but why can you not hand hold 56 MP ? Its only the same pixel density as a 24MP DX and I hold 36mp with a non VR 14mm every day ..even the 80-400 tokina non VR...dont hear the Canon guys complain with there 50 mp box.

Msmoto

Just a note, I handhold anything.....when necessary....

WestEndFoto

Sorry to be thick but why can you not hand hold 56 MP ? Its only the same pixel density as a 24MP DX and I hold 36mp with a non VR 14mm every day ..even the 80-400 tokina non VR...dont hear the Canon guys complain with there 50 mp box.

There is no reason you cannot. Because the pixels are smaller, less camera shake will be needed to "smear a pixel". However, this is easy to fix just by increasing the shutter speed. For every fourfold increase is resolution, you would need to double the shutter speed. Of course, if you are only "printing" to a certain size that needs a quarter of the resolution, you can slow the shutter speed by 50%.