Your Move Nikon..50 MP?

spraynpray

....The real point is that we need Zeiss quality lenses at "kit lens" prices before pumping up the megapixels will have a noticeable effect on the masses. For the amazing NR forum members, obviously that is not the case as they have the lenses and skill to use make use of higher res sensors... but the members here are really in a minority of users.

With all due respect, lets be realisticL: "kit lenses" that is just not going to happen. These bodies alone will be priced well above the $3300. It is targeted at a specific user group and those that are willing to make the investment in order to take full advantage of its features. Hence, the end user are in the minority.

The usual reason given for no pro DX is that the end users are in the minority so how come the same argument doesn't preclude manufacture of a more superflous ultra high res FX?

haroldp

Lets not forget that downressing is a very effective noise suppression technique, so a 54mp high res image can easily be downressed to a 27mp low noise image. 1 - 1.5 apparent f stops are gained, and resolution loss is minimal.

I use this technique extensively in theater shooting where I use a D800 / 810 at 6400 (with 200-400 /f4 wide open) to get speeds fast enough to stop actor motion.

... H

spraynpray

......watch what Nikon does with fluorite elements.

They had better be careful because flourite lenses so far have shown to be fragile. The reason Canon cameras and lenses are not used in space is because the flourite lenses they have made (for years) do not withstand the vibration of take-off whereas the non-flourite Nikon lenses do.

donaldejose

:"The usual reason given for no pro DX is that the end users are in the minority so how come the same argument doesn't preclude manufacture of a more superflous ultra high res FX?"

Because high end DX and high end FX purchasers are looking for different things. High end DX buyers will be looking for high (not the highest) quality at a value price or with a low weigh/small form factor. High end FX purchasters will be willing to spend a lot of extra money for the small gain they can obtain to have the best sensor and the best lens. High end FX buyers are not looking for value or small form factor/low weight. They are just looking for the "best technology money can buy currently" and although they may be small in number Nikon can make a large profit margin on the bodies they purchase (example: D3 vs D3x price). Nikon cannot make a large profit margin on high end DX bodies/lenses because those purchasers are looking for value and if price is not a value they will buy FX bodies/lenses.

snakebunk

@donaldejose: What you say is true because Nikon doesn't make any pro dx camera. I believe a camera maker must have a wider vision when looking at the future, which is the topic of this thread.

manhattanboy

With all due respect, lets be realisticL: "kit lenses" that is just not going to happen.

I was exaggerating a little with regards to how low the prices will go, but if Nikon is going to make a >24MP 3400 or 3500 in the future, that user is really going to be lens limited in his or her shooting regarding IQ (and probably already is LOL). In that regard, concentrating efforts on DR and noise reduction, etc. or improving the supplied kit lens may be more worthwhile to general users than increasing the pixel count in those cameras.

West End's point was that sensors have progressed very rapidly such that a very high res camera can be had for less than $500. The same is not really true for lens progression, where to take full advantage of the sensor improvements frequently a relatively expensive lens is needed.
Ultimately more pixels are bound to come...a cell phone these days has 41MP after all.

West End's comment is echoed by other's like Thom:

First, let me make something clear: more pixels are always good. More sampling always gives you more data from which to work, and more data is good. The question I was trying to answer in 2003 was "at what point would it become extremely difficult to distinguish better results?" The key term I wrote then was when do we "max out” the easily seen improvements?

There are a number of factors that all need to be considered. One is diffraction. At 24mp DX and f/4, a 10" print viewed normally probably isn't diffraction limited, a 20" print almost certainly is. Essentially small detail is starting to be masked. Of course, one reason people think they're buying 24mp cameras is to resolve fine detail.

Another factor was the resolving power of existing DX lenses. More megapixels is more sampling, and more sampling means that you better see just what you lens does and doesn't do well. A number of DX lenses seemed weak already at 16mp (the 18-200mm being one of them); the visual impact of those weaknesses increases with more resolution at the sensor (at least at pixel viewing levels).

After this holiday craziness is over I will try to do a sensor comparison to see how the 7100/810/v3 sensors stack up in telephoto shooting with various lenses. I will try to see if these sensors are lens limited or not. My prediction is that the 810 is not limited, the 7100 is probably close, and the V3 probably is lens limited. I would probably still welcome a 50MP or even 100MP camera though if the price was right.

WestEndFoto

Spraynpray, the next time I go to space I will make sure that there is no fluorite in my bag. In all seriousness, that is a valid point about Fluorite lenses having a durability issue. However, there are usually only a couple of fluorite elements in a lens and they can be replaced.

Donaldjose, very well said in my view.

Manhattanboy, I look forward to your review.

PB_PM

With all due respect, lets be realisticL: "kit lenses" that is just not going to happen. These bodies alone will be priced well above the $3300. It is targeted at a specific user group and those that are willing to make the investment in order to take full advantage of its features. Hence, the end user are in the minority.

The usual reason given for no pro DX is that the end users are in the minority so how come the same argument doesn't preclude manufacture of a more superflous ultra high res FX?

Simple, DX products, even the higher end ones, are low margin items. Think about it, the most expensive piece of DX kit is the 10 year old 17-55mm F2.8G. I'm actually surprised Nikon still makes it to be honest. FX products on the other hand are almost all high margin products, kit lenses and older primes aside. The sale of one D810 is likely worth 2 or 3 imaginary D400's in terms of profits from the sale. With shrinking sales, in the overall camera market, it only makes sense to target the high end buyer, when the goal is to maintain profit margins.

kanuck

50 MP ... what for ? I agree FrenchRiviera, we don't really need more resolution. I would like to see Nikon continuing to improve the noise in the ISO 640-6400 range and AF speeds and AF usage in general in Live view. Again, what I have now with the D810 and with the D4s option I am not going to complain at all. Personally I think Nikon could take the entire 2015 year off for FX body releases and I would be cool with that. An FX mirror-less and new pro body DX would be nice although not for myself.

spraynpray

@WestEndFoto: It would be seen as yet another quality issue from Nikon. I know some people who's D700/24/70 and 14-85 have been dropped more time than I like to recall and they just keep going and going. If one drop of a lens breaks it, then the 'built like a tank' reputation and price justification goes out the window and it becomes like a Tamron or whatever.

@donaldejose: For once I disagree with almost every point you made in your post Donald, if I said FX is where high tech ends up after being introduced on DX it would be truer than your point about people buy FX because they want the latest tech. I believe there are plenty enough people looking to buy a pro DX to justify one, look at the D300/300s - there are still lots of those being used. I certainly see more of those than high end FX's. I would own a D400 if one had come out. No, I think Nikon will be making a HUGE mistake if they don't bring out a 7D2 beater. If they are working on a mirrorless to get ahead, that may explain their slowness on a pro DX.

@PB_PM: People have all said they would pay a premium, and at the price the 7D2 is selling for over here, I don't think the margin is as small as to be the issue. In fact, to hand over that market sector to Canon would be more of a mistake. If the 50mp Canon did turn out to be as good or better than the equivalent Nikon, where would that leave Nikon? Looking sad?

The only argument I can think of that may hold water is that Nikon are smaller than Canon and don't have the resources that Canon do. Only time will tell I suppose, and so far I don't like what it is telling me. :-)

Paperman

Once we are into 50-100 Mps, we have more to worry about than sensors outresolving lenses ... The diffraction limit for a 50-54 Mp FF sensor is quite near f6 ; around f4.5 for 100 Mp.

That might mean a new generation of lenses designed to work best wide open / wide apertures rather than the the usual f8'ish value for best resolution .... A rather distant possibility I must say .... And too bad for those landscapers battling for balance between resolution & depth of field - there will be no solution for them.

36 Mp FF is already point of diminishing returns ; maybe one can push it to 50... But if something like 100Mp FF is one day going to happen, it is not going to happen because it will give better results.... but because we are going to be led into believing ( in other words, be fooled into believing ) it will ...

paulr

There have been some valid points brought up on this topic. I am sure that both Canon and Nikon both have funds and development experience to produce anything they want.
However before any manufacture brings out any new equipment they have to justify that the intended market will is there. And demand to buy their product in view of the substantial costs involved.

I also believe that 35mm DSLR will never reach the same high standard as medium format, especially at the very high end of medium format due to pure technical reasons. They will come close very close, and this is what the DSLR manufactures are trying to achieve.

Over the last decade like all professions, there have been major changes, more so in the Photographic industry. The professional photographer as to budget very carefully and keep an eye on costs, even more so than in the past. Spending $40,000 to $50,000 on new equipment can no longer be a “Must Have”, decision. And every dollar spent must be justified.

I think both Canon and Nikon are very aware of the current state of the market and can see an opportunity to sell high-end camera to professional and top amateur photographers who demand high spec equipment, but without the substantial cost of high-end Medium Format digital cameras.
With the immerse versatility of the DSLR against the Medium Format camera, and array of lenses and other back-up equipment available to the DSLR user, the choice will become easy.
Hence the announcement by Canon and the counter announcement by Nikon that they will concentrating on making high-end megapixel camera’s in the future.

I believe the future for the professional and high-end amateur is looking good for new cameras and matching equipment arriving in the not too distant future.

sevencrossing

An excellent summary Paulr

FrenchRiviera

Once we are into 50-100 Mps, we have more to worry about than sensors outresolving lenses ... The diffraction limit for a 50-54 Mp FF sensor is quite near f6 ; around f4.5 for 100 Mp.

That might mean a new generation of lenses designed to work best wide open / wide apertures rather than the the usual f8'ish value for best resolution .... A rather distant possibility I must say .... And too bad for those landscapers battling for balance between resolution & depth of field - there will be no solution for them.

36 Mp FF is already point of diminishing returns ; maybe one can push it to 50... But if something like 100Mp FF is one day going to happen, it is not going to happen because it will give better results.... but because we are going to be led into believing ( in other words, be fooled into believing ) it will ...

That's exactly where we are with m4/3 : full performances of lenses close to wide open :
http://www.lenstip.com/351.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_75_mm_f_1.8_ED_Image_resolution.html

diffraction not later than f5.6 -f8.0
relative weakness of edges

donaldejose

"Once we are into 50-100 Mps, we have more to worry about than sensors outresolving lenses ... The diffraction limit for a 50-54 Mp FF sensor is quite near f6 ; around f4.5 for 100 Mp."

Very interesting thought! "the old rule f8 and be there" would have to be changed to "f5.6 and be there." Incidentally, I have noticed that many of the newer lenses seem to be sharpest at about f5.6 so that is a good aperture to use with a high megapixel sensor.

spraynpray: I do think we will see a D400 in 2015 and it will sell very well. DX is fine for 90% of my shooting. Evan though I have a D800 (and want a D810 for the quieter shutter) I am still using my D7000 quite a bit for photos people request which I know will never be printed larger than 8x10 inches. If a D400 came out I would purchase one. It would be interesting to know the profit margins on the various DX and FX bodies if anyone has that information. I know with cars profit margins increase along with the cost of the car. That is why so many car companies want to go upscale, even to the extent of opening a new network of dealerships under a different name (such as Toyota creating Lexus cars and dealerships to gain an increased per car profit margin). It would be interesting to know if Nikon made money on the D3x, if Nikon lost D3 sales when the D700 came out and if the profit margin on the D700 was the same as it was on the D3 or if Nikon had to sell two D700s to make up for one lost D3 sale.

henrik1963

You may not get a lot more resolution out of a 100MP camera than a 36MP camera if you are using F8 or higher. But you are not getting less resolution - it just seems so when you are looking at the picture pixel by pixel.

As long as there is a gain for people shooting fast primes wide open it is worth it for some.

dissent

Seems like you'll need some extra backup space/storage and fatter data pipelines to work with those 50+ MP RAW files too.

spraynpray

A shallow DoF only world? No use to me shooting weddings, wildlife, sport or macro.

WestEndFoto

Focus stacking my friend. Focus stacking.

spraynpray

You are kidding of course. :-/ I can't wait to see your results.

spraynpray

@donaldejose: you really undersell your D7000. I print very few images for my walls as I am painfully critical of my images when they are going on my walls but I do have one which I took with my D7000 and merely an 18-105VR kit lens. I printed it to 24X16 and it is sharp - so sharp that I can press my nose up against it and not see any focus problems what so ever. Don't worry about the sensor.

FrenchRiviera

A shallow DoF only world? No use to me shooting weddings, wildlife, sport or macro.

Fortunately not :-)

Outside wide open to f/8.0 range , just you 'll have to assume that resolution might not be better than the actual 36MP sensor , dynamic and edges may be worse any apertures ...

Just one point may be slightly better if we stay on classic Bayer array : colors ( remember you need 4 dots to gets one color ) , so "color definition" is 4 times less than luminance resolution .

FrenchRiviera

As we can read by DXO , colors sensitivity ( CS ) is better with higher resolution
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization

When we compare a D4 and a D810 , we have a 1 bit difference on color depth
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D4___963_767

Under 1 bit , difference is barely noticeable
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores

Paperman

!

As we can read by DXO , colors sensitivity ( CS ) is better with higher resolution
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization

When we compare a D4 and a D810 , we have a 1 bit difference on color depth
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D4___963_767

Under 1 bit , difference is barely noticeable
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores

How many "bits" in digital prints, how many on PC screens ? Just curious ......

FrenchRiviera

How many "bits" in digital prints, how many on PC screens ? Just curious ......

I guess 1 bit is maximum difference you can ever see , in practice there may often be none ...