Why I want a 50 MP FX Nikon

Pistnbroke

This would make a true dual format camera ...50MP on FX and 24MP on DX. Like haveing an FX with a D7200 built in .
Brilliant for everyting and every lens ..I would even tolerate those crappy pro controls if they did it ASAP.

Gjesdal

Wouldn't Nikon want to go beyond 50 so they can reclaim the position of having the highest resolution DSLR?

Ironheart

Technically you need 56MP FX to get to a 24MP DX crop, problem solved :-)
Also technically the D8x0 produces a 15.36MP DX crop. Must be some marketing math to get to 16MP ;-)

donaldejose

I do think Nikon is working on it and we will see it out in less than a year from now. I tend to like certain features of the advanced amateur controls but I also like certain features of the pro controls. I think most likely we would see it appear first in a Dx series or an Dxxx series body. Less likely we will see it in a Dxxxx series body. It should be spectacular.

Pistnbroke

So wow we all love something I said ...must be a first !!!!!

donaldejose

You say a lot of good things. You also have a point of view and style of working which is sometimes contrary to conventional wisdom but it is good to hear about and consider things which are not "the normal way" we always hear about.

heartyfisher

Technically you need 56MP FX to get to a 24MP DX crop, problem solved :-)
Also technically the D8x0 produces a 15.36MP DX crop. Must be some marketing math to get to 16MP ;-)

LOL deja vu !

Re : OP ... Dual FX DX .. We already have it in the D800/e/810 . That 15MP DX crop mode in the D810 is sharper than the D7000 DX.. because it has no AA filter.

proudgeek

What guarantee do you have that a 50mpx FX camera would have a DX frame rate that would make it so that it met the needs of those who want a D400?

Pistnbroke

Proudgeek....I am not nikon ..lets hope they are listening ..I think this could be the most brilliant camera (ever) and I will hold on to my D 800 ( crap box ) until it happens.

Donaldejose ...I like your open mind ...

proudgeek

I guess I'd be curious how you define "crap" in this context, since you use it in reference to both the D800 and the control set up.

snakebunk

@Pistnbroke: And it will go from "true dual" to "kind of dual" when Nikon releases a 36 mp dx camera .

Pistnbroke

Proudgeek
Its mechanically noisy ..too loud to use in a church unless they are singing.
The memories are not good for me ..they are suited to a gig...put in approx settings before you go ..twiddle a dial when you see the lighting and that has re set your memory ..turn it on or off you get your revised settings.
Now I dont like that I prefer to always get what I set in memory when I turn it on..I have plastic shields on the dials so they cannot get moved by accident. I dont like going into menu to change ,,give me U1 U2 dial I dont do gigs
In truth I was never impressed with the D800 picture quality but I need the extra pixels for my 17mm lens.
When run as a pair with a D7100 the pictures are the same and need no adjustment to make them match.
I can crop large basic D7100 jpegs 50% and have no problem.The D800 is the most expensive and most disapointing camera I ever bought and I still have 6 payments to make !!!

Snakebunk
Well if the DX is 36 that makes the FX about 80.....thats fine but once the FX matches the pixel density of the current DX for me that makes the one FX body dual format. Could be a good selling point for nikon to get people to upgrade to FX

snakebunk

Well if the DX is 36 that makes the FX about 80.....thats fine but once the FX matches the pixel density of the current DX for me that makes the one FX body dual format. Could be a good selling point for nikon to get people to upgrade to FX

I agree. When I hade my D300s and bought the D800 it had both higher pixel density and a larger sensor. I only had to sacrifice the continous shooting speed. Looking at the D820 I hope for more fps rather than pixels though.

spraynpray

Nikon will not put mechanics in a D8xx that will do speeds approaching a Dx and also they will not have the data shifting capability such that it shifts the smaller DX files faster than the FX ones so whatever (low) speed the 50 odd mp body does in FX is likely to be the speed in DX mode too. Oh, IMHO.

donaldejose

Spraynpray: But if the D5 and other Nikon bodies go mirrorless that may change the relative fps speeds. Since mirrorless can do much faster fps so Nikon could do something like 30 fps on the FX sensor bodies and 15 fps on the DX sensor bodies. And interesting side effect of going mirrorless may be to eliminate the fps advantage of the D4 series bodies. The Nikon 1 J4 now does 20 fps with continuous auto focus and 60 fps with AF off.

haroldp

The D800 / D810 are already faster in DX mode than in FX, so Nikon clearly has no such policy.
The D810 is 5 fps in FX and 6 fps in DX, going to 7 fps in DX with the battery grip.

... H

Pistnbroke

2 fps fine for me that the anti blink or tonge twitch setting !!!

spraynpray

Spraynpray: But if the D5 and other Nikon bodies go mirrorless that may change the relative fps speeds. Since mirrorless can do much faster fps so Nikon could do something like 30 fps on the FX sensor bodies and 15 fps on the DX sensor bodies. And interesting side effect of going mirrorless may be to eliminate the fps advantage of the D4 series bodies. The Nikon 1 J4 now does 20 fps with continuous auto focus and 60 fps with AF off.

I'd be willing to bet that the D5 will not be mirrorless Donald. Nikon have always dipped a toe in the water with the lower lines, perfected it then incorporated them into the higher lines. By lower lines I don't mean the Nikon 1, I'd say the DX lines will change sooner than the FX too, but I am less certain of this due to recent rumours.

@haroldp: With the 7D2 doing 10 fps I really can't see the 50mp Nikon cutting it as the mirror assembly would have to be D4 quality which would have a price impact. For sure it would be a great DX mode, but it isn't a D400 for the growing army of birders.

Pistnbroke

Hogan had a good idea ...not to move the mirror up and down with every shutter actuation but every other one or third...that would speed up the FPS and persistance of vision still let you see the picture,,,

spraynpray

With AF every frame or every third? Maybe.

haroldp

Phase detect AF sensors can be on the sensor as well, where Fuji, Olympus, and Sony put them.
In a DSLR they could augment the mirror based sensors when in 'Hogan' mode.

... H

Msmoto

So, if I understand the concept, the mirror would return between only every other or every third image, thus allowing a much greater FPS, perhaps near 20? Sounds very interesting, but what would be even better is if the mirror were eliminated entirely....but not on this thread....

I am interested in how many of us have made printed images at a size greater than 65" tall, or wide. Even at this size, there is no perceptible image degradation with the 36 MP D8X0 as I have done this image, exported at 360 dpi in tiff, at a size of 1.4 GB and seen it printed on non forgiving aluminum. I cannot imagine what is to be gained by going up 20 MP, other than possibly creating bragging rights.

But, we do chat a lot about our fantasies, like a pro mirrorless....LOL

heartyfisher

Why is it called the "Hogan" mode when I suggested it on this forum a month or 2 ago ! :-)

"Lets just consider a good shutter that can go at 8 fps .. I dont think thats a huge stretch for nikon.
if you reduce that to say 4 fps you get half a second where you can shoot at the full frame rate that the sensor can manage. let say half of 19 = 9.5, add that to the 4 to get 13 to 14 FPS ie if you capture 3 or 4 frames every time the mirror flips. with no need to stretch the physical limits very far.

So you can either shoot at 8 fps or 14 fps with a skipped beat every 4th frame."

:-B

snakebunk

I am interested in how many of us have made printed images at a size greater than 65" tall, or wide. Even at this size, there is no perceptible image degradation with the 36 MP D8X0 as I have done this image, exported at 360 dpi in tiff, at a size of 1.4 GB and seen it printed on non forgiving aluminum. I cannot imagine what is to be gained by going up 20 MP, other than possibly creating bragging rights.

I rarely export jpgs larger than 3.5 mp (2560x1440). But I usually don't compose perfect in the camera (because birds are shy and tend to fly) and often I need to crop a lot, and that is when lots of mp can be useful. It is however hard to resolve perfect sharpness with 36 mp of pixel density and a 500 mm lense.

When I am not taking photographs of birds, for example I have been shooting flowers lately, I think the D800 is more than I need. I could actually work with a 10 mp and 1 fps camera.

I am interested to hear from 24 mp dx users, especially those with long lenses: How often are you able to resolve perfect sharpness to the point that you could clearly get more detail with an even higher pixel density?

Msmoto

Here is my query illustrated:


Cropped:


larger:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/17868416653/sizes/o/

This is from my D800E, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART. I cannot see any pixels in the extreme enlargement....

However, what I would like to see is an example of pixel peeping from an enlargement where the actual number of pixels is clearly limiting the resolution. This enlargement seen in the link would make the truck almost 3 times actual size or a "print" of about 200 feet in length. So, I restate my question, just what would be gained from adding more pixels.

And, I will be the first to admit if I have made any errors in my calculations, or the processing, but it appears the issue is in lens resolution, not pixel density. And, the Sigma is fairly sharp.

snakebunk

@Msmoto: If you export from Lightroom the pixels are rounded (or averaged) so the image gets unsharp rather than pixelized when you crop very hard. To avoid this I took a screen shot from Lightroom where I zoomed in on a sharp landscape image taken with the D800 and Sigma 50/1.4 Art. I think it is clear that the number of pixels is the limit rather than the sharpness of the lense. What do you think?



The full photograph is first on this page: http://www.snakebunk.com/photographs/norway