Why I want a 50 MP FX Nikon

WestEndFoto

I will go with Snakebunk on this one, as it seems consistent with what I have seen.

My sharpest lens is either my 85 1.4G around 5.6 or my 200mm macro around 5.6 (higher than 5.6 and the image starts to get softer due to diffraction - lower and other aberrations come into play). The limiting factor is clearly pixels. The only time I think the lens is an issue is when I am shooting wide open. For example, below about f/2 on my 85 1.4G, I think that the lens is the issue.

That said, there will come a time when the lens is the issue, not the pixels, even on a lens that is diffraction limited at 5.6. I suspect that with a 24 megapixel DX sensor, this limit is already surpassed with all but the sharpest super-teles - one reason birders love this combination.

Msmoto

OK, my next question is, should I export a Tiff image from Lightroom to avoid the "pixel rounding" or is this a characteristic of LR and cannot be avoided?

And, this is becoming a good learning exercise for me. Thanks.

haroldp

@ Snakebunk
Thank you for explaining this light room property. I do not use lightroom but it is good to learn new things, and this may explain some of the different observations on this subject by knowledgeable users.

When I had 12mp (D3) I thought that was plenty, until I got a D3x (24 mp). Even at smaller sizes (11 X 14) where pixellzation was not a visible issue for either, the D3x images were somehow crisper, and much better textures. It did not always manidfest as more detail, but always looked better at any size (at reasonable ISO).

The 24mp images down ressed to 12 mp still looked better than the 12mp images (Hogan explains this well).

When I got my D800e (now D810), the images looked still better, at sizes where no pixels could be seen on any of them.

My D3x now backs up my D810, I gave away my D700 (sold he D3 years ago) and my High Iso camera is the D810, downressed in PP to 12mp.

More / smaller pixels also reduce the possibillity of artifacts when no AA filter is used.

I am sure that my 400/2.8 can out resolve any sensor made in any size at or larger than four thirds.


All that being said, my most successful birding procedure is to follow focus on the center focus point shooting FF on my D810. Although I rarely get a crop bigger than APS-C (DX) , it is often not centered, so switching to DX mode or a DX camera would mean less optical magnification for elbow room in the frame, or cutting off parts. Other focus techniques have not been as successful for me.

A 54 or so MP FX sensor ould give me 24mp in the DX crop area and would be my first choice for birding.or other fast moving subjects.

Regards ... H

WestEndFoto

The easiest way to tell, though not to demonstrate, whether your lens or sensor is the bottleneck is to zoom in on Lightroom or Photoshop. Take a variety of shots of something with detail at every resolution, such as a tree or even a person. Repeat with the same subject for a variety of apertures and even across the frame. It is very educational.

snakebunk

@Msmoto: I don't really know anything about the rounding of pixels in Lightroom, it is just something I have observed. My guess is that it is some secret internal algorithm, but someone else probably knows more.

About sensors ouresolving lenses, I don't think we are even close yet. At least not for high quality primes on fx cameras. It is rather a question of what we need, what can be produced and how large files do we want. And how much Nikon wants to be in the lead.

Msmoto

This is interesting, and I for sure do not have an answer, nor even a clue. But, it might be that for each of us, there is a different set of priorities, and this is what influences the discussion.

One of the differences I notice in the D4/D800E images is a mind blowing resolution from the D800E, not necessarily sharper, but more like the difference between the Leica glass and Nikon. Some sort of edge definition which adds to the feeling of the image. And, if we had more pixels, this may very well continue to improve.

For me, there is always a balance, and I suppose I am happy with what I have, and doubt if more pixels would improve my final results. If I had unlimited funds, I would have a Phase One or Hassy....LOL

WestEndFoto

I see that same thing MSMOTO. It seems odd that you can see the difference at lower resolutions, but somehow you can. I just don't understand it enough to take a strong position in this forum.

haroldp

Some sort of edge definition which adds to the feeling of the image. And, if we had more pixels, this may very well continue to improve.

You have hit it on the head. I see the same type of thing, maybe micro contrast because of more data.

Regards ... Harold

donaldejose

I have read the same thing elsewhere: more pixels create more defined edges leading to a better looking photo.

kanuck

I have a feeling this high 50+ mp Nikon body will debut in the D4X in the 4th quarter this year and possibly in a consumer body by July 2016 when the D810 becomes 2 years old. The 50mp Canon 5DsR begins shipping at the end of this month I believe..

WestEndFoto

I doubt you will see it in a D4 body. I bet that will be 24 megapixels at the most and possibly still 16. However, a 48 to 60 megapixel D820 would not surprise me.

haroldp

@WestEndFoto

I think you are probably right. The 4 (Dn) pro line is geared to photojournalists who need extreme ruggedness and high frame rates more than high resolution. The D3x was a departure from this and not a sales success for nikon because of it's high price. I still use one and it is my favorite camera in many ways, particularly it's speed (not fps) and handling properties, but I was one sale.

The success of the D8nn line points to Nikon continuing it's evolution as the high resolution camera.

.... H

kanuck

I doubt you will see it in a D4 body. I bet that will be 24 megapixels at the most and possibly still 16. However, a 48 to 60 megapixel D820 would not surprise me.

You very well could be right but remember they doubled the mp with the D3x from the D3/D3s and at that time there was no mid range pro-consumer body like the D800. The mid range choice was the similar 12mp D700. They don't want to kill their current D810 sales as its less than 1 year old and Canon begins shipping their 50mp monster this month so I feel the D4x, which is due this year to be their choice for such a medium format quality sensor.

Pistnbroke

If I put my 18-140 on the D800 I would not be able to crop and get the results I do with the same lens on a D7100....thats what I want to change by having FX with a 24 MP crop mode ie 56mp fx

haroldp

Nikon unfortunately does not have a wide range (28-200) FX zoom that is as good as the 18-140 DX.
.. H

Msmoto

The big problem with all this is those of us who have Nikonitis seem caught up in the purchase process, and new stuff becomes the obsession of the day.....LOL

sevencrossing

If I put my 18-140 on the D800 I would not be able to crop and get the results I do with the same lens on a D7100....thats what I want to change by having FX with a 24 MP crop mode ie 56mp fx

But why do you want to put the 18 -140 (a DX lens) on a D800 ( an FX camera) ?

If you crop a full frame 36mp, in half, you end up with 18mp
If you crop a Dx 24 mp, in half, you only have 12 mp

This is a heavily cropped D800. AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. (1/500 f 6.7 ISO 100) shot



I don't think the IQ would be greatly improved by starting 56 mp. The IQ seems to limited by the 24 -120 f 4

Yes, I know I should have taken the 80 -400mm

haroldp

As sensor resolution goes up we do become more lens limited, but it never gets worse, and we can more fully exploit the best lenses.

... H

manhattanboy

I see that same thing MSMOTO. It seems odd that you can see the difference at lower resolutions, but somehow you can. I just don't understand it enough to take a strong position in this forum.

This is the same reason that I continue to use a DX camera. The extra pixels in the crop frame make the image better than what I could get out of a DX crop from the 810.

Pistnbroke

If you have the 56 MP FX you can fit any lens ..cheaper lighter DX and get D7200 quality or wide 17mm FX to maintin quality .Your camera and lens selection becomes totally flexible.
I think this would be a winner in the upgrade to FX because you can take your DX lenses with you,maintain quality and buy FX as required. If like me you have mixed FX and DX cameras then there is an incentive to go to FX

sevencrossing

Question?

what is going to happen noise at high ISO values with 56 MP FX ?

As a landscape photographer, it does not bother me but if I did weddings, it would

Ironheart

Nothing. This is an internet myth. With gapless microlens technology that nikon and others have used since the second generation digital sensors, no light is lost. Everyone predicted the 36MP D800 would have terrible low light/high ISO performance. Notsomuch eh? As I've demonstrated with actual numbers in previous posts, the high ISO difference between the D750 and the D8x0 is 3%, and that's with 30% more pixel density. If that holds true, and I doubt it will 'cause Nikon engineers will beat it, you would take a 5% hit over a 24MP sensor.

I'll take the 56MP please, with a side of less than 5% more ISO noise :-)

snakebunk

I think the comparisons of 100% crops have given the D# cameras an exagerated rumour of high ISO capability. My opinion is that you should always compare images taken with an equal large part of the sensor.

Ironheart

Also, when all a camera manufacturer has is a medium or low MP sensor, they will use whatever FUD they can to get people to buy the lower MP one.

sevencrossing

So what do people think Nikon's "answer" to the 5DS is likely to be

D750x
D810x
D900
D4x
D5
FX mirrorless

Place your bets please