D850

145791045

Comments

  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    edited March 2016
    The P900 cannot compete with professional equipment,however it offeres alternatives. Has you get older the weight problem starts going up the priority list and is just a consideration or balance.
    I went to Bird Nature Reserve and all the photographers had enormous 500/600/800 lenses and give me an amusing look when I took my little P900 out. They were not smiling when they saw the results and I told them what it had cost.
    Post edited by paulr on
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    I personally think it would be a mistake for Nikon to upgrade the D810 (D820) to 50+ megapixels. I think it makes more sense to introduce a D900 with the 50+ megapixels and upgrade the D810 high frame rate, better low light performance, better processors, etc. and keep the megapixels to 36 or 42. The D810 in my opinion is a highly underrated camera and has provided Nikon with much needed revenue and has provided (starting with the D800) Nikon with some public brand recognition. Just about every time I shoot in a public venue I am stopped by people that ask about the D810 and talk about it being a great camera. I have Canon shooting friends that when we are out shooting will ask to shoot with my camera. They are always impressed and two of them have left Canon and moved to Nikon. For me the D810 covers a large portion of what I shoot (especially for personal images) and I will not upgrade to the D820 if it is mostly a increase in megapixels. I will keep my D810 and use my medium format cameras for the higher megapixels work. I think that if Nikon introduces the D820 with 50+ megapixels and Nikon does not upgrade the D750 or D610 to 36 megapixels that it will leave a large gap in their bodies specifications that would force people to settle for either to many or too few megapixels or they would move to Pentax (K1) or Sony. With other companies offering 36+megapixels cameras Nikon risk losing market share if they do not offer a camera in that space. I think the market for a 50+ megapixels is a lot smaller than the market for a 36 (42) megapixel camera. Just my 2 cents.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,716Member
    I have been toying with this idea for some time now. Will 20 to 24 megapixels become the new "base" megapixel? Will 36 megapixels move from "most" to "middle ground" sensor? Will 50+ or 70+ become the new "most" sensor? Could be and would make sense. If Nikon soon produces a 50+ or 70+ FX sensor that doesn't automatically make 36 megapixels obsolete. Sufficiently valuable improvements could be gained by incorporating the new D5 technology with a 36 mp sensor to justify a new iteration if the D8xx body. Then Nikon can market both a D820 and a D900.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    I think that there is a certain logic to this D820/D900 hybrid approach. The D810 is a great camera. The only thing I would say is increasing the frame rate should only be done if they can keep the shutter quiet. I think that there is a significant market just on that point. I would also say that as long as they can maintain the maximum frame rate with a quiet shutter, there is no reason not to upgrade the resolution of the sensor.

    To Donaldjose’s point, 20-24 megapixels is already the defacto minimum standard. The only reason that the D500 is only 20 megapixels is that 24 megapixels would have compromised the frame rate. I think that the same applies to the D5. I would expect the next iterations to be 24 megapixels. For everything else, the minimum standard is 24 and could be 36 in the next generation.

    Moore’s law is slowing down and so are improvements in processing speed. The improvements that we were used to 10 years ago are already a thing of the past and the improvements of the last 3 or 4 years are also not sustainable. The next iteration, therefore, may have a longer shelf life with photographers.
  • PapermanPaperman Posts: 469Member
    edited March 2016
    How confident are we that the 50 ( or 70 ) Mp will end in considerable more resolution than the 36Mp ? Will lens resolution be enough to provide that extra resolution ?

    I just "wasted" some free time on DxO - the only place one can do that - comparing same Nikon lenses on D750 and D810 . As we all know, the D810 has 50% more Mps than the D750.

    The top 4-5 highest score lenses - totalling over $23-35k, did show a 30-40% gain on the D810. However, once down the list to more affordable quality glass, the difference fell to 10-20%.

    That is of course if we assume the only difference in resolution/image quality between the D750 and the D810 originates from the number of Mps. Not a healthy assumption since the guts of the D750 may not be at par with the D810's ...

    Not only that, the AA filter on the D750 can make a huge difference, so I thought maybe it would be wiser to compare the D750 with the D800. Comparing the two, one sees the difference in sharpness figures in most cases diminish.

    Here are some examples

    200mm f2 on D750 - 24Mp
    200mm f2 on D800 - 28Mp
    200mm f2 on D810 - 33Mp

    400mm f2.8 on D750 - 24Mp
    400mm f2.8 on D800 - 25Mp
    400mm f2.8 on D810 - 33Mp

    85mm f1.4G on D750 - 22Mp
    85mm f1.4G on D800 - 22Mp
    85mm f1.4G on D810 - 30Mp

    14-24mm f2.8G on D750 - 19Mp
    14-24mm f2.8G on D800 - 17Mp
    14-24mm f2.8G on D810 - 23Mp

    24-70mm f2.8G VR on D750 - 16Mp
    24-70mm f2.8G VR on D800 - 20Mp
    24-70mm f2.8G VR on D810 - 19Mp

    70-200mm f2.8G ED on D750 - 16Mp
    70-200mm f2.8G ED on D800 - 15Mp
    70-200mm f2.8G ED on D810 - 20Mp


    One can add another 10 examples but I became cross eyed doing this much so please help yourself and see if you can see anything else happening there.

    Looks like the extra 50% Mps did bring something but nothing much in the end. And this was from 24Mp to 36Mp . The increase is likely to be LESS as we go from 36Mp to 50Mp ( or 70 ) as we would be past resolution limits of most lenses ...

    Oh yes, I did not forget ... One has more pixels to crop with high Mps . Nothing to say on that. :)




    Post edited by Paperman on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Paperman, you bring up a very good point. There will come a time when lens resolution will make any increase in sensor resolution meaningless.

    And to your last point, the ability to crop is a benefit of higher resolution cameras. But as to your point, lens resolution is important, so this is not a benefit when the sensor resolution exceeds the lens resolution.

    You will note in my previous post that I suggested that a D900 with 72 megapixels might be accompanied with some new super high resolution lenses. That comment was mindful of your above analysis.

    This is not a new issue. Many 35mm films had much higher resolution than was achieved with the lenses of their day - or even today.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    When sensor resolution exceeds lens resolution in a bayer array, artifacts are greatly reduced.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    That is a good point.
  • PapermanPaperman Posts: 469Member
    haroldp said:

    When sensor resolution exceeds lens resolution in a bayer array, artifacts are greatly reduced.

    Enough to be a selling point on its own ? I haven't seen anyone complain about sensor based artifacts long long time ... Hasn't 36Mp solved that problem ?

    Covered many times before, there is also the diffraction ( f6 being the new f8 ) that will come with a +50Mp sensor which brings up IQ issues if any DOF is required. I can see a landscape photographer wanting more Mps for more details but he does need the DOF. On the other hand, there is the portrait/sports/ news / event photographer who may not need the DOF, but he also does not need the 50Mp, does he?

    Not saying the extra Mps will take away anything or take us back; just that it won't justify the cost for most due to diminishing returns. Isn't it time higher and higher Mps stop being the main selling point & main upgrade for DSLRs ?

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Paperman, I essentialy agree with you. To me, it is the dynamic range of the Nikon sensor that is the killer ap along with the 36 megapixel resolution of the D800. However, I do agree that increased resolution of sensors will start producing diminishing returns. To me a 72 megapixel sensor is arbitrary, but the point is that with a 72 megapixel sensor no lens at any aperture will best it in resolution and all the artifacts that we have dealt with will be gone. Resolution issues will be lens issues, not sensor issues. I would welcome that because then we can all stop b......g about sensor resolution and start focusing on what really matters, lens quality. At 72 megapixels, the public will be convinced that sensor resolution does not matter as the people advocating for me will be seen as incompetents.

    An then the camera manufacturers will shift their focus to what is really important. Camera ergonomics, cost, lens image quality, improving VR etc. etc. etc.

    With film nobody complained about the resolution of film. You could buy 35mm film with a resolution of greater than a hundred megabytes, but it didn't matter. Everyone talked about lens sharpness.
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    I think once you get to the 50+ megapixels you have to start looking at the size of the sensor.
    This article on Wikipedia discusses Digital Versus Film but I believe some of the information is pertinent to this discussion.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
    Cramming 50+ megapixels into a 35mm sensor is not the same as 50+ megapixels on a medium format sensor. The surface area of a 35 sensor is between 850 to 870 square mm. Phase One 65Mp (Hasselblad 60 mp about 2170) is roughly 2180 square mm. The Phase One is roughly 2.5 times larger. For the Landscape photographer I believe this is significant in that printing an image that from a 35mm sensor that has to be enlarged 2.5 times to equal the same image that is captured without enlarging on a medium format sensor. I agree that there are many other factors that need to be considered but fundamentally I believe you have to start factoring this concept as well. I agree with Paperman that at some point the increase in higher megapixels reaches its limit as a selling point.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    I may be silly, but I would prefer to be able to use smaller apertures than have 50+Mp. The whole concept of massive Mp seems flawed to me. A Canon 5DS owner that I know is starting to think it's like the emperors new clothes too.

    Maybe 24 and 36 is where it is sensible to stop.
    Always learning.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    If you need depth of field, I would agree with that, but really good lenses are diffraction limited at f/5.6. If you want to shoot at f/4.0 or wider, than I think you want more resolution as there is no longer that tradeoff.

    Or perhaps you can substitute modifying the plane of focus for a wide dof. My PC-E lens arrived a couple of days ago, so I will be experimenting with that.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    I look forward to you posting about using it Jeff. I am particularly interested in using it for macro.
    Always learning.
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    WestEndFoto said:
    "With film nobody complained about the resolution of film. You could buy 35mm film with a resolution of greater than a hundred megabytes, but it didn't matter. Everyone talked about lens sharpness. "
    Jeff I have to disagree with you on this point. I am pretty certain that there has never been a 35mm film camera that produces a 100 mega pixel equivalent image. Most professional photographers that needed high resolution images used Medium Format or Large Format cameras. Based on the article I referenced above, most 35mm film cameras produce roughly a 20MP image.
    I am not alone in this thought either, Ansel Adams states in his book on Basic Techniques of Photography, page 44.
    "the photographer who uses the (medium) format (camera) does so because he finds that the compromises involved work to his benefit. He may achieve better image quality than is possible with a 35mm camera, with greater mobility than a 4 x 5 camera."
    A medium format film camera is capable of producing up to a 400 MP equivalent image. There is also discussion within the medium format cameras about the 645, 6 X 6 and 6 X 7 formats and which provides the best image quality. Even though Ansel Adams preferred the 6 X 6 square format (for his visualization of a image) he felt that the 6 X 7 format produced the a noticeable better enlargement than a 6 x 6 format because the 6 x 7 due to cropping of 6 X 6. For example enlarging a 6 x 6 negative to produce a 8 x 10 print would result in cropping 1.2 cm from the negative which would result in a 45 percent loss of usable area. Ansel Adams considered the 6 x 7 the perfect format.
    The 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 large format film cameras produce astounding images that I do not believe will ever be capable of being produced by a digital camera. Ansel Adam used large format cameras because he required the high quality image that could be produced. He used 35 mm camera and medium format cameras, which I believe was that there is no one camera that will satisfy every photographic need. It seems that this is the larger issue that everyone today is looking for that one camera that will do everything.

    This is a link to Guy Tal's website. He uses a 4 x 5 large format film camera and produces in my opinion incredible images. There is a resurgence of people going back to using film especially in medium and large format.

    http://guytal.com/gtp/gallery/showgallery.jsp?gid=0

    I would like for Msmoto and/or others with experienced in medium and large format film cameras to weigh in on this as well.

    @spraynpray I agree with your comment on the massive mega pixel race. I believe it is flawed and a poor business decision if Nikon decides to pursue it as well.
  • PapermanPaperman Posts: 469Member
    @ vct2002 .... Not informed enough to comment about the above but just pointed out the math does not work out ...

    35mm camera = 24mm x 36mm = 864mm2
    4x5 camera = 40mm x 50mm = 2000mm2

    Hence with a 2.3x multiplication factor, the 20Mp vs 400Mp ( 20x ) won't work. Neither will it work for the maximum 6x7 size mentioned ( 60 x 70 = 4200mm2 ) that gives you 4.9x.

    Maybe you were thinking large format cameras ....
  • DenverShooterDenverShooter Posts: 416Member
    I shot medium format for 45 years. Started with a Speed Graphic shooting sheet film and souping it myself in the basement. Migrated to Mamiya 645 and shot that format for almost 30 years. Used a custom color lab, made big prints, had a couple of magazine covers, but didn't shoot a lot of it. Figured every time I tripped the shutter it was $5 minimum.

    I woke up one day the film I used for 20 years was discontinued, shortly there after the lab I used closed and my Old Man (who had been hammering on me to move to digital for years) pointed me towards Nikon.

    I take shots now that would be simply impossible to shoot with medium format. Between the limitations of the format its self in terms of frame rate and lenses (not to mention the problems with finding film and getting it processed) there isn't a day I would want to be back shooting medium format. I can make better images (of what I shoot) with more flexibility (creativity) than I ever could have with medium format.

    And I shoot a lot of it. Because at the end of the day all we are doing is inconveniencing billions and billions of electrons and they work cheap. I have a 32TB server with lots and lot and lot of images on it. And I can search all of those images quickly and print them on my large format Epson 7900 printer in a matter of minutes.

    And speaking of big prints, once you start printing big it becomes an obsession. I now consider 8.5 x 11 to be test print size. I have printed 24 x 48 images of rodeos and landscapes and I have a 24 x 36 inch print of the Very Large Array I shot a couple of years back on my D7000 with a Nikon 400mm F/2.8 lens (600mm effective) hanging in my office. I knocked it back to black and white and it just pops out of the frame. It the number one reprint request I get when people see it. None of this would be possible/affordable/make any sense at all in medium format.

    I have a couple of magazine covers and industrial posters I shot with my D800E and when I drop boxed the 200M 16 bit TIFF files to the magazines they were very happy (and the checks cleared)..

    I still have all of my 645 gear but I just can't see going back to shooting with it even if there was a "benefit" in doing so. Some people like the limitations of medium format and the look of film. But there isn't anything there for me.

    I don't listen to vinyl either...

    Denver Shooter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    edited March 2016
    vtc2002 said:

    WestEndFoto said:
    "With film nobody complained about the resolution of film. You could buy 35mm film with a resolution of greater than a hundred megabytes, but it didn't matter. Everyone talked about lens sharpness. "
    Jeff I have to disagree with you on this point. I am pretty certain that there has never been a 35mm film camera that produces a 100 mega pixel equivalent image. Most professional photographers that needed high resolution images used Medium Format or Large Format cameras. Based on the article I referenced above, most 35mm film cameras produce roughly a 20MP image.

    With film, the camera is irrelevant. It is the film and lens. Given a certain film and lens combination, an F60 will shoot the same resolution as an F4.

    My quote was based on what I recall from a credible comment by our dear friend Ken Rockwell:

    The Digital Resolution of Film

    So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?

    Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.

    Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.

    320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.

    35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.

    To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

    But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.

    Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.

    That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."

    At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.


    Now, he points out that contrast is really low at 160 lines per mm, but there is detail nonetheless. That does not mean the 175 megapixel image he refers to above will be pleasing, only that you will see detail. That is why I "downgraded" my estimate to 100 megapixels.

    Now I take everything that Ken Rockwell says with a careful grain of salt, but this sounds credible to me. He gets his resolving power rating of 160 lines per mm from here (bottom of last page):

    http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_50_datasheet.pdf

    Now the contrast is low, but at 80 lines per mm, there is a decent amount of contrast. So this film resolves equivalent to about 45 megapixels easily.

    Now my point was that there was a time in history where the sensors (film) could resolve finer details than the lenses available. Even if you were not using Velvia 50, there were films that were resolving finer details than many lenses. If the next iteration of sensors takes us to something like 72 megapixels, we can all ignore cameras forever (as far as resolution is concerned) and focus on the thing that really matters, the lenses. Not the photon detectors........
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    Paperman said:

    @ vct2002 .... Not informed enough to comment about the above but just pointed out the math does not work out ...

    35mm camera = 24mm x 36mm = 864mm2
    4x5 camera = 40mm x 50mm = 2000mm2

    Hence with a 2.3x multiplication factor, the 20Mp vs 400Mp ( 20x ) won't work. Neither will it work for the maximum 6x7 size mentioned ( 60 x 70 = 4200mm2 ) that gives you 4.9x.

    Maybe you were thinking large format cameras ....

    @Paperman The difference is that the 6 x 7 (and 6 x 6 ) are in centimeters and the 4 x 5 are inches. It is difficult to compare these to megapixels but if compared to surface area the difference is more noticeable.

    35 x 24 mm = 856 to 864 mm2 depending on the model of the camera
    6 X 6 cm or 56 x 56 mm = 3131 mm2
    6 x 7 cm or 56 x 67 mm = 3752 mm2
    4 X 5 inches or 121 x 97 mm = 11737 mm2

    Sorry for not referencing the units of the different formats.

    I was referencing the following quote from the article concerning the megapixels. I am not sure how they calculated the megapixel equivalents but I have seen similar number on a variety of sites.

    "The resolution of film images depends upon the area of film used to record the image (35 mm, medium format or large format) and the film speed. Estimates of a photograph's resolution taken with a 35 mm film camera vary. More information may be recorded if a fine-grain film, combined with a specially formulated developer, are used. Conversely, use of poor-quality optics or coarse-grained film yield lower image resolution. A 36 mm x 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed film was initially estimated to contain the equivalent of 20 million pixels,[6] although this estimate was later revised to between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used.[7]

    Many professional-quality film cameras use medium-format or large-format films. Because of the size of the imaging area, these can record higher resolution images than current top-of-the-range digital cameras. A medium-format film image can record an equivalent potential of approximately 400 megapixels,[8] while large-format films can record considerably larger (4 × 5 inch) which equates to around 800 megapixels on the largest common film format, 8 × 10 inches, without accounting for lens sharpness.[9]"


    @DenverShooter I still shoot medium and large format film but I also shoot a lot more with my D800, D810 and Phase One. My post started out to address the comment that WestEndFoto made concerning the resolution of 35mm film. I however went off topic discussing the resolution of the medium and large format cameras. I respect your opinion and appreciate your comments. I will use my D800 or D810 to scout out locations that I may want to take a image of with a larger format film camera. Some times I capture a image that gets the job done with the D8XX and sometimes I get what I need with one of the other formats when I come back to the location. I also have a Fuji X-T10 and new X2-Pro that I use when I do not need a large image or just walking around town or driving in the car. I do enjoy the process involved in using a larger format cameras and also enjoy using my digital cameras. I believe there are limitations to all formats of cameras, knowing the limitations and benefits of each format and using the right camera for the job at hand yields the best results.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,716Member
    Very interesting discussion. I hope we soon will have 50+ and 70+ FX sensors to work with and see differences, if any, and be seen. I noted the onve comment that 100 ISO film was equal to about 4 or 16 or 20 megapixels. If true, the DSLR standard of 24 megapixels makes digital better than film.
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    @WestEndFoto You lost me with the Rockwell reference.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Rockwell is saying that there was a film with more than 100 megapixels of resolution. The Fuji specs on the film support that. I am saying it didn't really matter as no lens achieved that.

    I am also saying that I am looking forward to a 70ish megapixel camera because no lens can achieve that. Then we can all forget about sensor resolution and focus on lens resolution.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 914Member
    I'd take 50+ MP in a second for landscape shooting only. 16 MP can make models and stars angry when the smallest facial defect shows and at 50 MP the blood vessels in the eyes look nasty. Trees and lakes do not care about defects and I also print on an Epson 7900 and am looking to add an Epson SureColor SC-P9000 44 inch 10-color (plus 1) Including Violet Commercial Edition Printer. With time on my hands and a lot of country out there such a body will find a home in my bag. Last fall I put the 7900 in the van and off we went to Tennessee for a week. Printed large format on location. There is one other reason for the 50+ MP body. Fine art reproduction. Soon my D810 will be engaged in this once the machine shop gets done with a support structure that will allow shooting full resolution squares and stitching to avoid having to interpolate. Those squares could be larger making the copy faster.
  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    Blimey Freeze Action I surprised you are not on Digital Medium format, clearly weight does to worry you,You must have a lot friends moving LFM printers about is no fun.
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 914Member
    I have good help sliding the E7900 in. Doors on each side of the van make a pass through easy. And yes you guessed it. Been drooling over the Pentax 645z. I've seen some awesome landscapes out of it. It might just trump the D820 for pixel size with reduced noise. If I see the ROI in the Pentax that will be my choice for landscapes and fine art copy. And you are right about it being no fun moving them about in and out of the van. I have some brutes that use their backs not mine. It might be a possibility to install a 60" LF printer in a light weight trailer and kept there. Rumor is that a new SureColor 60" just might be coming. With a pan head a D810 or the Pentax would be a dream combination. I just don't see a body from anyone in 6x12 format... Not in my life time anyway. Nikon and all other mfg's need the ROI for what they build too. MF I don't think has a ROI.
Sign In or Register to comment.