Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Denver Shooter
Handling, frame rate, dynamic range etc.
For my action shooting, at 36 mp (d810), a serious improvement in autofocus performance would matter more than more pixel density.
That being said, in the context of sensor resolution, diffraction limit is a non-issue.
It is entirely a function of the corrections of the lens. A perfect lens (Nikon 400/2.8 is pretty close), is already diffraction limited wide open on any sensor.
The sensor issue is simply the point at which it becomes detectable with enough magnification.
There is never a point at which a higher resolution sensor produces a worse image than a lower one because of diffraction.
There is a point at which a higher resolution sensor with a given lens / f-stop, may not produce a better image, because of diffraction.
Does diminishing returns apply for most applications, absolutely, but that has nothing to do with discussions about absolute performance.
Diminishing returns is also highly personal and application dependent.
For wedding work I think 24mp FX, or 36mp FX / 16mp DX crop is beyond what any customer I have ever met is looking for.
For fashion, break out the 100mp Hassy's if you want a cosmo double page.
In 35mm format, a 54 or 70 mp sensor behind a lens like a Leica 50 APO summicron might do it.
I love having choices.
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
At a time when consumers and a lot of professional are looking for smaller and lighter cameras for their photography needs it seems to me to be a particularly bad business decision for Nikon (and for that matter Canon and other manufacturers) to be investing time and resources to develop a 50 to 72 mp camera for a very small or limited set of users or at least to a shrinking market. In addition if the lenses is the limiting factor and they will have to produce higher quality lenses to support this new camera it soon becomes cost prohibiting. I am sure that the camera will cost more than the D810 and may be more that the D5. With the new super telephoto lenses costing $10,000 or more and the 24 - 70 VR $2400 the new lenses will certainly cost significantly more and will limit who can afford or be able to justify the ROI. There are other factors to consider such a memory cards that write data fast enough for the camera, frame rate, dynamic range, etc. You then have to factor in the processing of the large images and the computer requirements and storage. There are a lot of factors to consider and limitations to overcome.
The Pentax K1 to me is a good example of a company that is forwarding thinking and using technology to improve image quality and placing it in a package that allows a greater number of photographers that can afford to use their cameras. I would like to see Nikon move in a similar direction or venture into a new direction that places them as a leader in the industry. I would also like to see Nikon release a consumer and professional full frame mirrorless camera that shakes up the market the way the D800 did to the DSLR market.
The other part of this discussion that I find troubling is that if the lenses is indeed the limiting factor, it seems to me that all of the manufacturers are missing the this and the demand for better lenses. We see a pretty consistent pattern of new bodies being released with new technology but the rate at which new lenses are being released that have significant improvement in resolving power is extremely low. The new lenses that Nikon has released with Fluorite do not have the resolving power for a 72 mp camera. Why would Nikon spend years of Research and Development to produce a lens that would be outdated in a few years? It would not be the first time but I may be wrong. It just seems odd to me for a company that is struggling to not be moving in a direction that consumers and professional are seeking.
@FreezeAction I had the Pentax 645Z for about a year and it is a great camera. I had a friend that was retiring and offered to sell me his relatively new PhaseOne at a great price. I sold the Pentax, which I now regret. I was able to use some of my film lenses (FA mounts) that produced wonderful images. For the price point the Pentax is a great landscape camera. I also used it a lot for photographing food and products for a couple of high scale resorts. It is a great camera.
I also wanted to make it clear that I am not proposing that people move back to film. I was trying to point out that there is no perfect camera for every photographic situation and that as a mechanic has a variety of tools so should photographer if they shoot different subjects.
I think not. The original D800 was a nich market and it sold well even though when it came out many people thought it was "overkill." The 24mp D4x did not do so well but it was priced at around $8000 whereas the D800 was priced around $3,000. Such a $5,000 price difference surely expands a nich market. Nikon can do the same with a D900 model. Canon already has marketed a 50mp body and Nikon will surely equal, if not surpass, them. Nikon's high megapixel body should be out later this year.
As to reasonable cost lenses for high megapixel bodies, they are already appearing such as the Sigma Art line.
To me the person supplying the information is not relevant. What is relevant is the quality of the information. While I certainly have issues with many things that Ken Rockwell says, I view this particular writing from him sound. I would not doubt that the sky is blue simply because Ken Rockwell says it is blue.
I think that while your comments about the Pentax are valid, I think that Nikon is serving this market very well. I just bought my wife a D5500 and it is a great little camera.
Also, your comments seems to imply that Nikon cannot serve more than one market at the same time and that serving one market takes attention off of another market. I do not believe this to be the case or if it is the case, it is outweighed by other considerations. I believe that Nikon needs to serve all of its markets. It needs to serve the professional and high-end enthusiast market despite the fact that it is the smaller market because besides being a smaller market, it is still profitiable. Further, new and expensive R&D is introduced here that may be too expensive to the low and mid market that you are referring to. These products then trickle down to the low and mid end and benefit those consumers.
Nikon also needs the low and mid end so that it can continue to monetize its R&D after it is no longer desired at the high end or alternatively, to expand the monetization of its R&D beyond the high end.
I think that if Nikon decides to focus on only one of these markets, it will put its profitability and existence as a company at risk.
There has been lots of soul searching about the decline of the camera market and what this means for the likes of Nikon over the last few years. This issue does not bother me so much because I think that the real story is that upgrade cycles are getting longer as "each generation" is no longer the quantum leap that it once was. This is a natural result of the technology maturing and if you follow Apple, you will notice that IPad sales are declining and IPhone sales have plateaued and will start to decline. A company that does not accept this reality puts it self at considerable risk. The correct strategy is to identify where the market is going to be in the future and position the company to serve it - not try to hold on to where it is now or was last year.
I would also like to point out, that unlike every other camera manufacturer, Nikon has managed to be consistently profitable over the last several years. Ricoh/Pentax on the other hand has not found or been able to execute a profitable formula and this would give me considerable pause before investing in that system. I would be choked if Nikon went out of business and the investment in my 13 very nice Nikon lenses was lost.
Camera Examples Capacity Spacing 18% Target of Pixels
(Electrons) (microns) (StoN18) (MPix) AIQ
Digital MF* ISO 100 50,000 6 95 39 185
Digital SLR ISO 100 50,000 8 95 16 76
Digital SLR ISO 100 50,000 8 95 8 38
Digital SLR ISO 400 50,000 8 47 8 19
Digital P&S ISO 50 22,000 2.8 63 8 25
Digital P&S ISO 100 22,000 2.8 44 8 18
Digital P&S ISO 400 22,000 2.8 22 8 9
Digital P&S ISO 50 22,000 2.8 63 5 16
Digital P&S ISO 100 22,000 2.8 44 5 11
Digital P&S ISO 400 22,000 2.8 22 5 6
35mm Film:
Film Fuji Velvia 50 - - 18 16 14
Film Fuji Provia 100 - - ~20 7 7
Medium format: 6x4.5cm
Film Fuji Velvia 50 - - 18 50 45
Medium format: 6x7cm
Film Fuji Velvia 50 - - 18 78 70
4x5 Film:
Film Fuji Velvia 50 - - 18 240 220
8x10 Film:
Film Fuji Velvia 50 - - 18 960 860
I do not disagree with you or @donaldejose about Nikon being a niche market player. I do think that the market is changing and their total revenue is declining even though they are profitable. I am not convinced that a 72 mp camera is going to help their profitability as much as having more diversity in their product line to meet consumer demand. They need the consumer market to help support their niche market. They also need the consumer market as they may very well may be the future customers of their high and niche cameras. They remind me of what happened to Blackberry. Fuji and Sigma are good examples of companies that are moving into areas that other camera manufacturers are ignoring. I like you have a huge investment in Nikon cameras and lenses and would be devastated if Nikon went out of business.
- The ideal shutter speed of 1/Focal length which became 1/ ( 2xFocal length ) with the D800 will be 1/( 4xFocal length ) to avoid camera shake ... There goes a stop.
- The High ISO performance gained over the last years goes back to where it was 3-4 years ago ... Have we lost another 1 stop due to doubled Mps ?
- The f5.6 will be the new f8 for getting maximum IQ & seeing the extra pixels which bothers only those worried about DOF , certainly a tiny group of users.
- Pixel peeping will end up only in one's demoralizing himself once realizing the quality glass ( $1500-$2500 ) currently owned is now just average. Luckily there are the Manual Carl Zeiss's one can always get and easily use. Oh yes, the $6,000-$15,000 fast teles will work well, too. ( Sorry, nothing on the wide side )
Yey ! Can't wait ....
P.S. The above not to be taken seriously ... Just some Sunday humor
I went to the eye doctor a couple of weeks ago and they had Nikon lenses for glasses. I have a pair of Nikon glasses. It was sad to see the post about the Fuji camera in the Nikon advertisement.
I want shutter speeds from 120 minutes to 1/32,000 of a second. I want 60FPS, it is 2016, not 1916.......
In 1916, optics where made and polished by hand... its expensive and time consuming. It is 2016.... all optics should be laser etched and polished.... weigh half of what they did 100 years ago and cost 2/3 less than they do now, but the prices keep going up. By laser etching and polishing I should be able to resolve 500mp in glass optics....
On that note, why are we even using glass optics anymore.... it is so 100 years ago..... there has to be something better out there now.... etc...
A 25 pound 4,000mm F/2.8 35mm (FF) optical lens should be possible now.
I "kinda" agree with Donaldjose's comments about the Sigma Art Series. I say "kinda" because even though they are very sharp for a reasonable price, I think more can be done. The Art's are still not as good as the Otus lenses. However, I can't argue against the bang for the buck of the Arts vs the Otuses.
The Rockwell article is calculating a different thing than the Clarkvision article.
Rockwell calculates the megapixels from the spec of the film. I assume that this film was tested on some unique equipment of Fuji's.
The Clarkvision article is a test of the film on a camera with a lens attached (compared to other camera with the same lens, but with a digital sensor).
A lens and a sensor (or a lens and film) is an optical system. The resolution of the optical system is going to be limited by the weakest link in the chain, which might be the lens or might be the sensor/film.
I think that the Clarkvision article has simply demonstrated that a particular film was better than the sensor at the time. It was ultimately limited by the lens. The lens is the weak link. Resolution will not go up if you change film. However, you would need to find a lens with more than a hundred megapixels of resolution to test the resolution of the film. Since such a lens does not exist, you cannot test the resolution of the film with a camera lens.
I do not know how Fuji tested their film, but the equipment certainly did not have a camera lens attached to it.
As far as Rockwell's math holds up, it still seems reasonable.
To wrap your head around it, look at the MTF chart of a lens. The new 600mm f/4E is my favorite. The spec is based on "lines per mm". There is one line for "10 lines per mm" and another line for "30 lines per mm". Both delightfully hug the top, but you can appreciate that if there was a line for "45 lines per mm", it would not be so close. The MTF on Fuji Velvia 50 is 80 lines per mm at high contrast and 160 lines per mm at low contrast. This is hard to compare, as the MTF chart for the Nikon Lens does not have specs greater than 30 lines per mm. However, one should pause and consider for a moment that Nikon's sharpest supertele does not seem to be in the same ballpark as this film.
The main issues with a higher resolution sensor would be potentially losing performance at higher ISO, losing frames per second and having larger files to deal with. Honestly the first of those seems to be very contentious to me and I think its tough to tell whether differences are down to resolution or advancements in sensor tech. The second is certainly true but you could argue perhaps Nikon might want to limit FPS to not lose D5 sales? the third might be true but storage space and CPU power still seems to be advancing more quickly plus of course output can be set to a lower resolution.
I do think that the D5 AF unit in the D810 update plus potentially 4K video are likely to get a significant amount of attention and honestly I think if Nikon combined those with Sony's A7R II sensor and maybe 5 FPS I think they would have something very marketable.
Perhaps a poor camera...............
Sure it would not be "much of a camera". But it would be alot better than a camera phone and still in a small pocketable package. Mediocre cameras in small packages has been a successful business model with camera phones.
In the film v digital debate (without end or answer), as to artistic merit, that is personal and beyond dispute.
As to resolution (which is only 1 part of a photograph), the last tests I saw using a real lens on a real camera and film equivalents were performed by Irwin Puts on Leica M9 (18 mp), and Leica film (M6 I think) using the actual same lenses.
The results were quite clear, for color, the M9 was superior to any color film.
For Monochrome, an ISO 25 'technical' film slightly outresolved the M9. Remember that 'technical' film is designed for very high contrast and resolution, and ISO does not matter because it is primarily used in fixed installations for the purpose of burning semiconductors. It is truly 'black and White' having almost no grey scale.
For color, it takes several hundred grains in several color layers of emulsion to equal one 'pixel' in a beyer sensor.
Much of the time when a friend tells me he loves the look of film, he then shows me as evidence a print from Costco where the film got a low res scan which is then printed on a Color Laser. I of course politely agree.
I still occasionally shoot film (while I can get some), but for what it is, and do not pretend it is something else to justify the excercise.
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
What you guys are talking about sounds a lot like the DxO one:
http://www.dxo.com/us/dxo-one
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.