Z8 on the way with 60 MP

2

Comments

  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 859Member
    For now I'm holding PAT on new body purchases and plan on just renting when I need something for a specific job that I don't have. I still have hope for a replacement for the D750 and think that a D860 with a 60MP sensor that can focus like the D850 would make a great pair of bodies that would yield many fine offspring in the way of images. As for a square or rectangular sensor I'm most happy with the 3/2 format as it is more capable for shooting one shot panoramas than a 4/3 and much more so than a square would be. There are some places I want to shoot that 60MP would be nice for that one shot as over deep water stitching multiple images is not feasible. 6x17 film cameras are still available but at a price I can't justify. For now I will keep stitching images with my D7200 and maybe next summer with a D810 when out with my son who is now using it. I still would be happy with a new D760 with 30MP and overjoyed with a D860 at 60MP to pack with it.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    edited May 2019
    Yes mhedges: 24 mp is fine for poster size prints. I have printed many. Even 24 mp from a DX sensor can make great poster size prints so the "bottom of the line" $500 Nikon D3500 with its kit lens can produce great poster size prints. When you think about it, that is quite amazing. It is easy to find a commercial printer which can print six foot wide prints on roll paper. If you print the short side of your image 6 feet wide you can have a very large print about 6 feet by 10 feet which will barely fit on an 8 foot tall wall. A few people on this forum do print very large prints like this. Perhaps 95% of us here do not and will not really need more than 24 mp. For those who do want to print large a used D800, D800e or D810 is a great bargain now that the D850 is "old" and there will soon be a new D8xx iteration with likely a 60 mp sensor. When camera's get two generations old they become bargain buys. For example, a 12 mp very robust D3s, which was more than $5,000 new, can now be bought for about $700 on e-bay with half (150,000 actuations) of its shutter life still left and a D800, which was $3,000 new, can now be purchased on e-bay with half (75,000) of its shutter life left for $800. The D800, D800e and D810 are very cheap megapixel upgrades from 24 megapixels now. For approximately the cost of a new DX D5600 a person can be shooing a 36 mp FX camera. Obtaining high megapixel images has never been so cheap.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • DenverShooterDenverShooter Posts: 356Member
    I have had the Phase One 150MP BSI sensor medium format camera and shot some test images with it and the results knocked me right out of my chair...

    And it more than just resolution, its 16+ stops of dynamic range, fantastic color gamut along with resolution in the blacks that has to be seen to be appreciated. It was simply awe inspiring.

    And of course it cost more than the debt of Venezuela at $51K (with one standard lens) plus a couple of additional pieces of glass in the range of $4K to 8K a whack...

    But hey life is short.

    I am going to rent one for my next landscape photo safari.

    Denver Shooter
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    "And it more than just resolution, its 16+ stops of dynamic range, fantastic color gamut along with resolution in the blacks that has to be seen to be appreciated." Good point, medium format sensors offer more than just resolution.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    edited May 2019
    Interesting test. At high ISO medium format has about a four stop sharpness advantage. At low ISO medium format no sharpness advantage when megapixels are equal. But how many people thinking of going medium format are thinking of shooting at high ISO?
    I think most would be planning to shoot at low ISO and expect medium format to provide a visible difference at base ISO. Apparently not so.
    https://kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/full-frame-vs-medium-format.htm
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    Well, the Fuji is barely medium format. Upgrading to it would be less of an upgrade than from DX to FX.

    If I go to to medium format it will be serious medium format where I am chasing resolution, like Phase One.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,425Member
    Gotta love his commitment to shooting in JPG
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    "the Fuji is barely medium format" Right. The advantage of the "MF" fuji is that even thought it has a larger than FX sensor it can still be shot and held like a full frame D850 FX body with a battery grip (or the Dx series bodies), When you go to "full size" medium format you also move to a less easily hand held camera/lens combination. Ok for studio or landscapes but not going to be handy for other types of photography. I would expect the new 100 mp sensor for the GFX will show a sharpness advantage at base ISO. But then again, it should really be compared to a 100 mp FX sensor.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    Yes Donaldjose. Agreed.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,122Member

    Wouldn't producing circular sensors "waste" a lot of space on the round silicone wafer compared to rectangular or square sensors? Thus, circular sensors would be more expensive per sensor because fewer could be produced on a wafer.

    Indeed, we've been down this rabbit hole before, but apparently the message didn't get through. The traditional rectangular sensors were not just used because people were used to the 3x2 image format, but also due to the efficiency of sensors dies per silicon wafer. It would be extremely expensive to make round sensors, a cost that manufactures would be very unlikely to want to swallow due to the amount of waste material that would be effectively unusable. Each wafer is worth it's weight in gold, to put it lightly. Having to toss away larger sections of the wafer than necessary would not be desirable, since the cost to manufacture wafers is going up. If people think current high end medium format cameras are expensive, a round sensor equipped camera would likely make them look cheap.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    Take the largest round sensor which would cover FX and then square it into a square sensor. Wouldn't producing square sensors which are able to contain the same circle use up just as much space on the silicone wafer? I wonder about the reality of how fewer such square sensors would fit on a wafer compared to traditional FX sensors? I also wonder about actual cost increase per sensor. If the additional cost is in the range of $200 more per sensor I would think people would happily pay that. After all a battery grip to get the vertical shutter button is more expensive. But also the viewfinder would have to change to allow for the vertical view when the camera is held horizontally.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,122Member
    edited May 2019
    Even a square sensor would dramatically increase the cost, vs a rectangular one, due to lower efficiency. If you look at silicon based dies, almost all of them are rectangular, because you get far more dies per wafer that way, and the ones that aren’t are more expensive to produce. Don’t confuse the shape of a devices heat spreader (IHS), for the die shape, since the IHS could be covering multiple dies, particularly in things like phones, tablets and the like.

    It is unlikely that it would be just a few hundred dollars more, since a square will still produce dramatically more wafer waste than a rectangular dies, the large the area, the less efficient the use of the wafer the higher it will get. A square sensor will increase the area by more than 25%; so expect the cost to go up as such. Still much cheaper than round though.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    A square 36mm by 36mm would solve all the problems and not “waste” any of the image circle. I would pay another $2,000 for that. Heck, the battery grip with the D5 battery only fixes a few problems and costs half that.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    Why cannot the wafer be made square so square sensors will fit without waste? Even with "wafer waste" it shouldn't cost $2,000 more to make a square sensor. I would think it shouldn't cost more than somewhere between $500 and $1,000 to produce a camera with a square 36 x 36 mm sensor. I would also like to see them move the sensor and viewfinder further to the left (looking from the back of the camera) so my nose stops smearing the LCD. The original "look" of the SLR came from needing to have a film canister at each end of the body. We don't need space on the left for a film canister anymore so the sensor (and viewfinder and my nose) can be moved about an inch to the left which will result in keeping the LCD cleaner.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    A square sensor will not waste anything more than a rectangular sensor, except that defects will result in more rejects. I also think your guesstimate of cost is realistic. $2,000 is just what it is worth to me.

    I find your thoughts about moving the viewfinder intriguing.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    Only the camera companies can accurately estimate the cost to produce the square sensor body. It involves more than just the sensor. The OVF or EVF would also need changes. Dx body viewfinders "gray out" parts of the image to create the 5:4 ration. That system could be used to "gray out" any part of a square OVF or EVF image needed to establish a vertical image (when the camera is held horizontally) or even to create a 16:9 or 21:9 ratio so it is easier to compose when shooting in such ratios. If no one does it we will never know the cost.

    As to ergonomics, the DSLR or MSLR interfaces with the human body at three points; the right hand, the left hand and the face. The right hand ergonomics is considered and addressed by the grip extension and depth of that extension and by the placement of buttons so they are easily reached by the fingers of the right hand. The left hand ergonomics is considered and addressed by the hand cupping around the circular bottom of the lens with lens control buttons or focusing ring or zoom ring easily reachable and workable by the thumb and fingers of the left hand. The rear of the camera is flat. The human face is not flat. Ergonomically the rear of the camera does not "fit" the human face because it makes no provision for the protruding nose. Nikon's Z body design is an improvement because that rear housing of the EVF protrudes out from the back of the camera reducing the pressure on the nose. But ergonomically it could be better if the OVF or EVF were moved to the left so the nose passes on the side of the camera. Consider the placement of the OVF in the upper corner of the old rangefinder bodies. Sort of think of the viewfinder being located where it was on the old rangefinder body but being replaced with a protruding EVF like on the Z bodies. Just an idea needing more reflection. There may be negatives I have not thought of.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    That idea is “very” worthy of reflection Donaldjose. Well thought out.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 411Member
    edited May 2019
    A square 36x36 sensor will need a bigger image circle than 36x24. It's the diagonal that matters.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,122Member
    edited May 2019

    Why cannot the wafer be made square so square sensors will fit without waste? Even with "wafer waste" it shouldn't cost $2,000 more to make a square sensor.

    They are round because they are not grown flat like a pancake, but more like a sausage and then sliced. Due to how the process works, square is not practical. Its not like making bread.

    https://quora.com/Why-are-silicon-wafers-round

    From the site above, from someone who worked in the business for over 30 years.
    "One of the main reasons is the high heat used at several steps during the semiconductor process. If the wafer was square, the corners would get hotter quicker and result in the circuits in those areas to work differently or not at all. This is similar to problems when baking a cake in a square pan instead of a round one"
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,425Member
    Wafers can’t easily be made square because many semiconductor processing steps involve spin coating the wafer with photoresist or other materials. It is much easier to get a good coating on a round wafer.

    There are a few very specialized applications where square wafers are used, but they are by far the exception. Also as far as I know the biggest they get is about 5” on a side and that’s not a practical size for making big die.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    Thanks for the round wafer answers. So we are stuck with round wafers. Square sensors are still possible on that round wafer.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 888Member
    A square is the largest rectangular area you can cut out of a circle. So it might give most area per dollar. I would like 36 by 36, allowing me to crop portrait or landscape in post, but I have a feeling that we are stuck with fx on Nikon cameras.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,191Member
    TC88, you are right, I forgot about that.

    And to clarify round wafers, they are a lot bigger than sensors, so you are still cutting something square. Or perhaps you cut round and use the leftovers for DX or maybe CX sensors.

    Really starting to speculate here.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,425Member
    Yes camera sensors are made on 300mm (~12’ diameter) wafers.

    I’m a semiconductor process engineer so this is right in my wheelhouse!
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,337Member
    edited May 2019
    Ok, so if we assume the wafer is 300 mm in diameter we can each draw one on paper and play with putting 24x36 rectangles or 36x36 squares inside that 300 mm circle and judge for ourselves just how many you can get on a wafer and which format created the greatest waste area on the wafer. If you can get twice the number of rectangles as you can squares we could assume the square sensor would cost twice whatever the rectangular one does. IF you can get one third more rectangles than squares a square sensor would cost one third more.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
Sign In or Register to comment.