Same here Johny

Anaxagoras said:
I remember reading years ago that digital cameras would need to reach ~36 MP to match 35mm film. Based on current image quality I find that hard to believe.

I agree in terms of IQ, although some still debate that. For sheer convenience and cost benefits, digital is so far ahead of film that there can almost be no debate. Anyone who wants to argue about that can spot check some slide scans for me while we discuss. ;-)

I should say, though, that I've seen some great arguments for using film on this forum. I'm kind of a path-of-least-resistance guy, though, and couldn't hope to make back what the investment in film gear would cost me. Digital is another story. $1000 for the kind of performance you get from a D90 and an 18-105? We're living in a photographic dreamland.

mb, you're right that there is more to do in resolution. I just don't think most people (even most pros) need it (I'm talking about the resolution of DX at 12MP and FX at 24MP). In fact, I'd prefer to lose some resolution for light gathering and that's my plan (12MP DX -> 12MP FX).

Negative film can resolve up to 6,000 lines per inch as tested.
This should give around 46 Mpix on 24*36 (35mm film).
Best film scanners can resolve 4000 lines per inch so you get around 20.5 Mpix.
And that is without Bayer interpolation ...
The thingy is you loose much IQ when digitizing the film, but it seams that there is a room to improve on resolution to be able to match the film ...

My D90 aces my friends 15mpx 50D in image quality and ISO. The D90 probably has the best sensor out of all non pro exclusive cameras. #17 on DXo Mark.

Obviously it depends on your photography, but I think for MOST amateurs 12 MP is sufficient. Pixel counts will increase over the years but for many photographers it will be a luxury not a requirement.

I remember reading years ago that digital cameras would need to reach ~36 MP to match 35mm film. Based on current image quality I find that hard to believe.

I believe Nikon has announced recently that it intends to concentrate more on quality than pixels in the future. I hope so. I recently swapped my 15 MP Sony for a 12 MP Nikon D90. Guess what? The Nikon gives far, far, far better results.

I use Adobe Raw and optimization at neutral...

PB PM said:
Meh, if you shoot RAW you choose the colours. I never use camera brand picture controls.

Good point, that is why I use Capture NX and NEF, gives better colors IMHO.

Meh, if you shoot RAW you choose the colours. I never use camera brand picture controls.

mb said: Well why wouldn't you?
In camera HDR is rubbish from what I saw.
I suppose colors are a bit personal, I don’t like Canon tendency to oversaturate.
---
What in camera HDR? I was talking about the D3X DR of close to 13EV compared to the DR of most cameras of about 10 EV (Of course my S5pro has about 14EV)

I find the colours from the D300/D700/D3 weird, like colours from "neon signs". The D3S seems to have taken the edge off the neon sign colours which I like. I dont think the canon over saturates, they have nice skin tones. Wish FujiFlim brings out an EXR DSLR. I just love the S5Pro colours.

mb said:
Well why wouldn't you?
In camera HDR is rubbish from what I saw.
I suppose colors are a bit personal, I don’t like Canon tendency to oversaturate.

What in camera HDR? I was talking about the D3X DR of close to 13EV compared to the DR of most cameras of about 10 EV (Of course my S5pro has about 14EV)

I find the colours from the D300/D700/D3 weird, like colours from "neon signs". The D3S seems to have taken the edge off the neon sign colours which I like. I dont think the canon over saturates, they have nice skin tones. Wish FujiFlim brings out an EXR DSLR. I just love the S5Pro colours.

@dellaaa : Look you are special . and as a person with special needs you will have to pay for it. Thats just the way it is. The only options for you is to go MF digital or the D3X. Or compromise and get the canon versions with High MP with lower IQ. Yes its frustrating when you are special .. You cant just get normal gear. Still you don't need to take it out on the rest of the world. If you were normal like the rest of the world then you wont be special anymore :-) Look every thing is a compromise. and nikon has chosen it optimal compromise and It just so happens that most people agree with that chosen compromise. similarly canon has chosen its compromise and many people agree with that compromise as well.. other (MF digital, D3X, FujiFLM EXR) have chosen their level of compromise. Go find one that fits with your style and finance.

One important thing about handling high ISO speeds well is that it's basically telling you how much noise there is in the shadows—even if you're shooting at low ISO. It means that if you shoot jpeg, there's not a lot of difference between a D700 and a D300 because that extra information in the D700 image gets thrown away when a curve gets applied to get the gamma right. If you're shooting RAW, though, it means you've got lots more you can do to open the shadows (kind of an in-camera HDR).

I agree, the D700 and D3 have great low light shooting abilities, and I would love to have one, let alone something with the high ISO of the D3s! If they could make a D3x that had the FPS and low light of the D3, then I might be interested, until then I'll stick with 12MP cameras.

I find I don't really use high iso a lot on my camera. In most cases 1600 is more than enough even at night or in really poor light conditions. 1600 looks great on the D700 and so does 3000 thats enough for me. These hyper iso and bodies with video are a complete waste of time for me. The D3x is the only Nikon sensor that interests me at the moment.

Some very interesting posts on here though especially about the time line of each bodies sensor. I thought the D300 was descendent of the D3 but looks like it was the D2X then..

Dellaaa - Ok, so we're stupid because you used to flame 35mm shooters? Yeah, you had a need for large format, others didn't. If you are going to be shooting large posters, maybe 12 MP isn't good enough for you. I used to shoot primarily 35mm, but also shot 120. Turns out, for me, the 35mm was just fine. On blowups, yeas, 120 was better, but I didn't need it for 99.9% of what I was doing.

By the same token, if 99.9% of the people on this forum get excellent shots from 12 MP, and don't need a lot more (and some don't find they need 12MP), why flame them? If you are not happy with what Nikon offers, stick with your large format, and get a life. Don't interfere with ours.

The 12 M Pixel rules seems pretty arbitrary illogical.

The same argument could have been made in the film days about medium form and large format cameras. Who needs them???? The fact is I did and I used them and loved the quality. Ansel Adams need it and the whole f64 school did. Couldn't they have just as well used a 35mm and printed 5x7? Of course.

All the reviews of the high M Pixel cameras describe the incredible detail and beautiful images. I have yet to read a review of the d3 that said, incredible image quality, BUT who needs it?

Who needs it? You do and I do. Why? Because it is there and it is possible.

mb said:
Well why wouldn't you?

Sorry I updated my post what did you mean?

Well why wouldn't you?
In camera HDR is rubbish from what I saw.
I suppose colors are a bit personal, I don’t like Canon tendency to oversaturate.

@mb, I do like the canon colours better than the ones produced by the D300,D3,D700. I Like the D3S colours though. Have not seen enough of the D3X colours to make a judgement, but ones I have seen are not too bad :-) Cant wait for the D700S would be a killer camera if the colours are the same as the D3S! I could even excuse the lack of HDR :-)

As mentioned before 12Mpix is more then enough for most professionals.
At standard newspaper resolution of 300dpi 4288x2848 pixels (12Mpix) will give you 9.5” by 14.4” image size that is larger than most front pages are so you have some room to crop if needed.
Much more important is sensitivity, dynamic range and color accuracy.
“Most professionals” does not mean all, bird and wildlife photographers, among others, will probably need more for cropping, so you have 24Mpix D3x.

LOL! Like I said I have been using 6MP and its fine for me.. 12 MP would be nice.. 24 would be nice too... but I prefer the high DR and the High ISO, gives me much more options than high MP. every thing is a compromise. I think Nikon has made the better compromise. Choosing High ISO over high MP. Of course they also have the HDR High MP D3X so I really dont see the point of your rant(and accusing us all of being brainwashed) are you talking about the consumer range? If that the range you are talking about I guess Nikon is lacking and they should produce a consumer kit with high MP but lower DR and Lower ISO capabilities like the 7D. It does sound like the consumer and amateur level market does like the High MP.

I have compromised and chose High DR over High MP. Works for me. 6MP has been more than enough for me. Looking forward to upgrading the 12 then maybe 18 or 24MP some day when they have the HDR better mastered.

Tell me why do you want High MP? What do you shoot that needs 24MP? Are you sure its not you that is brainwashed :-) LOL

I have a friend who is really picky on image quality and he has canon gear(21MP) but he was seriously considering switching to the D3S except for the lense investment that he has. I convinced him to stay with canon. Its not worth jumping just because of small IQ advantages that will be equaled or leapfrogged by the next generation of tech. I am just glad that nikon has the edge at the moment. :-) (except for the Low MP LOL) (Not considering Flash,Hi-ISO,Focus acuracy!)

haha, it's not an issue of brand loyalty...in fact I don't even currently shoot Nikon (although I will admit I am going to pick up a Nikon body next).

Did you read anything anyone posted? There are factual substantial reasons as to why it is unnecessary for most people to shoot with more than 12 or in many cases 6mp. On top of that it can become harmful to actually shoot with too many, as well as having to own the right glass to actually take advantage of the mp, which most people do not and will not.

of course you will just see what you want to see.

WRONG PLACE to bring this up LOL.

These guys really make me laugh.

The brains in this forum are as washed as they get. Do not look for any reasonable discussion here.

12 is enough, Get it????? Matter of fact, 12 is too much!!!! OK? End of story (until Nikon comes out with their 24M pixel model of course, then they will all sing its praises).

Its like asking the people of Pompeii if they have a volcano problem. Of course Nikon is lacking, I wonder what is happening to the company, they really look like they are asleep. I think they might not have the dept of pockets the other camera companies companies do.

The D40X, D60, D80, D200, and D3000 have the "same" 10mp sensor too.

Just for you PB PM :^)

You can add the D3000 as still using that 10MP sensor.