I wonder if we will soon see high megapixel bodies with the option of saving raw images of varying sizes. For example a 64mp sensor processed to a 16mp raw file would be very interesting. In camera processing of raw images for smaller file sizes should be a no-brainer that provides better image quality as a consequence of the enriched data environment. For bright scenes with great glass on a tripod etc you might occasionally want a full resolution raw, but why not provide a variety of in-camera options for raw image sizes? I think this would be really powerful.

What M/B do you have? What sort of expansion slots does it have? GFX cards and RAM are very cheap these days but you need a 64 bit OS to get the most of of them. You absolutely MUST run 64bit if you're looking for performance as that will allow accessing more ram in bigger chunks. You need a drive for caching (apart from the OS) and you need a separate drive for Lightroom (or whatever you use)and for image storage. If you could upgrade your OS to 64bit and buy new ram that might be enough for quite awhile if you have a reasonable quad core CPU and a few HDD's on board.

Tell me about Bossa its beyond painful at 4GB. I really need to do something and soon because its not an option really at all. If I could get it into the 8-10 GB range I'd be fine and it would run me $300-$400 where I live. 12 is the magic mark though for these high MP beasts. I am screwed for the Graphics card though very pricey and might as well get a new system. With G-force card or something similar..

kanuck said:
Wow so my brother won our little bet it looks like then. He bet Canon would release a high megapixel body and I said they would keep their bodies in the 18-26mp range. At 46 thats a heck of lot of resolution. I wonder how they will design it to have industry leading ISO performance though especially in low light.

I have read on various forums and agree completely, that the "sweetspot" for resolution in terms of megapixels seems to be in the 16-21 range. I like the 18 on an M9 for example. These megapixel wars are great for the computer industry because you have no choice but to upgrade your system. My D800e requires about 20 minutes to process a single image now on my computer! I am only running 4GB of RAM and a crappy graphics card. You need at least 8-12GB and gaming worthy graphics card. I'd like a 1Terabyte hard drive minimum too, but can't until my studies are done next April. Be warned, with this high megapixel bodies you need the real deal computer setup..

20 minutes? Ouch! I thought my machine was slow but thank the stars it ain't that slow.

The Nikon D800e 36.3 MP is all the camera I'll ever need (and afford) from now on. And I mean it this time.

Wow so my brother won our little bet it looks like then. He bet Canon would release a high megapixel body and I said they would keep their bodies in the 18-26mp range. At 46 thats a heck of lot of resolution. I wonder how they will design it to have industry leading ISO performance though especially in low light.

I have read on various forums and agree completely, that the "sweetspot" for resolution in terms of megapixels seems to be in the 16-21 range. I like the 18 on an M9 for example. These megapixel wars are great for the computer industry because you have no choice but to upgrade your system. My D800e requires about 20 minutes to process a single image now on my computer! I am only running 4GB of RAM and a crappy graphics card. You need at least 8-12GB and gaming worthy graphics card. I'd like a 1Terabyte hard drive minimum too, but can't until my studies are done next April. Be warned, with this high megapixel bodies you need the real deal computer setup..

@ spraynpray +1

The idea of switching from Nikon/Canon back an forth....kinda like my pouting because the D400 is not here yet. Falls into the developmental age of maybe 2 years old.

As TTJ has pointed out, nothing is "cheap"unless it is free. Or, if one wins the lottery.

The D800 can do things my D4 cannot do....no question about this. My Smart Fortwo can do things my 7000 pound Dodge truck cannot do. They are all different. I would like to have a M9 Leica. Just the way it works, manual everything, But, my guess is, the D800 images look better in the final analysis. Or the Mamiya with an 80MP back.

If one is intent on changing each time some adversity is met, or when something else looks better, this may not have anything to do with the actual object (camera body, lenses) but may have more to do with the way we deal with the world. I am relatively new back into the field of photography. About three years ago I was going to purchase a "D3s replacement" which was to be "coming out soon". And the D4 was the result and I would guess it has been utilized by me to about 15% of its capabilities. And post processing...wow, so much to learn there. But, I am attempting to do what I had intended in the 1960's, to eventually get some nice photos.

It is not about getting more pixels, it is about learning how to make the best use of what we have. We see great stuff on PAD, yet almost every shot can be altered to suit someone else's taste. Maybe better, maybe not. We all have a lot to learn and NRF is an excellent place to do just this.

All other (good) reasons for staying with Nikon put to one side:

We should have learned by now that the lead in these matters changes so if we switch brand on such a sill basis we will waste a lot of money being led by the nose courtesy of the marketing people in these companies.

Personally, I would happily stay at less than 16mp forever if we had invisible noise to say, ISO 256000. 99% of my stuff stays on screen and the other doesn't get reproduced past 20x16 so what the heck.

Holographic data storage here we come!

Very interesting topic Eric.

With respect to the whole Nikon/Canon switching all comes down, IMHO, to how much one has invested in the right glass for the type of photography he/she does. My investment in Nikon, was due to the quality of their product (body & glass) that attracted to me to them...not the megapixle of their cameras. I would argue, that those individual that look at "megapixles" as their justification for buying such a device are either miss guided or truly have a need for such resolutions. I for one, am very happy with Nikon and have no plans is switching. But for those that have made their way to my side...welcome have fun on the "dark side." :D

@TaoTeJared +1

More pixels is simply progress. How those pixels are managed in the end product and the conversion to the image is what separates the competition.

The megapixel war will not likely end anytime in the foreseeable future and we will all benefit from it eventually.

Unless they combined pixels to refine the IQ I couldn't see myself buying a 46MP camera in the near future so soon after buying into the D800E and some glass. My priority is a new computer anyway. LR4.1 is slowing things down somewhat where even my Pentax K-5 files are 'slower' to process and I am getting more and more impatient when processing D800E NEF files. 46MP files would be a nightmare.

rensuchan said:
I think I love you for this quote, it made my day :D

In any case. Megapixels are getting ridiculous lately. Just the jump from 6 on a D40 to 16 on a D7000 was enough to make me worry about how long I could use a 250GB drive as a backup... and it's looking like it wont last beyond this year. Would a 46 MP camera make me switch to Canon? Not a chance. In fact, I'd avoid it like the plague. I'm dreading the 24.7 that the D600 is going to have already as I continue to watch my hard drive space slowly disappear already from 20-22MB D7000 RAWs...

It's partly why if the D7000 replacement gets more than 16 mp, which in all likelihood would, I'll just patiently wait for the D7000 replacement to come out and pick up a D7000 for a little bit cheaper.

I'm used to small files right now with a D40, there's no reason for me to have more than 20 mp. I don't even print photos.

TaoTeJared said:
Files are just getting huge - and if I hear the lost argument that "HD space is cheap" I have a middle finger for them and they can send me $200 for a new esata external raid drive. ;) Cheap is not having to spend a dime, spending money is spending money.

I think I love you for this quote, it made my day :D

In any case. Megapixels are getting ridiculous lately. Just the jump from 6 on a D40 to 16 on a D7000 was enough to make me worry about how long I could use a 250GB drive as a backup... and it's looking like it wont last beyond this year. Would a 46 MP camera make me switch to Canon? Not a chance. In fact, I'd avoid it like the plague. I'm dreading the 24.7 that the D600 is going to have already as I continue to watch my hard drive space slowly disappear already from 20-22MB D7000 RAWs...

I learned a new word today... petabyte.....mmmm...

Maybe they can get me some new glasses as well as a zillion pixels, huh?

Switch to Canon and all those ugly gray lenses? Ug!

Not to state the obvious but the MP war will end when a large majority ceases to demand it. I'm guilty of buying the D800 because of more resolution, but I knew I was given up more FPS and a few other advantages that smaller MP DSLRs offer.

Coming from the 5d2, I lost nothing and gained plenty. I never wanted high FPS, or the absolute best high ISO performance, and 51 (or 61) AF points do little for my style of shooting. But the D800 offers a whopping 15MP increase over the 5d2, as well as much cleaner low ISO files, and the price difference was only $450 more than I paid for my 5d2 new. Nikon (or Sony) still has the advantage with sensor design, and frankly I don't anticipate the Canon super MP offering to be anywhere near the camera a D800 is -- unless, of course, the price is in the $5-6k range. Judging by how little Canon has evolved over the last 4-5 years, I'd be surprised if the 46mp camera was out on the market within 2 years. 36MP of my D800 is almost too much for most practical purposes, but the fact that it DOES resolve that highly AND produces stunningly clean files even after jerking around with the shadows, contrast, etc is just amazing. I'd never go back to Canon because of a high MP offering personally. Unless they produce better UWA glass, or come up with wide angle prime lenses that destroy Nikon's own line (extremely doubtful), what am I really missing from Canon?

About a year ago canon was playing with a sensor above 100mp that was in a "can we do that" category. Sony has had development tests on sensors like that as well. I have seen an article on the Duke sensor as well.

There will be no end and for good reason, the more color recorded as a smaller point will lead to sharper and better rendered photos. After all, sensor - to image is never 1:1, it always goes through processing. As that is the case, the argument of "lenses can't resolve that much" is a false argument, all sensors do is collect light, not detail. Sensors just capture light and combine the RGB data to make a pixel. Nokia has their 46mp camera in a cell phone that makes resolution 7-8 mp images. As sensors have massive pixel counts, they will just combine more data collection points to create the correct color a pixel should be.

Now an argument should be made on what output resolution is needed and how they can take those huge sensors and modify them to create the best image, not the highest resolution. My D800's resolution is way too high for casual shooting - absurd actually. I have never found myself shooing below jepg-fine, but now I'm dropping it to basic. For birthdays of the dog, I don't need 36mp files. One would think they would start combining pixels to create a "better" image rather than just compress them more.

Files are just getting huge - and if I hear the lost argument that "HD space is cheap" I have a middle finger for them and they can send me $200 for a new esata external raid drive. ;) Cheap is not having to spend a dime, spending money is spending money. The other side of it, is with these huge files, you need speedy drives to work on them. I'm pricing out systems with a internal SSD drive for editing and then when done, move the files to an external esata raid block. No other real way to work effeciantly with hundreds of thousands of files. I have just over 4,000 D800 files and everything is slowing to a halt on external drives as they fill up.

Eric said:
Does the D3200 have an AA filter?
Would anyone switch to (or back to) Canon for this change?

D3200 does have an AA filter.
Switch to Canon - no. Will it keep Canon shooters from switching to NIkon (and that is what they are really trying to do) possibly.

@sevencrossing - 50 gigapixels... I guess we will need those petabyte drives and CF cards ;-)

Eric said:
In other words, where does the megapixel war end?

The prototype machine - dubbed AWARE2 - has the potential to take pictures with resolutions of up to 50 gigapixels, equivalent to 50,000 megapixels, according to the team from Duke University in North Carolina.

Eric said:

Would anyone switch to (or back to) Canon for this change?

In a word NO

Apparently rumors are out there regarding a new Canon EOS 3D at 46mp and a "new heat dissipating design that provides industry leading ISO performance".

So, 46mp EOS 3D vs the 36mp D800. I think this works out to be about 958 more pixels in the x direction and 639 in the Y. Assuming a 36 x 24 sensor and 36 & 46 mp respectively, the (rough) pixel pitches would be 4.9 and 4.33 microns. An AA filter is probably still needed.

In the past, similar Canon announcements about "industry leading ISO performance" seems to have meant "cleaner but less sharp jpegs". It will be interesting to see what the sensor really does.

As a data point, the D3200 has a pixel pitch of about 3.8 microns. A D4X with a similar pitch would come in at between 55 - 60 mp.

Does the D3200 have an AA filter?
Would anyone switch to (or back to) Canon for this change?

As far as I am concerned, when the sensor sufficiently out resolves the glass, there is little point in adding any more pixels; and AA filters are also no longer necessary. Although having said that, Nokia claims that more pixels provide valuable statistics for noise reduction, and that by upping the pixel count above the resolution of the glass better high ISO performance can be achieved.

Assuming that computer technology will evolve to allow the handling of very large files, then:
What is the maximum effective number of pixels for an FX sensor?
and why?

In other words, where does the megapixel war end?