Ah, that's what I get for reading right after waking up. Well you could always stop waiting for the D400 and get yourself a Leica M-E. Okay, so you could get another D4 for that price, but hey it would be nice have a small interchangeable lens FF body. Of course the glass would set you back another $10,000.

Oh, I got the sarcasm.... and added to it :-) It is my firm belief that we are all sitting around waiting for the D400...... frustrating.... maybe that is why I started this absolutely insane thread....??? I hope we all get some entertainment, laugh, or whatever, while we are trying to figure out what Nikon is going to do.

The radio-telescopes are really a phenomenon like trying to grasp the outer galaxies.... way beyond me. So, I cannot imagine what this thread is good for unless I can convince someone to go to the Zeiss lens thread and give me some advice on the 25mm and 28mm f/2 FF glass as it works on a crop sensor......more :-)

msmoto said:
If one could shoot a pure titanium Hassleblad with lenses made of some super lightweight new optical material and it weighed what a D4 with a long lens weighed....and I won the Powerball Lottery at $200,000,000.... would this not be amazing? But, this does not exist, costs a lot more than I want to spend, and the most practical solution to the long lens issue is a portable Nikon, or any of the other good cameras.

Somehow, the humor/general interest of the thread has been lost....

So in other words you totally missed the sarcasm in my post. Thus the winky. lol

sevencrossing said:
Yes, but am I the only one who likes to be able to crop

[...]

sorry getting serious

I crop too - but I TRY to keep it to only when I get something wrong in the camera like if I miss a tree branch growing out of someones shoulder or got photo bombed by some idiot in the background off to one side - and working where I do (a university), that does happen more than you think!

Enough of the serious stuff ...

sevencrossing said:
For reasons, I cannot understand, some people seem to think smaller is better, as it gives them something called "reach"

LOL you do NOT understand why some photographer want "reach"? Do you own ONLY 50mm lenses or is there a 200mm or 300mm and a TC in your bag too? In other words, if you do have a telephoto lens and possibly a TC then you seek "reach" too. I have "reach" DSLR and telephoto and TC. Actually MILLIONS world wide also. (yup this post was PURE sarcasm)

bjrichus said:
This thread needs to be closed.

As cousin Ken (you know who) insists, 6MP is indeed enough for almost anything!

Yes, but am I the only one who likes to be able to crop

accurate framing is fine in the studio, when nether the subject or the light is changing

but in the real world, I tend to shoot on the wide side, and frame in post

with a server crop it is really is nice, if you start with 36 mega whatnots

sorry getting serious

This thread needs to be closed.

As cousin Ken (you know who) insists, 6MP is indeed enough for almost anything! Case closed.

Hmmmmm.

I have shot 10 and 12MP images that get used as posters two stories tall and they are just fine - so he must be right... and yes, mister geek that has to point it out, I know about the way they are printed and as you only look at things this large from far away you don't see the dot pattern, and I think TaoTeJared once commented he has done that too? Sorry if I got that wrong guys...

How much sensor you need depends on several factors, not just how large the final image is going to be printed or viewed. I exhibit most of my stuff as prints at 11x14" and the venerable D3000 backup body I use just about does it in good lighting and no cropping, but I prefer the D7000 as the images on screen are that much larger and can be cropped that much more without worry over the lower number of pixels compromising the IQ when editing the image to remove spots or other imperfections... and yes, mister geek who has to point it out, I also try to get it right first time in the camera, but don't always manage it, even after two or three tries! That's real life.

The shots I did from last week were on my organizations web site for a few days before another item took their place, so the wonderful D4 images with all that gradation were 'wasted'?

It's not all about megapixels, but they can help. Much to cousin Ken's dismay...

I stumbled across this somewhat related article on sensor size:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html

And now for the humor:
Two photographers are in the men’s room at the urinal. One guy is a Canonian and the other a Nikonian. The Nikon guy finishes his business first. He simply zips his fly and heads for the door. As he was leaving, the Canon guy turns his head towards him and says “Excuse me, Canon photographers wash our hands when we are finished urinating”.
The Nikon guy says ” I understand, but us Nikon guys don’t pee on our hands”

LOVE IT!

msmoto said:

Somehow, the humor/general interest of the thread has been lost....

A big sensor is going to need a big lens , or in this case mirror

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19717177

If one could shoot a pure titanium Hassleblad with lenses made of some super lightweight new optical material and it weighed what a D4 with a long lens weighed....and I won the Powerball Lottery at $200,000,000.... would this not be amazing? But, this does not exist, costs a lot more than I want to spend, and the most practical solution to the long lens issue is a portable Nikon, or any of the other good cameras.

Somehow, the humor/general interest of the thread has been lost....

Clearly the only sensors worth while are medium format, so stop wasting your money on M4/3s, DX, FX and get a Pentax 645D or a Hasselblad. ;)

msmoto said:
Here is an interesting question. How big is a good sensor?

Define good.

I guess purpose determines good, and some EVILs are really good. :D

But to the point.

I guess, for most people 'good' is what they get, regardless of how good their 'good' really is, in absolute terms. For most people that is good enough anyway.

For me, the Olympus OM-D sensor is unbelievably good for such a tiny device. Almost as good as the D7000 at high ISOs. I have been wondering about what an Olympus FX device could do, if one existed..

To each his own.

Nice find Msmoto! I like that.

Ahh diffraction limit arguments all assume 1 pixel read = 1 pixel output, which is not true. In reality it is multiple pixels read that equals multiple pixels output. (Except Foveon and the Leica M Monochrome.) There could be a 600mp camera and software (pixel interpolation) could correct or diminish diffraction so called limits.

I'm starting to believe 6-8mp (small devices/phones), 10-12mp (higher end digicams), & 16mp (small DSLR/mirror-less) sensors hit categories of all that is needed for most. The output of sensors with those seem to continue to advance and perform at a level where we have seen sensors being used for multiple generations and for almost 5 years now regardless of size.

In another 5 years I'm not sure how much size will play into consideration. If you really think about it, if we hit a level where low light performance of a compact at 6400 equals what a D4 can do today, how much further can it go before the usefulness has been fully met? Then what is the next thing people will strive for?

Me for one, believes that once manufactures take advantage of the multi-thread processing power we see in phones, along with creating better software, that will change the game. Imagine having the Iphone apps embedded in a D800 that reduces the noise levels etc. while you are still shooting with no reduction of performance.
That is the future I think and sensor size will be looked at they way we don't barely remember the film resolution race.

Well, this was a tongue-in-cheek sort of thread, but the actual fact is that the more surface we have to record the image, the finer the resolution. Assumption one is the same optics are used.

Here's one that's 12"x24": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Camera_for_Surveys
Kinda pricey, though. ;-)

I don't know of mainstream large format backs besides scanning ones (google betterlight), but they have issues because the image needs to be very static as it is scanned or you get strange artifacts. Stephen Johnson was someone using those back in the 90s and while he had some stunning images, some of them don't work as well IMO.

About diffraction limitations, 50 MP FX has larger pixels than 24 MP DX, which already exists. Not sure where diffraction shows up there, but I'm sure someone has tested this. The D600 only brings FX up to D200 range as far as diffraction is concerned assuming you're 100% pixel peeping. For a given print size, the format (FX or DX) is the important consideration for diffraction.

msmoto, this kind of telescope would have the worst bokeh ever. Good thing telescopes normally only focus at infinity.

My opinion is that a 6 megapixel sensor is needed for most of us who only print at 8x10 from an inkjet or display on a 23 inch monitor. PAD displays at 800x531 pixels, which is less than half a megapixel! Even an HDTV monitor can only display about 2 megapixels of image. Thus, a siz megapixel image has to be downsized to display on PAD or on a 55inch HDTV. Nikon produced 6 megapixel sensors back in the days of the "old, outdated" D40 and D70. Cameras of that era, 2005-2006, are more than adequate for PAD or 8x10 prints or display on computer monitors or HDTVs. Everything we view on computer monitors which was shot at 6 megapixel is being downsized in the background anyway.

For those who print larger, say 11x14, 12 megapixels are needed. For those who are going to print poster size, 20x30 or 24x36, 24 megapixels are needed. I have recently printed a 24x36 poster from about one third of a 36mp D800 image.

So "need" depends upon intended use. Many of us need 12 megapixels, a few of us need 24 megapixels (the new D600 and likely the soon to appear D400), and a very few of us need 36 megapixels.

How high will the FX size sensor go? Maybe to about 50 megapixels in a D4x. It is said the 36 megapixel D800 sensor starts to show reduction in image quality at around f8 which is actually the sharpest f stop on many lenses. The D600 at 24 megapixels should not start to show degrading at f8 and perhaps not at f11 making it a "better" choice for FX. At 50 megapixels the FX sensor may start to be diffraction limited at f5.6 which is the largest f stop available on some modern zoom lenses at some focal lengths. Thus, a 50mp FX sensor may need to be shot at f4 for maximum resolution, making it a tool of limited use.

If we go to larger lens coverage such as provided by medium format we can have larger megapixel sensors before we reach diffraction limitations.

So can anyone produce digital sensors which can be used with 4x5 or 8x10 view cameras? Then you wouldn't need a whole new camera system, just a retrofit, and you can have very large digital sensors. To my knowledge no one has been doing such a thing.

msmoto said:
Well, the bigger the sensor, the better the resolution.

We seem to have reached a stage ( D800E) were resolution is dependant on the glass in front, rather than the sensor

in my perfect world. It would be circular and cover the whole image produced by the lens, I would then have the option of, a rectangular or square crop, without wasting anything

For reasons, I cannot understand, some people seem to think smaller is better, as it gives them something called "reach"

Woh,

geeky.

Before getting too excited, this is in the weird and fun area, so....

Here is an interesting question. How big is a good sensor? Well, if we want to look a long ways off, bigger is better. And in Australia, they are building a radio telescope which is about 4,000 square meters of collecting area, and can expand up to a "sensor" size of 3,000 kilo meters from the center. Or a sensor about 6,000 kilometers in diameter.

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/projects/askap/technology.html

What does this mean for Nikon fans, or photographers in general? Well, the bigger the sensor, the better the resolution. Just thought those who take photos of the sky…..might have an interest.