The announcement of the next Nikon APS-C DSLR ...when?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

The announcement of the next Nikon APS-C DSLR ...when?

(34 posts) (10 voices)

Started 7 months ago by expf11
Latest reply from bossa
Related Topics:
1. i own D7000 and FX Lenses, upgrade to d600?

Tags:

Gucci bags

« Previous 12

TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

You still haven't said what subjects you shoot. It does make a difference. Leaves vs architecture vs animals vs people - it all makes a difference on how big you can make a print. (Edit: Posted as I was)

Fact is, sensor size is not the only determining factor printing large images. I'm not sure who pounded that garbly goop into your head, but it is incomplete and lacking information. Lenses you are using, the Iso, exposure, subject, tripod vs handheld, paper, ink, Jpeg or Raw, home printing vs Quick print shops (kinkos) vs professional services all make a difference. If any one of those things are off, it would be easy to incorrectly blame the camera.

Perfect Resize, Alien Skin's "Blow Up" and I think Topaz has one too, are all programs that can take a even 10mp image and create enormous prints (larger than your 4'x6') with little noticeable detail lost and is something you should look into. I have seen these programs used on 10mp images and blown up to wrap semi truck trailers. The software is also a hell of alot cheaper than a camera. I don't know of anyone who doesn't use one of those for large prints.

And your math is off. The difference between 12mp and 24mp is only 25%. 25% wider, 25% longer on each side. Note that the D600 is double the resolution of the D70s with a 6mp sensor. That would be 50%.

To illustrate by your standards you have set, a D800 will not do what you want. But the rest of us know, that even your current camera will will easily make a poster print.

Native Print sizes:
D70s 6mp = 3008 x 2000 /300dpi = 10.03" x 6.67"
D300 12mp = 4288 x 2848 /300dpi = 14.3" x 9.5"
D7000 16mp = 4928 x 3264 /300dpi = 16.43" x 10.88"
D600 24mp = 6016 x 4016 /300dpi = 20.06" x 13.39"
D800 36mp = 7360 x 4912 /300dpi = 24.54" x 16.38"

Like I said, I have seen 10mp images resized to 15' x 20' that looked great and used for advertising and their high standards. A lot of work went into it, but it can be done.

Of course you can always stitch images as well - But you haven't said what you shoot so I'm not sure if that would work for you or not.

I could put more but check out Thom's info on printing. I have have it bookmarked and he goes through more details that are factors in printing and to keep in mind.
http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

Point being, 12mp, 16mp, 24mp will all do what you want. The camera you choose isn't going to matter. Really what it comes down to is how much you want to spend.

I ignored the last paragraph since it had nothing to do with information that was helpful to the discussion. I'm bowing out from this thread.

Posted 7 months ago #
Baba Ganoush

member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 37
offline

"like, when its foggy in the middle of the night and you stand in the middle of a street and take a photo down the centerline of the road with the street lights glowing amber in the fog and they slowly melt into the fog as they converge off in the distance (this is one of my current favorite types of photography)"

The Bulwer-Lytton writing contest for 2012 is over already (www.bulwer-lytton.com) but you could try working this up and submitting it as an entry for 2013. Just kidding....

That's a varied list of photography interests you have. I'd say remember the words of that wise and famous photographer Abraham Lincoln: Some cameras are good at a lot of things and a lot of cameras are good at some things, but there aren't a lot of cameras that are good at everything. Like many others who post here (I suspect), I own a bunch of different kinds of cameras: Point & Shoot, interchangeable lens Micro-Four-Thirds, APS-C, and FF. Each camera has its strong/weak points and gets used accordingly. The only advice I offer you is to wait a month or two to see whether Nikon announces a new camera to replace either the d7000 or the d5100.

Posted 7 months ago #
expf11

member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 15
offline

TaoTeJared said:
You still haven't said what subjects you shoot.

Actually I did say, but, I think you missed my post where I answered your question about this. It is at the bottom of page 1.

TaoTeJared said:
And your math is off. The difference between 12mp and 24mp is only 25%. 25% wider, 25% longer on each side. Note that the D600 is double the resolution of the D70s with a 6mp sensor. That would be 50%.

You're right, my math was a bit off, but your math is off as well. We both got it wrong. I was closer to being correct though:

The correct answer is that the dimensions would be 41.4% larger

For example, to make it easier, let's pretend the dimensions of the sensor/photos were a perfect square, instead of a rectangle.

For a 12 megapixel camera, if it was a square shaped sensor, the sides of that square would be 3,464 pixels by 3,464 pixels

For a 24 megapixel camera, if it was a square shaped sensor, the sides of that square would be 4,899 pixels by 4,899 pixels.

4,899 is 41.4% longer than 3,464, so, the dimensions of the sides would be 41.4% longer on all 4 sides of the square.

Once you are dealing with rectangular aspect ratios, the length/width can vary by different amounts depending if you are comparing two different aspect ratios, but the overall size effect amounts to 41.4% average increase in side-dimensions.

So, it is not just 25%, rather its 41.4%, which I consider to be a fairly significant increase in size, personally.

TaoTeJared said:

To illustrate by your standards you have set, a D800 will not do what you want...

blah blah blah "at 300dpi" blah blah blah

Okay, once again you clearly didn't actually READ my post, and thus you are now disagreeing with something that I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY.

If you go back to page 1 and look at the post I made regarding PPI, the WHOLE POINT of my post, and the article I cited on that topic, was that I would be printing at 175PPI, NOT 300PPI, because I realize that 300PPI is overkill and not necessary. That was the whole point of that whole entire post. But, unfortunately you completely misunderstood this and apparently you thought I was intending to print at 300PPI, when this is the exact opposite of what I said...

Sigh... it frustrates me so bad when people misread my posts, and then make these types of explanation posts without realizing that their explanation is totally wrong because the thing they think they are responding to me about is actually totally the opposite of what I ACTUALLY said... sigh...

So anyway, my point is, since I would NOT be printing at 300PPI, but rather, at 150-175PPI, since that article shows that you can't even see a difference between 175PPI and 300PPI with the naked eye, I would obv just print at no higher than 175PPI, that way I'd be able to print much larger than if my minimum PPI standards were set to 300PPI (which, for the trillionth time, they AREN'T!!!).

So, since I would be printing at 175PPI, the actual dimension conversion comparisons for me that you were trying to break down in your post would ACTUALLY be:

12mp Nikon d300/d90: sensor size: 4,288 x 2,848 at 175PPI = 24.50 inches by 16.27 inches

24mp Nikon d3200: sensor size: 6,016 x 4,000 at 175PPI = 34.38 inches by 22.86 inches

So, the size difference from getting a 24mp camera instead of a 12mp camera is significant, in that for what I'd be printing at, it would be the difference between 24.5"/16.3" vs 34.4"/22.9". That might not sound like that big of a deal in numbers written out like that, but, I've actually measured the paintings I have hanging on my wall, and have compared basically that exact size difference between two paintings I have, and there is a very big difference between those two sizes, one really does look considerably bigger than the other. So, no matter how many times you want to keep telling me that "whether I have 12mp, 18mp, 24mp, 36mp, it won't end up mattering in reality", I have to say I completely disagree with you, and that it DOES matter to me, for the reasons I have just illustrated. Obviously this clashes with your "megapixels never matter" mantra/lifestyle that you hold so dearly or whatever, and thus you simply refuse to admit that there are actually some scenarios in which it does matter, but, just because you have a weird stigma about ever admitting that megapixels can actually matter, doesn't make it true.

Posted 7 months ago #
expf11

member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 15
offline

Baba Ganoush said:
"like, when its foggy in the middle of the night and you stand in the middle of a street and take a photo down the centerline of the road with the street lights glowing amber in the fog and they slowly melt into the fog as they converge off in the distance (this is one of my current favorite types of photography)"

The Bulwer-Lytton writing contest for 2012 is over already (www.bulwer-lytton.com) but you could try working this up and submitting it as an entry for 2013. Just kidding....

That's a varied list of photography interests you have. I'd say remember the words of that wise and famous photographer Abraham Lincoln: Some cameras are good at a lot of things and a lot of cameras are good at some things, but there aren't a lot of cameras that are good at everything. Like many others who post here (I suspect), I own a bunch of different kinds of cameras: Point & Shoot, interchangeable lens Micro-Four-Thirds, APS-C, and FF. Each camera has its strong/weak points and gets used accordingly. The only advice I offer you is to wait a month or two to see whether Nikon announces a new camera to replace either the d7000 or the d5100.

I hate the flavor of eggplant, therefore your post is invalid, Baba Ganoush.

Lol, just kidding.

Anyway, I agree with you about the some cameras are good at lots of stuff, lots are good at some stuff, and none are good at everything thing. That's why I'm being careful about what camera I switch to, because I want to get the one that is as good as possible at the specific things that I am most passionately interested in doing. So, given that my biggest interest in photography is making big, high quality prints, but I don't have the budget for full frame/medium format, the best I can do for now is try to get an APS-C that has as high an amount of megapixels as I can, as that will allow me to print just that much bigger per equal PPI-level than a camera with less megapixels, by comparison. That said, obviously that's not the ONLY thing I care about, obv it also needs to have good dynamic range, color depth, and an in-body motor (which basically means I have to wait for the d90/7,000/300 replacement(s) to come out, since the only 24mp canon or nikon right now in APS-C is the nikon 3200, and that has no in-body motor. Or, I could just compromise and get a 18mp canon 550d or 16mp nikon d7000, or 12mp nikon d90 or d300 or something. But, I think I'd rather wait to see what canon and nikon come out with for their mid-level/enthusiast/upper-entry APS-C cameras. Both of them have been totally tight-lipped as to what is going to be coming, like, not even a very vague, most rumor-y-est rumor of all rumors about how many megapixels the new batch of APS-C's sensors is gonna have for either canon or nikon (well, with Nikon at least we can guess that some of their other upcoming APS-C's might use the 24mp sensor that's in the d3200, but with Canon, it's truly a total mysteryas to what might be coming, since they've been doing all their APS-C stuff on that same old 18mp sensor for years and years now, so clearly they are about to unleash something totally new, which could have who knows how many megapixels. maybe 20. Maybe 30. Who knows. The one thing I do know is I want to wait to find out, if I don't have to wait too long. Which brings me back to trying to figure out when most people are expecting just the basic ANNOUNCEMENTS to come about for the new nikon APS-C lineups (which will probly coincide with Canon's equivalent announcements as well, roughly). And thus why I made this whole thread to begin with.

etc

Posted 7 months ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

expf11 said:
Anyway, as for what I want to shoot:

Basically a variety of things:

-Nature/mountainous landscape

-Beach landscape

-Beach sunsets/pier sunsets

-Old, rusted, junkyard cars/trucks

-Insect macro

-Plant macro

-Small-object macro & close-ups

-Foggy night time abandoned 3am street shots (like, when its foggy in the middle of the night and you stand in the middle of a street and take a photo down the centerline of the road with the street lights glowing amber in the fog and they slowly melt into the fog as they converge off in the distance (this is one of my current favorite types of photography)

-Night time city-scapes/city sky-lines

-And probably a dozen other types of stuff I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

-Portrait photography

-Sports/action photography

This is exactly what I like to shoot but I've never taken the time to type it out like this. Thanks...I'm saving this in a text file for future use.

Posted 7 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

This thread is an interesting discussion..... but, it has a "flavor" which I have in my mouth, that I am commenting on.....

The passion of photography can be overwhelming, and the desire for perfection, or as close as possible is not uncommon. If, has however, left out a few items worth exploring. And, the finances, relationship with others, ability to make sacrifices, all play into the final decision as to which camera to purchase.

One can move to a smaller apartment, eat out less, drive a smaller car, avoid spending anything on entertainment or addictive substances, and, by making enough sacrifices, purchase a D4 with some nice glass. Or if one prefers, a D800.

The concept of hanging large wall size a few feet by a few feet...prints, seems inconsistent with the idea of an APS-C sensor. And, the cost of the prints, my guess, to get a high quality print, mounted for the wall, will be much more than one might expect.

In the past some of us have sacrificed heavily to purchase the best we could, eating for less than $.50 a day, (OK, I am old) because we spent our money on the beloved, Nikon F.

As always, these is just an observation of the thread content and is of little actual value. But I think if one has a passion for seeing large prints, and wants to do what is necessary to get there, then full frame is the way to go, and now.

This is one of the most interesting discussions and we thank you expf11, for bringing it to NRF.

Posted 7 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

I purchased a D800 primarily because it had 36mp. Thom's chart only goes to 21mp and states that a 21mp image will make a poor 24x36 inch print because it will print at 150 dpi. Yet, Thom also said you can get a good print at 180 dpi. I wanted to see how large I could print. Rather than pay for a full size print I cropped about one third of a 36mp image and printed it at 24x36 inches. It was outstanding to me and surely "good enough" to hang on your wall to impress your friends. That size will be like hanging posters around your house. Unless you have very large rooms poster size is about as large as you would want.

In my opinion when you want to print large more megapixels will always be helpful. Thus, expf11 should look at the D800 and the D600 and no others. These are the best for his "desire" as he currently understands it. The decision can be made now. There is no reason to wait for a D400 or a D7200. Both of those will be DX size sensors. He should get an FX sensor if he can afford it simply because he wants the best quality he can get to produce huge prints.

Now a side issue is whether or not you can produce a good poster size print with a 24mp D3200 (or D400?) DX sensor or with a 16mp D4 sensor? I have not tried it but I strongly suspect you can. Thom's chart was based upon mp number not upon sensor size. 24mp from a D3200 (or D400?) DX sensor still contains the same number of pixels as 24mp from a D600 FX sensor. Yet, no one would say they are actually equal. So if the perceived need is to have the best image files for later printing at huge sizes one should just buy either a 36mp D800 or a 24mp D600. It is that simple.

But then there is the problem of money. First, you don't need to start with expensive FX glass. You can start with very inexpensive old 35mm film AF glass as this thread demonstrates. http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=9682 So, you can put together a good starting FX kit for about $2,500. If the D800 and the D600 body are just not possible to fund at this time the best alternative will be to wait for the replacement for the D7000 (called the D7100 or D7200?) because it will surely have the AF motor to drive older motorless AF lenses and it will most likely have a 24mp sensor and it most likely will be priced about $1,200. It is that simple.

Stay with Pentax or go to Nikon? Consider all the options offered by the Nikon system. Pentax doesn't give you all these options and never will. Move to Nikon as soon as you can because it offers you so many more future options for growth that Pentax will never offer you. It is that simple.

Bottom line, I don't see a tough decision or a big conflict here.

Posted 7 months ago #
R8R

preferred member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 352
offline

donaldejose said:
Stay with Pentax or go to Nikon?

http://photorumors.com/2012/10/09/pentax-talks-full-frame-again/

Posted 7 months ago #
bossa

senior member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 63
offline

I have a K-5 and some nice glass for sale in the Pentax Forums Marketplace right now. The only reason I'm selling the Pentax kit is that I can't afford to own two systems and I want all of those MP's for 'landscape' that the D800E offers. Seriously, If you are only buying another APS-C and don't intend going to FF then the K-5 is easily the best option. The new K5II and K-5IIs will be very nice cameras and they will only lack a couple of features I would have liked (updated video codec, focus peaking & articulated screen).

It's strange that people keep judging upgrades by the number of pixels on the sensor when Nikon's top FF 'only' has 16mp. K-5 has a full stainless steel chassis with magnesium alloy shell, is fully weather proofed and has in-body shake reduction. You can get a brand new K-5 from B&H for around $800. That and a couple of DA primes and you're away.

I wouldn't let all the crazy threads on PF about how there's no Pentax FF sway you, as long as you don't intend to upgrade to FF. Anyone who really cared that much would shut the hell up and just go and buy one.

Cheers

Posted 7 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

The announcement of the next Nikon APS-C DSLR ...when?

Reply