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.
Does Nikon seem to be stuck into the 12mp era?
(57 posts) (20 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
I use Adobe Raw and optimization at neutral...
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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 ...Posted 3 years ago # -
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).
Posted 3 years ago # -
Same here Johny
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
