Not sure about more megapixels?????

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Not sure about more megapixels?????

(30 posts) (17 voices)

Started 2 years ago by bjrichus
Latest reply from Gareth
Related Topics:
1. D3s Video Problems

Tags:

image quality

12 Next »

bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

Recently I have had the chance to look VERY closely at a few 10x8 negs and prints.

I have also been messing about in Photoshop CS5 with a scan of a print from an 80MP print shot on an Aptus Leaf.

I used to think my 35mm film shots on Nikon gear were great, but I am seriously humbled by these large format as well as the very high MP results. The details on the high end results are seriously outstanding. Good examples are the thousand or so tiny hairs on the end of a nose in a portrait you'd not even know were there on 35mm come out tack sharp on the Aptus... Not saying that every subject would like to have that amount of detail visible <grin>.

Looking at where we are going .... 6 then 8 then 12 now 16 (and possibly 24MP in 'affordable' regular consumer cameras) how long does the assembled gathering of experts think it'll be before the likes of Nikon release something like a 30 or 40MP FX body? Would they even do that?

Posted 2 years ago #
TravellingSwede

junior member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 8
offline

I don't know where we will end up, but the 12 Mpix the D3s is producing is certainly not enough for me!
I eagerly await a D800 with at least 18 Mp and the low-light performance od the D3s.
And please don't put any video in it!

Posted 2 years ago #
Regulator75

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 829
offline

TravellingSwede said:
And please don't put any video in it!

This won't happen.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

There is a place for large MP and there is a place for small.

I bought Nikon because 12Mp was enough for me and is actually better in low light. I have no trouble printing up to A3 size, and I am very unlikely to need anything this big. Most of my shots are of people and will be viewed on screen at screen size, or printed up to maybe A4. I shoot 14bit RAW and delete all of the pics i take that don't make the grade. I still have a more than 100 GB worth of files after less a year.

There is a need for large format for people who NEED large format. People who print cosmetic posters for "drug stores", billboards, train advertising etc. If you dont do these things, you dont need anything more than the D3x.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

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

You should take a look at the medium format sensor digital shots. There has always been trade-offs with the size of the "negative" image, cost, and image quality.

The question I always ask, are the thousand or so tiny hairs on the end of a nose in a portrait relevant or important?

It comes down to the photographer's needs and uses of the image if that amount of detail is needed. There is a reason there are MF digital $25k cameras. There is also a reason why large format cameras and film are still made.

Honestly, more MP does not always equate to a ton more detail. Sensor sensitivity needs to also move forward. If you look at Canon and others, the difference between 12 and 18 is not noticeable unless you print high detail banners/poster prints. I do see a good jump from the 12mp D3 to the 24mp D3x.

Posted 2 years ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

The short answer is that manufacturers will keep increasing MP as long as people pay for it. This includes cases where the increases in MP don't result in "better" images due to softness from poor technique, diffraction, or lens aberrations. That's why we're seeing huge MP compact cameras, even though the cameras themselves are unable to make use of the sensor resolution.

The good news is that companies are recognizing that a small (but significant) segment don't want to pay more for MP that we aren't going to use, so that's why we're seeing things like seperate D3s/DSx lines, lower mp in the G11, etc... I'm hoping this kind of trend will continue so that the people who want the higher resolutions can get them, while the people who don't need them will have their own options.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

TaoTeJared said:
You should take a look at the medium format sensor digital shots. There has always been trade-offs with the size of the "negative" image, cost, and image quality.

The question I always ask, are the thousand or so tiny hairs on the end of a nose in a portrait relevant or important?

It comes down to the photographer's needs and uses of the image if that amount of detail is needed. There is a reason there are MF digital $25k cameras. There is also a reason why large format cameras and film are still made.

Trade-offs?

Size? Yes, but with 1TB disks so cheap now, so what?

Cost? You sure are not going to get away with less than $45k for a good 50MP medium format set up. I'd not want to haul THAT kind of rig into the middle of a rough time at a demo, no matter what insurance I might carry!

Quality? As you say - that thousand or so tiny hairs are not always needed, but for more of the "art" photography and portrait work I like to do these days, the more I do, the more I find it is.

At the very least I *like* a very detailed image to work with. If I don't want the detail, I can always dump it out, but I can't add it in if it isn't there in the first place.

TaoTeJared said:
Honestly, more MP does not always equate to a ton more detail. Sensor sensitivity needs to also move forward. If you look at Canon and others, the difference between 12 and 18 is not noticeable unless you print high detail banners/poster prints. I do see a good jump from the 12mp D3 to the 24mp D3x.

The differences (to my eye and brain combination anyway) certainly do tend to be less visible in the amounts of detail above about 16MP-ish, without a *big* jump to perhaps 40 or then a jump up to 80MP that is.

I wonder about the DR too? Are we close to the limits of OTHER parts of Nikon 35mm format (both FX and DX) cameras?

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

jerl said:
The short answer is that manufacturers will keep increasing MP as long as people pay for it.

Ah yes. We need to remember that there is a business behind all this.. Canon have made big bucks from the megapixel race, haven't they?

jerl said:
This includes cases where the increases in MP don't result in "better" images due to softness from poor technique, diffraction, or lens aberrations. That's why we're seeing huge MP compact cameras, even though the cameras themselves are unable to make use of the sensor resolution.

The good news is that companies are recognizing that a small (but significant) segment don't want to pay more for MP that we aren't going to use, so that's why we're seeing things like seperate D3s/DSx lines, lower mp in the G11, etc... I'm hoping this kind of trend will continue so that the people who want the higher resolutions can get them, while the people who don't need them will have their own options.

The points about technique are well made. I see people stabbing at shutter release buttons all the time and then wondering why the camera seems to have moved! All those people at sports events with P&S cameras that take outstanding pics of the back of the heads two rows in front, but the flash leaves the field a dark black. <sigh>....

As to low end markets supporting the DSLR one, that has always been the case. Profits from the mass markets have always supported the lower profit "high end", even if the high end came first, as the investment in R&D needs to be recovered somehow...

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

TravellingSwede said:
I don't know where we will end up, but the 12 Mpix the D3s is producing is certainly not enough for me!
I eagerly await a D800 with at least 18 Mp and the low-light performance od the D3s.
And please don't put any video in it!

I'm with you on this... I doubt that my low end budget will afford it...

As for video, what a sad thing when we all seem to agree it's pointless for most but know it's going to be included because other makers are doing it too.

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

I badly need a larger megapixel camera to the point that I have actually considered grabbing a 5D Mark II for work purposes and keep my D700 for hobby work. I sold the rights to a photo yesterday that will be used in a Lightbox in an office printed at 160cm X 60cm. The D3X is too big and overpriced still and Nikon has been sitting on the fence far too long on this even if it comes out this year.

However, I can remain patient a little while longer and shoot my Leica M9 I guess for shots required in larger sizes. Its disappointing Nikon won't release more Mps soon though...

Posted 2 years ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

I see where more mp could be what people want. Anywhere from landscape work to better crop abilities in portraits but when people say things like if I dont get 16mp then the camera is not worth it confuse me.

The current jump from say 12 to 16 is not going to get "that" much more for your money. I swear nikon is not going to be giving the extra mp away.

I know and understand everyone's needs are really different but for alot of my landscape work if someone were to offer me a masssive about of dynamic range in 12 mp or a 16mp camera with the same as what we already have as far as dynamic range I will go with 12.

On the other hand someone offers me a 24mp, crazy insane dynamic range, and low light abilities that make d3s owners cry and Im the first one to try to find a buyer for a kidney=)
~Cheers

re edit:
I see 30-40mp on a nikon body in 2012. Just saying.

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Gareth said:
There is a place for large MP and there is a place for small.

I bought Nikon because 12Mp was enough for me and is actually better in low light. I have no trouble printing up to A3 size, and I am very unlikely to need anything this big. Most of my shots are of people and will be viewed on screen at screen size, or printed up to maybe A4. I shoot 14bit RAW and delete all of the pics i take that don't make the grade. I still have a more than 100 GB worth of files after less a year.

There is a need for large format for people who NEED large format. People who print cosmetic posters for "drug stores", billboards, train advertising etc. If you dont do these things, you dont need anything more than the D3x.

You're missing the point of using formats larger than 35mm if you think its just about how large you intend to print them. With improved resolution you get much better dynamic range and the benefits of that are pretty obvious. And being able to shoot at f/64 without suffering brutal diffraction should also be obvious in its benefits for a variety of photographic disciplines. Plus you get to work with film which is half the fun.

Posted 2 years ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

As has already been said, not everyone needs or wants more MP. My style of shooting is reportage and candids, I also shoot motor sport and air shows. I bought a D3s because my need for burst rate and ISO performance was more important to me than resolution. (I'd rather have a 12MP shot of a car or plane in the frame, than a beautifully detailed picture of empty sky or track). This is why I didn't buy a D3x. At 5fps it is too slow for me, and a Pentax 645D which also has some appeal, shoots at LESS than 1fps! When the technology exists to let me have my cake and eat it I'll happily have more MP, until then I'll stick to my D3s.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

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

bjrichus said:
Size? Yes, but with 1TB disks so cheap now, so what?

The differences (to my eye and brain combination anyway) certainly do tend to be less visible in the amounts of detail above about 16MP-ish, without a *big* jump to perhaps 40 or then a jump up to 80MP that is.

I wonder about the DR too? Are we close to the limits of OTHER parts of Nikon 35mm format (both FX and DX) cameras?

I was referring to physical size of the system.
If you are doing more "Art" and large print the detail is certainly a major point.

Don't get the MF 80mp and FF 12-24 in the same boat. If i'm not mistaken, the sensor lens size of the D3s and the one of the larger MFs were close to the same. This is one of the huge things I have noticed with the D700,D3,D3s that the detail is much sharper than say my D300. The larger lenses on the sensors make a huge difference.

Most MF systems record in 16bit raw files instead of 14. That in itself makes a huge difference in sharpness of an image.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi all,

I think we all 'want' more MP, after all the D3x has 'em, eh? ;-)

Using and having, using and needing, needing after the fact - oops, well, you know. It's all fun and games until we need to crop. (And don't tell me to move in, okay?)

I know I want 'everything' the is to better my pallet - I want what's under the hood to work to my advantage, but that doesn't mean that I'm the most capable person to make the decisions as to what I need to figure what those things are. And I think I'm a fairly capable person.
.
I think we'll all benefit as the fullness of technology develops. Unfortunately, there isn't a nice guide written to let us know what we need to do to keep up. At least I don't have one. And worse, it looks like we don't have honest gatekeepers.

And the clue bird has landed that the websites, blogs and magazines overwhelming singular interest is to continue to be websites, blogs, and magazines. They have zero interest in providing unbiased information from editorial staff. The monthly, weekly, daily love fests have become an embarrassment.

One stark example, no single website championed the D7000 Video defective pixel issue. Shame on all photographic writers - you collectively suck! Where were your capes? At the cleaners? You didn't think this defect in on of the milestone cameras was worth any ink? Jesus, give me a break.

You porked the pooch on this one. And now we're watching, and doubting, every work any of you write.

The journalism industry that follows photography right now is the pitts. I don't really trust them much. I like to see black and white and I'll willing to see some gray, but this purple has to go.

If the photo sites on the larger chip will be a problem, give me a clear example in every day terms with every day samples in a shooting variety that makes sense indoors and out with light conditions that make sense, too. I'd like to understand the cost of the chip in dollars and cents and the cost of the craming of the chip into the box(es) or form factor(s), too. I can get that a 24x36 chip might have to fall into a D3x, but does it have to? Might it fit into a D700? Or a D7000? Could a 6x7 chip fit into a Coke can size AVCHD movie camcorder? Just saying...

If we don't have these gatekeepers helping us guard, research, interpret, disseminate, and information correctly and timely, how will we know what's what effectively?

My best.

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
Funduro

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 121
offline

MP is like HP in automobiles, more is better mindset. Sure the Doc next door can afford to make the payments on a MB S65 AMG, it still doesn't make him Michael Schumacher behind the wheel. The larger Mega bit files need ever greater CPU power and faster memory and more sophisticated SW. If you feel that great picture from last month would be awesome with another 4MP, then you'll never be satisfied with anything you shoot.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Mike, great post with some great thoughts. I have no conflict of interest besides wanting to continue to be addicted to gear, but I posted some recent thoughts on more megapixels here:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2235

I would have said the same thing as Funduro and was always making fun of people whining for more megapixels but then changed my tune suddenly when I sat down to think about it. Do I (did I) need more megapixels than the D90 had? No. I still love images from my D100. I couldn't have printed as big or cropped as much with them as with images from my D7000, though. I don't feel like I've ever been ungrateful for the gear I have (more like a kid in a candy store, probably). But I think to criticize for wanting more megapixels you need to analyze the reasons people have for asking.

SquamishPhoto said:
...And being able to shoot at f/64 without suffering brutal diffraction should also be obvious in its benefits for a variety of photographic disciplines. ...

I have no hard evidence, but from my experience with the D7000 I think diffraction blurring sets in around f/11! It's not such a big deal for me because I'm usually not stopped down that far.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi,

Thanks Johnnyapple - I wonder what I can 'do' with more pixels. I mean that sincerely. Does it allow me to crop more? Is my dynamic range so much more to allow significantly for more affects?

Will it be heavier? How much heavier? How will it look in my hands?

I don't want it trivialized, and I don't want oranges and apples - the pack of cards Canon has 14MP so the SLR 24x36-size senor Nikon has 14MP, too. What kind of comparison is that?

Our technical media really needs to go back to school. If I were their boss I'd spank them. Don't say, 'great camera' - it's likely that all the cameras are pretty great. Why not say, you know, the battery in this class camera lasts 6 hours (usually) if we do this. This one lasts 5 or 7 or whatever. That means something - and it's objective.

Shoot at a target with 600 colors. Then count the colors in the file. Either there are 600 colors or there's not. :-)

On it goes.

Why pad words?

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

Awesome post Mike.

I think one of the issues you are seeing is that there are those who "get" the technology, those who "get" photography and those who can write well. To get all three disciplines in a single individual would be a one in a hundred million shot.

As an IT professional, I can tell you flat out that 90% either don't understand the business side of the equation. Of those that do, 90% can't express themselves simply and clearly to the business side. So even in a simple business interaction, fewer than 1% can effectively understand the technology and present it to the business side in and easily understandable and actionable way.

Apply that to the photo business and you can see where the technology is getting so deep that it becomes extremely difficult for all of the intricacies and interactions to be properly conveyed to those who want to take pictures.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

I was editing this post and I deleted the text by accident. What happens when the brain is working too fast for the fingers... !!!!

Sorry... but at least this is better than a blank post.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

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

Great post Mike!

I agree with you completely. I also agree with JorPet's "either don't understand the business side of the equation" as well.

There are too many "reviewers" and review sites write multiple articles a week on gadgets, computers, phones, clothes, etc. that never do any industry due justice. It is just like an new English major grad giving opinions on the state of the economy and stock advise.

(I just deleted 3 paragraphs of rants - Mike just set my mind racing on all the issues I have with review sites.)

AHHHHHHHHHH!

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi Guys,

Review sites kind of don't review at all - but that's another thread for another day TTJ. :-)

If these reviewers would be objective, it would be simple to understand what's happening.

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
TravellingSwede

junior member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 8
offline

To each what they need, or think they need.
Freedom to shoot how and what and in what way we want.
But no-one can stop the progress of technology, Nikon has to keep up, or preferably lead it, or perish.
I have invested in some expensive Nikon glass so I hope and believe Nikon will be part of the future.
But, it's high time to get moving with some new cameras now!
D800 is coming, sooooon.....

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

jonnyapple said:
I have no hard evidence, but from my experience with the D7000 I think diffraction blurring sets in around f/11! It's not such a big deal for me because I'm usually not stopped down that far.

Me either, except with the PC-E which has little diffraction and goes all the way to f/32. At f/64 on a LF camera pretty much everything is supposed to be in focus, so thats really the main reason for my interest.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

bjrichus said:
I was editing this post and I deleted the text by accident. What happens when the brain is working too fast for the fingers... !!!!

Sorry... but at least this is better than a blank post.

CTRL+Z (undo) works even in a web browser. It has saved my sanity more than once. Maybe you know and went ahead far enough you couldn't undo, though... (If so, disregard.)

Yes, I feel you on the desire to rant, TTJ. Mike's post struck a nerve because it's true. This is why I read this site more often than review sites. They have their place if you can figure out what parts of their tests are objective, but beyond that it's often a lot of promotional fluff almost on the same level as what you'd read on a manufacturer's site. [This is the best camera we've ever laid our hands on...ever...seriously. Click one of the links below to buy from one of our sponsors.]

TravellingSwede, welcome to the forum. Enjoy your stay. For your sake, I hope the D800 comes soon.

Squamish, maybe you misunderstood me—I was agreeing with you that large format has an advantage when it comes to diffraction.

Posted 2 years ago #