Yeah yeah yeah, sure, whatever Canon says :^D
I don't believe in that "word on the street" mumbo jumbo especially if it has to do with Canon :^P
A Nikon D3X Challenger Soon?
(62 posts) (18 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Well Canon presented 50Mpix sensor prototype couple of years ago (http://www.canon.com/about/history/05.html) and it was not full frame but aps-h so they can probably do it, but the question in my mind is so what?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I do care because if canon brings out a 32mp ISO machine then Nikon's answer will be better than that!
Jeez alpha don't be so narrow-minded :^(
Posted 3 years ago # -
30 MP full frame sensors are diffraction limited @ f/8 IF you pixel peep.
(on 35 mm f/8 = 10.7 µm airy disk and 30MP = 5.4 µm light sensors)VERY curious, if not excited, to see how this shakes out.
Compact cameras have been diffraction limited for a couple of years now, but nobody expects razor sharpness from them. If we're entering the age of diffraction limiting at reasonable apertures on high-end SLRs, I expect some heavy debate to start.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 1DsM4 is, for the most part, a studio camera. Sharpness would be high on the list of things to get right. Besides medium format is close to 100megapixels already. Hasselblad has a countdown going on their website and some believe they will unveil a new 100mp digital back!
12mp is starting to look like 4mp to me.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
I'm not a canon engineer soap so I can't tell you "what's in them" and even if I was I'd probably still wouldn't tell you ;^)Just passing along info. It would be interesting if Nikon does "update" the D3X for HD video. But I don't think they will. If the D3X is for high end portrait studios I'm not sure they'd need video. Indie film makers woudln't want to pay $8000USD for a video DSLR when a 5DmkII is way cheaper and already gives them 21mp.
That brings up another question, Who would pay $8000USD for a 32mp HD DSLR? Wedding/Studios or Indie film makers?
Wow, this will be extremely noisy if Canon is keeping it like their current crop of DSLRs.
Might be just marketing mumbo jumbo. Who knows. I'll worry about it when it comes out. Good to start thinking about it though, just to see what Nikon will come up with.
HotDuckZ said:
1Ds Mark IV, Will it be noise machine?I would say probably. I'm no engineer, but the 7D isn't as clean as they say it is.
soap said:
30 MP full frame sensors are diffraction limited @ f/8 IF you pixel peep.
(on 35 mm f/8 = 10.7 µm airy disk and 30MP = 5.4 µm light sensors)VERY curious, if not excited, to see how this shakes out.
Compact cameras have been diffraction limited for a couple of years now, but nobody expects razor sharpness from them. If we're entering the age of diffraction limiting at reasonable apertures on high-end SLRs, I expect some heavy debate to start.
Wait, that would mean it's useless for landscapes right...? Usually you go F/8 or higher with landscape work right...?
What the hell would you use this camera for then? Product shots? I fail to see the use of it when a D3X is very usable at most ISOs.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I just hope that the whole situation will make the price of d900 to $3k at launch day, so it will bring the 24mpx to regular users :)
Posted 3 years ago # -
NSXType-R said:
Wait, that would mean it's useless for landscapes right...? Usually you go F/8 or higher with landscape work right...?Plus what's really annoying is you need ƒ/8 anyway to be able to crank out enough sharpness from the lens to get a sharp picture in the first place!
Posted 3 years ago # -
NSXType-R said:
Wait, that would mean it's useless for landscapes right...? Usually you go F/8 or higher with landscape work right...?No - not at all.
You'd still gain depth of field at tighter f-stops, and I think many people would rather the narrow focal plane be slightly softer in exchange for the full depth of field being sharp.What it means to be diffraction limited is that you can't get any sharper on the focal plane (and start slowly getting softer), but it doesn't mean that you still aren't sharper than a non-diffraction limited 24MP camera is at the same aperture.
It also doesn't mean that a 40MP camera produces softer results at F/8 than a 32MP camera does, but it does mean that at the focal plane it doesn't produce sharper ones.
What it also means, and the part I find exciting, is that you've reached the point where additional megapixels equal quickly diminishing returns (as far as real resolving power is concerned) and some other technology is going to have to be the focus, as you just can't get more resolving power at reasonable apertures.
EDIT: Obviously the larger the sensor (think medium format) the larger the light wells, and so the later you hit this "limit".
Posted 3 years ago # -
alphanikonrex said:
Plus what's really annoying is you need ƒ/8 anyway to be able to crank out enough sharpness from the lens to get a sharp picture in the first place!THAT, however, is a serious issue.
When you are diffraction limited at apertures larger than your lens's maximum sharpness point you are never going to get the maximum balance.THOUGH, is your lens really sharpest at f/8, or is your current DX camera diffraction limited @ f/11 and so you get better results at f/8?
You can test this by putting the same lens on a D40 which isn't diffraction limited at f/11 and see if f/11 is sharper than f/8.
Posted 3 years ago # -
soap said:
THOUGH, is your lens really sharpest at f/8, or is your current DX camera diffraction limited @ f/11 and so you get better results at f/8?I was just speaking hypothetically soap, not about any of my lenses in particular. As far as I'm concerned, my lenses could be sharpest at ƒ/4! ;^) I don't have time to test it really, I just avoid going past ƒ/8 because of diffraction. That's ƒ11 on my D70.
Posted 3 years ago # -
There is a common mistake about aperture and diffraction.
It is not the F number but the size of the diaphragm opening that makes a diffraction effect.
For example on telephoto 200mm lens f/20 will give a 10mm opening and will produce almost no visible diffraction, while the same f/20 on 20mm lens will give you a small “pin” hole of about 1mm and will cause very noticeable diffraction.Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
There is a common mistake about aperture and diffraction.
It is not the F number but the size of the diaphragm opening that makes a diffraction effect.
For example on telephoto 200mm lens f/20 will give a 10mm opening and will produce almost no visible diffraction, while the same f/20 on 20mm lens will give you a small “pin” hole of about 1mm and will cause very noticeable diffraction.Does not the distance to focal plane also increase with focal length, negating this?
ref: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Posted 3 years ago # -
Uh oh, I'm getting confused again ;^)
What mb says makes sense, except the numbers I got were based off of the calculator on the website soap linked to, which did not ask for anything info about my focal length. But soap maybe makes sense to me, if somebody will please answer this question for me:
When I peer inside my 80-200mm ƒ/2.8, the last element is very far away (towards the inside of the lens) from the mount of the lens compared to my 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5, which has its last element very close to the mount. Also, when I zoom from 18mm to 70mm the element "disappears" inside the lens as it gets farther from the mount. Does a 600mm lens have it's final element even farther away from the mount (than my 80-200mm, for example)? Is this what you're talking about soap?
Posted 3 years ago # -
alphanikonrex said:
When I peer inside my 80-200mm ƒ/2.8, the last element is very far away (towards the inside of the lens) from the mount of the lens compared to my 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5, which has its last element very close to the mount. Also, when I zoom from 18mm to 70mm the element "disappears" inside the lens as it gets farther from the mount. Does a 600mm lens have it's final element even farther away from the mount (than my 80-200mm, for example)? Is this what you're talking about soap?Talking about the apparent distance between the aperture diaphragm (the metal-bladed constricting choke point) and the focal point. You're talking about the rear element.
But, don't get confused. What mb said makes total sense - it is just that the one reference I cited above claims that's not the total picture. I eagerly await the verdict. ;)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, then I'm getting confused...
Excuse my stupidity but what exactly is the focal point?
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
There is a common mistake about aperture and diffraction.
It is not the F number but the size of the diaphragm opening that makes a diffraction effect.
For example on telephoto 200mm lens f/20 will give a 10mm opening and will produce almost no visible diffraction, while the same f/20 on 20mm lens will give you a small “pin” hole of about 1mm and will cause very noticeable diffraction.No your statement is a common mistake. Now let me explain. We are interested in cameras here not telescopes. Diffraction is usually measured by the Rayleigh criterion which is the line pair separation (L). At the image plane it is directly related to the f-stop. The formula is L = 1.22 * f-stop wavelength.
The formula you are referring to is for the object side, typically a telescope and is measured in arch-seconds. The the formula is sin angle = 1.22 * wavelength / aperture.
A simple rule of thumb for a camera lens is resolution in microns = f-stop. That is f5.6 will resolve about 5.6 microns, assuming a diffraction limited lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
-
alphanikonrex said:
Ohh, the focal plane...I gotcha completely soap :^Dmb, you're wrong :^P
Yes if we are talking about perfect imaginary lens made of one “thin” single glass element where the size of that element determines the pupil size and where diffraction is a result of the angle light beams are making passing the edges of this pupil when the lens is focused to infinity the rule is correct. It is all about similarity of triangles really and it says no matter the focal length the ration between focal length and pupil size (f number) would be the same if the angle (and resulting diffraction) is the same. This rule does not apply to telescopes as you have already mentioned where simply larger means better resolution.
A common mistake in my opinion is to assume a real world camera lenses are the perfect lenses. We can not make such a lens on Nikon F-mount because you can not bring pupil (diaphragm) closer then around 50mm so the rule can not be accurate for lenses shorter than that.
One more thing, as you focus closer diffraction increases because the angle is changed.
If I remember correctly the absolute theoretical resolution limit on any glass lens in air in worst case scenario, meaning blue visible light, is around 300nm if I am not mistaken.Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
The 1DsM4 is, for the most part, a studio camera. Sharpness would be high on the list of things to get right. Besides medium format is close to 100megapixels already. Hasselblad has a countdown going on their website and some believe they will unveil a new 100mp digital back!12mp is starting to look like 4mp to me.
A 100MP back! WOW! That would be nice, but unlikely. People who own the 60MP backs now have issues processing the file sizes, and complain of slower workflow even on the latest Apple quad core computers decked out with 12 megs of memory. How could they release a 100MP back? What chip would they use? I have not heard of anything from Kodak or Dalsa of such a chip.
I have an idea the countdown represents Hasselblad opening up their camera to support third party backs. Many do not know, but you can still get an H2 body new from Hasselblad without it being locked to their back. Hasselblad secretly released them by stating they had excess inventory in the warehouse they needed to get rid of. All they'll do is make it official under the H4 nameplate.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I guess we will find out in 21days, 4hours, and 27 minutes :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I wonder when they will put the counter for money needed, it will be in thousands of dollars and increasing every single day … 30.000$, 31.000$ … 41.000$, 42.000$ … 51.000$, 52.000$
Posted 3 years ago # -
lol mb but I don't think the D3X or the Leica S2 is hurting them...yet.
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb said:
I wonder when they will put the counter for money needed, it will be in thousands of dollars and increasing every single day … 30.000$, 31.000$ … 41.000$, 42.000$ … 51.000$, 52.000$That is funny. They are hemorrhaging a ton money. I wonder when their venture capitalist shuts them off. The other thing I am hearing is that Fuji is getting anxious since they are not selling enough bodies, and are dangerously close to losing the license agreement. I wonder when they Fuji shuts them off too.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
