Nikon D7100 announcement?

Is it?  I rather doubt that.  But, let's say that it is. What is the point of having 24mp in the d5200? Be realistic here. How many users will really benefit from having that much resolution?  How many d5200 users will use only the very best lenses and the very best technique that is required to get anywhere close to 24mp of resolution in their daily images?  How many will print 20x30 and larger prints?

You certainly don't need 24mp to print 4x6 prints or to post images to facebook or some web site or send them to friends and relatives in email.  So, seriously, how many users really need and will take advantage of that 24mp sensor?  Aside from some little check box in the brain that says more is better, how many d5200 users will really, honestly benefit from 24mp?  My guess would be maybe 1%, maybe.

You do realize that DXO "normalizes" everything down to 8mp, with their conversion software. DXOmark is not the last word on image quality.  Its scores are only relevant IF you stay within its strict parameters.  As soon as you go outside of those parameters, suddenly their IQ scores fall apart.

It is not false and will never be false, until the technology is at the physical limits of noise performance.

Why do you suppose that FX sensors have better noise performance than DX sensors, given the same technology? They have better noise performance because they have fewer MPs per square inch. That is all the proof one needs to debunk the myth that lower MPs don't provide better noise performance.

The 16mp sensor in the d7000 could certainly be improved by well over a stop, for example, given that the 15something MP DX mode with the newer technology of the d800 is about ¼ to ½ stop better.

Clean images mean that no post processing would be required for noise removal, no matter what size print or how deep one crops into the image.  That is certainly not true with the d800 or any of the big MP sensors.

I own a d800 and I know exactly what images it will produce. It certainly isn't the best high ISO camera available and requires a lot of post processing noise reduction work to do what the lower MP cameras do straight out of the camera. It certainly does NOT equal or exceed the d3s or d4, or even the d600 for that matter, for high ISO noise performance. Even the DXOmark scores for high ISO don't make that claim, so I don't understand why you're trying to say that it does.

Nikon and its sensor partners have managed to do extremely well with their sensor performance, but that certainly doesn't mean that they couldn't or shouldn't do better.

You admit that FPS and faster processing are an advantage. Those things are very important to many users.

High res files are also very hard on the user's lenses and technique. The d800 fanatics like to say that you will never get an image that is worse than an image that you can get from a lower MP camera. I don't know if that is true or not, but I do know that you can't get the best possible resolution out of the d800 by using it handheld with poor lenses. So, what then is the point of having all that wasted resolution, other than consuming storage and robbing speed at every turn?

When the rest of the associated technology, including high ISO noise performance, catches up to high resolution, then high resolution will not be as much of a detriment to certain aspects of photography as it is now.

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root