D7200: More Megapixels, more DR, or improved high ISO IQ? Locked

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
jonikon
Senior MemberPosts: 4,862Gear list
Re: easy
In reply to mosswings, Mar 31, 2013

mosswings wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

fotolopithecus wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

jonikon wrote:

OK, the D7100 and it's 24MP sensor is a done deal, and there is no improvement in dynamic range or high ISO image quality, which I found disappointing after all the pre-release hype. There are  just more megapixels to make birders and pixel peepers happy, but what about the rest of us?

But there is...what you could once do with 16 you can now do with 24. You may be disappointing but it is what I expected all along looking at how the tech was progressing.

Grainy noise and dynamic range are image characteristics that are readily seen at most viewing sizes, but more megapixels are not, ...

If that were true...then why would anybody upgrade from 12mp?

The D7000 image quality was a step forward and encouraging, so let's see more DR and less grainy noise for the D7200 than the D7100 has please!

The D7100 seems an upgrade from the D7K in most every way when you look at the pics in terms of equivalency. Not as huge a step as the D90 to D7K but that's expected given how pixel density and QE works. I'm surprised you take issue with that. I think we have another winner in a long line of winners.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

There apparently are noise, and dynamic range improvements on the D7100, though they are probably slight, they are visible from what I've seen posted in a thread or two. So if you consider the improved resolution (certainly not a bad thing) it's quite remarkable. The only think I'm not so happy about is this banding, and green color in shadow areas, which might have a fix, who knows. Now if you ask what the D7200 has I say keep the mp count to about 18, and use that leeway to improve the noise, and dynamic range in an impressive way.

It's a very easy thing to down-sample the D7100 files to the 18mp size you're after with all the benefits you suggest. DR improvements aren't always associated with just a lower pixel density through.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

It fascinates me that the folks that are drooling over the exquisite pictures of birders like Jim Pearce and that have taken a look at anotherMike's galleries don't recognize that they are actually seeing what a high resolution camera can do for downsized (i.e., pictures as typically viewed) images. OK, that and excellent lenses  

I was tempted to make this same observation and suggest that those posting images state what lens they used.  I don't think some realize how important micro-contrast is to the overall impression of image quality, and this is where the top quality lenses have it over the cheaper ones. It's just not about sharpness.

John Clinch noted the essential point: DR began topping out with the D300/D90. The D7000/D5100 reduced absolute noise levels perhaps 1/2 stop over the D300, but gained its vaunted 1+ stop of absolute DR by adding an ISO100.  Much of the rest of its advantages came in the increased resolution and the change in noise character that permitted more aggressive NR in post.

True, and this is why it is wise to shoot at 100 ISO with the D7000/D5100 whenever possible.

The D7100 has taken the only road left to sensor manufacturers until the mad scientists in the labs concoct some new sensing paradigm that is manufacturable: high resolution. If you keep the noise per unit area the same or nearly so, and the well capacity the same or nearly so (as the manufacturers have), the result is a file that can be processed into something far better than the raw per-pixel noise performance would suggest.  The penalty you pay is that you have to postprocess the file, or hope that the in-camera processing has been kicked up a notch.

It is well known that with a given sensor technolgoy the way to more dynamic range is a larger photo respeptor well to gather more photons.   So there is not another road, which is to increase the photosite well size. This can be achieved with current technology by decreasing the number pixels on a given size sensor, allowing a larger well size. Furture technology that puts all the circuitry underneath the surface of the sensor, or that eliminates the bayer pattern in favor of a single well per pixel, would provide more surface space  for larger photo receptor wells. There are many new technoligies possible that would be a game changer for sensor capabilities and better image quality. 
- Jon

 jonikon's gear list:jonikon's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +10 more
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
easyNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow