Bet you didn't see this...
In a recently posted interview with Shibazaki-san, the following little gem was exposed:
"I guess that it's now safe to reveal that the D1 image sensor, with specifications noting a pixel count of 2.7-million pixels, actually had a pixel count of 10.8-million pixels. The technical reason for an actual pixel count four times greater than that indicated publicly lies in the need to achieve high sensitivity and a good signal-to-noise ratio. Unlike current cameras, for which final pixel counts account for individual pixels, we had to include multiple pixels in each pixel unit with the D1."
This finally gives credence to something that a number of us had speculated on very early on in the Nikon DSLR tenure, first with the D1 and then again with the D1x: that Nikon was using some sort of sub-pixel photosite technology. I'm sure that if you go back and look at some of the early D1 threads you'll see some of that speculation, as it was discovered that there were multiple microlenses over a single photosite.
Another gem that acknowledges what we've seen in results: "The new low pass filter [of the D200] retains image sharpness, which tends to be sacrificed with the D100."
Full interview at http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/12/index_02.htm
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
Boy did this guy have a long wait.
This article is full of interesting words. Of course, the tech you point out is definitely interesting, but what I take out of this article is how much the people at Nikon care about the creative side of photography.
I feel understood
Thanks Thom, what a fascinating read, particularly about the D1 pixel count. I wonder how many years it's going to take him to come clean and admit that my D2H really has 24 MP
Dave (Sgt. Pepper), Epsom, England.
Great to know the technology. I've tried D200 in a local store and shot some pictures in all ISO. All I can say it's much better than my D2X in noise for indoor shots. I don't know how much it will be for out door shots.
Anyway I'm not going to give up on my D2X
Thom, do you have any clue that Nikon will release a 400/5.6 VR lens or AF-S version of 80-400 VR? I desperately need a 400/5.6 AF-S VR...
If you have any inside information
Very interesting although the questions are so softball to be pretty amusing at times. "Digital Expression. That sounds exciting."
But this caught my eye:
Another gem that acknowledges what we've seen in results: "The new
low pass filter [of the D200] retains image sharpness, which tends
to be sacrificed with the D100."
Is this why certain converters (Raw Shooter in my experience) can get much more information / much sharper images out of the D100 than some other converters? Or is that some other magic?
"think that developments regarding pixel count have just about reached their limits"
This is what I was thinking about MP too. If a FF sensor has the same resolution as D2X, it's going to be a 28MP camera!!. I bet current lenses won't be able to handle that..
I actually enjoyed the read.
I think that developments regarding pixel count have just about
reached their limits, so new technology should focus on other aspects,
such as improvements in tone characteristics, speed, and tolerance for
higher sensitivities. At the same time, high pixel counts can be
maintained with current technology.
Can someone say - "About freaking time!!!"
So, I guess that I would like to apply the know-how I've acquired with
my years of experience with video and movies to still cameras so that
one day digital imaging will have reached the level where a still image is
able to express the same level of emotion that a movie can.
Its always been the other way around for me. I get too distracted while watching movies from all the technical limitations. Grain, bad lighting, fuzziness, flare, OOF, and bad bokeh just to name a few. Maybe I need one of those $100,000 high definition 50" units with theater surround sound to change my mind?
Wow, interesting find!
Too bad he doesn't go into any more detail about what kind of pixels these are! It must have all been combined in hardware prior to output, or else the D1 would have needed 1) a much larger buffer, and 2) would have been obvious in RAW output.
And as mentioned in the title, were these discrete pixels, it would have given the "10MP output mode" of the D1x some real bite
How bizarre - I was reading the article only yesterday after following a thread from this forum which was totally unrelated.
The stuff about the sensors in the D2h make interesting reading too and explain why the CCD wasn't likely in the D2. Wonder why Nikon then went back to a CCD from Sony in the D200?
The Nikon Imaging site has some wonderful reading!
Kevin P Kitching
...that would be very nice to have - in the meantime, sacrificing VR, you can use a TC14 on a 300mm AF-s f4; IQ stays basically the same, though with no VR the result is a great 420mm lens! But, I guess you already knew that best regards,
equipment in profile
check out my pbase gallery on:
Thanks for sharing.
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
"think that developments regarding pixel count have just about
reached their limits"
This is what I was thinking about MP too. If a FF sensor has the
same resolution as D2X, it's going to be a 28MP camera!!. I bet
current lenses won't be able to handle that..
They will handle exactly as they handle the D2X. Why? Because think about it, it's all about pixel size and the pixels will stay the same size.
Basically, all you're doing is adding pixels around the D2X sensor in order to get a Full Frame and the resolution stays the same in the 1.5 crop area.
I'm interested in your findings regarding RAW conversion and the D100. I've always felt my D100 images lacked a certain sharpness, I'm using CS. Would you mind posting some additional info regarding this issue and which converter has given the best result?