How many people really need a 36M DSLR?

[Robin Casady]

I cannot take a photo with shallow depth of field using iPhone

There's an app for that.
--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

 

[Lance B]

So, YES, I would love a D800 which has the same high ISO ability of the D700 yet with the DR and pixel density of the D7000. There just isn't ANY downside to a system like that.

12MP sensor based on the same technology will do better ISO and may do better DR.

Not that I think Bob (bobn2) knows all the answers, and I don't agree with everything he states, but but he is very knowledgable, he does think that the D800 will have better DR because of the smaller pixels:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40249458

He states:

"If DR is first, then you will need the D800, since this will offer the best DR of any DSLR you can get (assuming it uses an FX sensor full of D7000 pixels, or even better NEX5N pixels). Generally DR improves as pixel size decreases for a fixed size sensor, since the read noise density decreases as a trend as pixel size decreases while photon collection density remains pretty much the same."

More on the matter:
Read attached PDF to this post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=40140345

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=40144640

So if they can do 36MP with D700 ISO ability, then they can do 12MP with far superior ISO ability. How much difference and how valuable it for you is debatable of course. I would vote for ISO without any hesitation - I fail to see any use of more then 12MP for what I do.

That's for what you do, and I can understand your requirements, but what you require doesn't pay the bills for Nikon. I think you will find the vast majority of users will welcome a 36Mp D800 with high ISO noise at least equal to, but probably better, than the D700 and DR probably better than the D700. This for me is a real benefit.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[Rick Knepper]

Hey, just fighting hyperbole with hyperbole.

Many people could benefit from 36 MPs or even 24 MP. Education will follow an affordable option ala 5D2. That whole debate faded away on the Canon forum once a large number of folks had the experience with hi-res. The nay-sayers and protectors of bragging rights lost the nail to hang their bonnets on.

I have never seen anyone walk away from their hi-res cameras because the resolution was detrimental to the overall IQ when using their cameras for the types of photography that make the best use of high resolution.

While you Full HD TV only needs 2M
even a 4K TV only needs 8M

I think a 16-18M is already more than enough......

I would prefer Canon / Nikon release 12M FF DSLR with superior IQ / ISO performance

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile.

 

[KSV]

Not that I think Bob (bobn2) knows all the answers, and I don't agree with everything he states, but but he is very knowledgable, he does think that the D800 will have better DR because of the smaller pixels:

He definitely has cancer in his brain - follow his logic and it became apparent that cameras in mobile phones have best possible DR

It is true that each generation of sensors became better and better. So much that manufactures can increase MP and yet improve ISO and DR. But my point is if they apply newest technologies to "low-megapixel" sensor results will be even better.

That's for what you do, and I can understand your requirements, but what you require doesn't pay the bills for Nikon. I think you will find the vast majority of users will welcome a 36Mp D800 with high ISO noise at least equal to, but probably better, than the D700 and DR probably better than the D700. This for me is a real benefit.

Unfortunately I agree - my requirement does not represent mainstream ones. And unfortunately not only in photo-equipment

 

[jgbald]

For landscape photographers you can't get enough detail. 24 meg is just approaching medium format quality. 36 meg would probably equal medium format quality.

16 meg is not worth making the change. I am sure it is a great camera for specific purposes but it's not a landscape camera. I don't think there will ever be a digital landscape camera but we can wish. Probaby need to stay with 4x5 for a true landscape camera but lugging that monster around..........

 

[AlbieSky]

Why the name calling? I am glad this is not in person situations because the cost of health care in the USA would double with such behavior.

 

[DecibelPhoto]

Everyone has different needs. But honestly, the best photography I'm exposed to isn't made at high ISO's, which seems to be all anyone cares about around here. It's made at base ISO, by experienced artists and professionals who push their medium, creativity, and equipment to it's peak potential. They shoot primarily at base ISO, in studio, or with lighting.

Now honestly I wish I could afford medium format digital, but full systems are an order of magnitude more expensive than anything from Nikon or Canon and not nearly as versatile. There are many people like me who will be exciting by the prospect of a 36MP 35mm camera that can (possibly) approach med format quality. And I think that Nikon is smart to create a camera like the rumored D800 that will appeal to this group, especially considering that their only offering at the moment for them is the dated $8000 D3X.

 

[Rick Knepper]

The new IQ180s are FF 645 which I thought looked promising but you seem to be defining landscape as no less than 4x5. I can accept that and accept that any digi camera I will probably use and can afford in my lifetime will be a compromise to 4x5. My mission is to minimize that compromise wherever and however I can.

Just for grins, I'm imagining a FF digital 4x5. This sensor would be nearly as wide as my entire 5D2 and taller than the body without viewfinder. It would probably be pretty heavy.

For landscape photographers you can't get enough detail. 24 meg is just approaching medium format quality. 36 meg would probably equal medium format quality.

16 meg is not worth making the change. I am sure it is a great camera for specific purposes but it's not a landscape camera. I don't think there will ever be a digital landscape camera but we can wish. Probaby need to stay with 4x5 for a true landscape camera but lugging that monster around..........

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile.

 

[coudet]

The new IQ180s are FF 645 which I thought looked promising

Terrific, absolutely terrific resolution. Have you seen the files?

Though, It's a tough deal for medium format guys. 36mp DSLR would effectively render medium format cameras with similar resolution pointless, much like they have already done with the all the lower resolution ones. That leaves the IQ180 and the like, but then there's also their price. Medium format is a small market, and only getting smaller..

My mission is to minimize that compromise wherever and however I can.

Not a bad mission at all, I try to do the same.. as much as my budget allows me.

Just for grins, I'm imagining a FF digital 4x5. This sensor would be nearly as wide as my entire 5D2 and taller than the body without viewfinder. It would probably be pretty heavy.

And most importantly, only an oil sheikh would be able to afford it.

 

[J Mankila]

Please get a medium format with 80M+ pixel and stop yelling

This retort implies that you haven't read the earlier threads on the subject. Please, go and read them, understand them, and then come here to apologise.

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

 

[M Lammerse]

Hi DecibelPhoto,

I'm looking forward as you to see it arrive as well and try it at CP+ hopefully can try it out flor longer tiem by then already. Although I do not have a need for it (I do need a camera which gives me clean images at ISO 3200/6400 without the need for a flash) I really need it for my work, I'm often not allowed or asked to not use flash.

I'm just wondering. All those people who are in a desparate need for it (means they need it for their work/income/they have a photographic need for it) what in earth did/do they use till it is there for your need/clients...do you stich, or blow it up by sofware?

The ones I know who need that resolution, bought or rent bodies. I think most don\'t need it at all but just want it, nothing wrong with, just a question of admitting it, does sound however less pro'wish, that is true. 36MP gives an enormous cropping power and I'm pretty sure that Nikon will give excellent quality even at higher iso's, the iso range where mid format cameras' of nowadays are just sh8t (above 800..mostly.)

This will make it that you can turn it around as well. If Nikon will have a success with it and they probable will, Canon and Sony will follow and it will does a lot of change to the mid format market as well, also price wise of course

Michel

Everyone has different needs. But honestly, the best photography I'm exposed to isn't made at high ISO's, which seems to be all anyone cares about around here. It's made at base ISO, by experienced artists and professionals who push their medium, creativity, and equipment to it's peak potential. They shoot primarily at base ISO, in studio, or with lighting.

Now honestly I wish I could afford medium format digital, but full systems are an order of magnitude more expensive than anything from Nikon or Canon and not nearly as versatile. There are many people like me who will be exciting by the prospect of a 36MP 35mm camera that can (possibly) approach med format quality. And I think that Nikon is smart to create a camera like the rumored D800 that will appeal to this group, especially considering that their only offering at the moment for them is the dated $8000 D3X.

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Light is Everything
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05/ (my pixel mess on flikr)
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

 

[RustyKnee]

Not that I think Bob (bobn2) knows all the answers, and I don't agree with everything he states, but but he is very knowledgable, he does think that the D800 will have better DR because of the smaller pixels:

He definitely has cancer in his brain - follow his logic and it became apparent that cameras in mobile phones have best possible DR

You conveniently didn't quote the rest of the post ignoring the the sensor size part.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabbitstu77/

 

[TimK5]

(I do need a camera which gives me clean images at ISO 3200/6400

Well, we probably have to wait 2 more generations (or 8 years based on the current update schedule) for that.

I need a higher res cam asap (although I am not sure about buying the upcoming heavyweight champion D800) Doing more and more aprox 50x30 work recently. Looks fine at desired viewing distance. But what do clients do? Stick their nose directly in front of the pic...

 

[Toermalijn]

For those, we still have middle and large format camera's. Why is everybody always thinking that one camera has to do it all?!

Even NIKON is splitting it up: high iso performance versus high MP.

The D4 is typically their high iso camera.

For high MP, you'd need the d3x, the upcomming d800 or middle/large format.

A painter doesn't use the same colour or the same brush all the time to make a picture...Different needs, different tools.

(I do need a camera which gives me clean images at ISO 3200/6400

Well, we probably have to wait 2 more generations (or 8 years based on the current update schedule) for that.

I need a higher res cam asap (although I am not sure about buying the upcoming heavyweight champion D800) Doing more and more aprox 50x30 work recently. Looks fine at desired viewing distance. But what do clients do? Stick their nose directly in front of the pic...

 

[Russell Proulx]

If the camera offered an sRAW option that produced an 8-12mp file then having a 36mp option would be a nice option to have. It's like digital audio recording that offers very high sampling settings that are rarely needed.

I shoot commercially and know what's needed for a job before I do it. For many companies a 2100px wide/tall image is already more than they want. The environments where I need to shoot are often challenging and very ISO's are a must. The D3s allows me to capture images better than I could with any previous Nikon DSLR. Unless the performance is substantially better than a D3s then a 36mb camera will just eat up the storage faster and slow down my post production.

Only if there was a useful sRAW option would I consider a 36mb camera.

Russell

 

[Russell Proulx]

Ok -- I meant 36M and not 36mb ;-)

Russell

 

[RedFox88]

I think a 16-18M is already more than enough......

I would prefer Canon / Nikon release 12M FF DSLR with superior IQ / ISO performance

Nikon did, 4.5 years ago with the 12 MP d3. Time moves on and resolution needs to increase. Resolution of photography film has continually increased over the years. So should digital. Canon has even gone from 21 MP i the 1Ds3 to 18 MP in the 1D X. Though I think they have a new named very high MP pro camera in the wings, not the 5D3 but maybe called the 3D. Who knows.

 

[RicAllan]

While you Full HD TV only needs 2M
even a 4K TV only needs 8M

I think a 16-18M is already more than enough......

I would prefer Canon / Nikon release 12M FF DSLR with superior IQ / ISO performance

I don't but...

What I need shouldn't be the guide as to whether something exists, only whether "I" will be compelled to buy it. In the same vein, the things that I feel I need should not be the sole reason for something to be allowed to be sold.

And whether I need it for 1% or 80% is of no consequence to anyone but me and my decisions to buy or not buy a specific product.

It's beyond arrogance going on ignorance that so many find themselves compelled to argue/discuss/whatever that a particular product is needed or should even exist based on their (or even a percetage of the markets) need. And making further declarations based on 'how many' someone else produces and whether there are monetary considerations is even further ignorant and insulting.

For the record, I find it refreshing that Nikon seemingly has been pushing TWO different barriers (resolution vs low light capability) rather than compromise one or the other by concentrating on a sigle combined unit. Kudos to Nikon.

--
Ric

 

[M Lammerse]

Hi TimK,

I have made prints with the D3S and D700 on A2 format, not so many, but all came out excellent.

TimK5 wrote:

Looks fine at desired viewing distance. But what do clients do? Stick their nose directly in front of the pic...

Actually I did see people doing that at the Erwin Olaf exhibition... Probable had to do more with the subjects...

Michel

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Light is Everything
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05/ (my pixel mess on flikr)
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

 

[Hoddo]

As a dream I'd rather see, assuming they're going to shoehorn a 36mp+ sensor into their cameras, that Nikon make the jump and grow the size of the sensor. however, I'm assuming that if that should happen that a new line in lenses would have to be created to cope with that new sensor.

A Nikon medium format camera sounds great though I doubt many could afford it.

Am I correct in thinking that the more photosites you have on a standard sensor that one negative effect of that is lower light capabilities?
--
http://www.bof.uk.com
http://www.simonmartinphotography.com/catalogue09