M Lammerse
Forum Pro
No, not Fotokina, do you want to put a good bottle of Chablis on it?
And I meant the ff, not a DX camera or lenses.
Michel
--
~ Light is eveything ~
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why D3x is bound to be announced with D90
- Thread starter gordonf238
- Start date
And I meant the ff, not a DX camera or lenses.
Michel
~ Light is eveything ~
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda
Exactly my thoughts. I find the 12 mpixel more than sufficient for A3 which is the largest print I can make on my Canon pro9000 anyway. There is even plenty room for cropping, since I usually print smaller than A3.
The IQ I've got from all the DSLR's I have owned have been very comparable from low end consumer to the high end cams. Looking at prints the difference is usually very limited - color rendering beeing the most obvious difference, followed by lens quality IMO.
lowlightSam
Forum Enthusiast
Billboards...a good example. Let's work with some ballpark figures here. Take a billboard 20 feet wide, insert an 12 mp image and your pixels will be LESS THAN 1/16th of an inch on the wide end.
You may have better eyes than I, but tell me, are you seeing 1/16th inch pixels at a typical billboard viewing distance? Oh, I don't know, say 30+ yards/meters??
Bus placards and the like, say 6 feet wide or so. Now your pixels are closer to 1/64th inch; about 1/2 mm in size. I KNOW you don't have your nose up to those things to see them! And a typical poster is 1/2 to 1/3 the size yet.
And yes I understand cropping happens, but if a PRO is shooting with purpose, do you think he'll have a clue as how to frame in the first place? The cropping factor is minor, really, so it can't be used as an excuse every time.
What matters is the QUALITY, not quantity. I won't even bother explaining that because I'm sure everyone here knows (or should know) that truth. I'm just so sick of the megapixel myth that it's time to say something.
I can only count from 1.4 to 2.8 - is something wrong with me?
You may have better eyes than I, but tell me, are you seeing 1/16th inch pixels at a typical billboard viewing distance? Oh, I don't know, say 30+ yards/meters??
Bus placards and the like, say 6 feet wide or so. Now your pixels are closer to 1/64th inch; about 1/2 mm in size. I KNOW you don't have your nose up to those things to see them! And a typical poster is 1/2 to 1/3 the size yet.
And yes I understand cropping happens, but if a PRO is shooting with purpose, do you think he'll have a clue as how to frame in the first place? The cropping factor is minor, really, so it can't be used as an excuse every time.
What matters is the QUALITY, not quantity. I won't even bother explaining that because I'm sure everyone here knows (or should know) that truth. I'm just so sick of the megapixel myth that it's time to say something.
--
I can only count from 1.4 to 2.8 - is something wrong with me?
RomanJohnston
Forum Pro
From how I se it....it has several peices....
Aperature.
How far the choke point for the light is from the focal plane.
The sensor size does come into play.
to draw a simple analogy.....
Stand on a ladder, with a garden hose over teacups.....
Aperature being at a constant distance from the focal plane.....and changing aperature....its a lot like wide spray vs. full bore spray.
Full bore spray...you can define which cup is hit better than choked down to a fine spray which basicly hits all the cups....and at an angle. The more choked the aperature...the more light spills into the next pixel creating the blurr we see.
Now..change it to buckets in the same space....
(akain to putting the same lens on say...a 4MP ff sensor if there ever was one)
Aperature is not as big a factor.....you hit more of each bucket with the same spray pattern with the sensor that has buckets...including angled spray.
If my analogy is correct....and many hear (who I respect) have read it....and agreed (but that dosnt make them right)
What part of the equation am I missing?
The lens and aperature distance from the focal plane remain the same between cameras......otherwise lenses would be dedicated to only one camera...not a whole line. Pixel size is the only diffrence....so all other things being constant...you have less diffraction on a senser with a bigger bucket.
Roman
--
'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.
Actually, who are we not to be?'
--Marianne Williamson
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Aperature.
How far the choke point for the light is from the focal plane.
The sensor size does come into play.
to draw a simple analogy.....
Stand on a ladder, with a garden hose over teacups.....
Aperature being at a constant distance from the focal plane.....and changing aperature....its a lot like wide spray vs. full bore spray.
Full bore spray...you can define which cup is hit better than choked down to a fine spray which basicly hits all the cups....and at an angle. The more choked the aperature...the more light spills into the next pixel creating the blurr we see.
Now..change it to buckets in the same space....
(akain to putting the same lens on say...a 4MP ff sensor if there ever was one)
Aperature is not as big a factor.....you hit more of each bucket with the same spray pattern with the sensor that has buckets...including angled spray.
If my analogy is correct....and many hear (who I respect) have read it....and agreed (but that dosnt make them right)
What part of the equation am I missing?
The lens and aperature distance from the focal plane remain the same between cameras......otherwise lenses would be dedicated to only one camera...not a whole line. Pixel size is the only diffrence....so all other things being constant...you have less diffraction on a senser with a bigger bucket.
Roman
--
'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.
Actually, who are we not to be?'
--Marianne Williamson
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
jb_va2001
Veteran Member
Bill Fagan
Senior Member
They also said the F2 was the ultimate camera. Time marches on-
When the photographer is not also responsible for the graphic design, cropping happens a lot.
you also have to realise that a picture might be used in different format. it might be used in books, catalogs... but in some occations they might want a vertical banner, or a horizontal one next time. Tight composition is not always a good idea. Designers are more happy to have some space at their disposal.
it's actually understandable on people's desire for quantity. It's easier to get more quantity than higher quality... buy a new camera and you are done.
when everyone deliver similar quality then quantity is just another battlefield. When everyone deliver quantity you don't want to be left behind.
asserting quality is more difficult and time consuming than checking quantity.
in many places, large hi-res monitors are replacing many print adverts. One have to consider that, not just prints.
--
Wilfred
Jeff Morris
Senior Member
wouldn't a D300x be a step backwards? What would they do? Double the photosites and loose two stops of light. I think they are better off leaving the D300 as their flagship DX camera.
--
Regards,
Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman
Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
I hunt, I peck, I squint, all on a Dell M1210 12.1' laptop. So don't laugh, I'm happy there aren't more typo's!
--
Regards,
Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman
Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
I hunt, I peck, I squint, all on a Dell M1210 12.1' laptop. So don't laugh, I'm happy there aren't more typo's!
Jeffrey Anderson
Senior Member
D3x, or whatever it's going to be called, is coming. Period!! Nikon will not give up the high MP market to Canon and more importantly, Sony.
M
Mel
Guest
Hello Bobn,
Assuming that the D3X/D4 sensor is in fact a variation of the exact same sensor already in the current D3 models, what iso plateau would you believe is likely for this higher res model? 3200 top with a perfect exposure and very usable 1600?
"Besides the firmware slip, the other clue that it's coming is the buffer upgrade for the D3, which makes a lot of sense in a 24.4 MPix camera."
Also, I know you have probably stated this before (or someone equally as knowledgeable has), but what would the crop mode resolution be for this 24.4 variant?
Mel
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.com
Assuming that the D3X/D4 sensor is in fact a variation of the exact same sensor already in the current D3 models, what iso plateau would you believe is likely for this higher res model? 3200 top with a perfect exposure and very usable 1600?
"Besides the firmware slip, the other clue that it's coming is the buffer upgrade for the D3, which makes a lot of sense in a 24.4 MPix camera."
Also, I know you have probably stated this before (or someone equally as knowledgeable has), but what would the crop mode resolution be for this 24.4 variant?
Mel
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.com
ejmartin
Veteran Member
There are a several things to say, already said them in recent threads...
Why smaller pixels outresolve larger pixels, even in the diffraction-limited regime:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=28724395
Note: I did the same exercise with the DPR test of Nikon's 70-200, with the same result.
The effect of sensor size on diffraction (none, until one is aperture-limited in obtaining the desired depth of field):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28890536
--
emil
--
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
Why smaller pixels outresolve larger pixels, even in the diffraction-limited regime:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=28724395
Note: I did the same exercise with the DPR test of Nikon's 70-200, with the same result.
The effect of sensor size on diffraction (none, until one is aperture-limited in obtaining the desired depth of field):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28890536
--
emil
--
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
Flashlight
Veteran Member
That's good reading. People indeed lose sight of the whole picture because they're so focused on 100% crops.
To summarize, if you take a photo at f/16 with 400 ISO film and then change to 100 ISO film, the quality will get better, not worse. Seems a simple enough concept.
--
Philip
To summarize, if you take a photo at f/16 with 400 ISO film and then change to 100 ISO film, the quality will get better, not worse. Seems a simple enough concept.
--
Philip
Ilja
Leading Member
For what it's worth.. I've just had an ad campaign hang city wide (in Rotterdam, the Netherlands) on banners 9 meters high.. all shot with the D3. When we shot the pics I didn't know they were going to be blown up this large (only for internet and posters I thought). But the quality looked absolutely great.
One month before that I had an ad-campagne that was shot with an H2/P30+ combo wich does allow for more cropping I guess, but seeing those large prints I couldn't really see the image quality differences (that much).. I'm now actually more confident in shooting for large blow-ups with the D3 than before.
--
http://www.myspace.com/illphotos
One month before that I had an ad-campagne that was shot with an H2/P30+ combo wich does allow for more cropping I guess, but seeing those large prints I couldn't really see the image quality differences (that much).. I'm now actually more confident in shooting for large blow-ups with the D3 than before.
--
http://www.myspace.com/illphotos
TheMadScot
Senior Member
The problem, though, is that it's often not up to the photographer in terms of what filesizes they deliver... the client / art director / agent will often have a spec for the job and this may well include the filesizes to be delivered.
If the client specifies that the files supplied should be no less than 30MP / 180MB TIFF (16-bit), then that's what you have to shoot. Of course, if you shoot RAW at a suitably clean ISO value, you can usually interpolate at the processing stage and get results that may be better than passable - which will depend on the camera and the converter used.
So yes: it's not all about the pixel count, but there are clients and buyers out there who think it is and will demand those files. Until THEY change their minds, we're stuck in the rut of having to give them what they ask for.
--
http://www.flickr.com/mcneilcommercialphoto
If the client specifies that the files supplied should be no less than 30MP / 180MB TIFF (16-bit), then that's what you have to shoot. Of course, if you shoot RAW at a suitably clean ISO value, you can usually interpolate at the processing stage and get results that may be better than passable - which will depend on the camera and the converter used.
So yes: it's not all about the pixel count, but there are clients and buyers out there who think it is and will demand those files. Until THEY change their minds, we're stuck in the rut of having to give them what they ask for.
--
http://www.flickr.com/mcneilcommercialphoto
RomanJohnston
Forum Pro
Its nice that you say all that.....
Make it make sense.....
Can you elaborate on my analogy to adapt it to what is missing if anythng is missing?
Roman
--
'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.
Actually, who are we not to be?'
--Marianne Williamson
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Make it make sense.....
Can you elaborate on my analogy to adapt it to what is missing if anythng is missing?
Roman
--
'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.
Actually, who are we not to be?'
--Marianne Williamson
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Flashlight
Veteran Member
If your client wants the file sizes of a true 30MP cam he has to pay for it, be it in fees for a thus equipped studio or equipment rental. It's the photographers that want to sell them 30MP shots for 12MP prices, so they 'need' a €1000 30MP Nikon.
--
Philip
--
Philip
glacierpete
Senior Member
deleted
glacierpete
Senior Member
There was also a large market for medium and large format film.
Nothing changed.
Flashlight
Veteran Member
But not in the Nikon SLR lineup, what the OP is talking about.
Indeed that was the very reason I hardly used Nikon prior to going digital in 2000. Back then I decided the digital MF/LF route was going to be very expensive in the long run and I didn't want to be just working for the bank. I'd rather be free and poor than chained and even poorer. Therefore, among other factors, I slowly changed my line of work and kept shooting MF/LF film when necessary.
--
Philip
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum