Reading mode: Light Dark

Why does Nikon get stuck on particular pixel counts?

Go to last post
D

Dan Wells

Leading Member
Messages
585
Reaction score
75
Location
US
I wonder why Nikon has a tendency to get stuck on a particular pixel count, update essentially the entire line to that count, and refuse to offer any other options? They did this once before at 6 megapixels, when they were offering the D50, D70, D100 (semi-discontinued) and two lower-resolution pro bodies (D1x and D2h). They have now fixated on 12 megapixels, and offer the D90, D300, D700 and D3 at that count, and nothing higher. I certainly see their argument about high-ISO performance, and I see a place for a comparatively low resolution full-frame camera like the D3 and D700, for high ISOs and fast action. However,do we really need four variants on the 12mp SLR, including two (D3 and D700) that are so similar? There are real quality differences between what even the best 12mp camera (undoubtably Nikon's) can provide and what a 20+mp camera can give, especially at lower ISOs - why not offer something with the higher resolution for those of us who don't go above ISO 800 (a full-frame version of the D300 sensor would be in the neighborhood of 27mp), and the D300 is great up to ISO 1600? A 27mp D700x would give Nikon bragging rights in the pixel wars, provide the highest TRUE low-ISO image quality out there, and offer a real choice between ultra-high performance at low ISO and high-ISO capability. At $4000 (in a D700 body), it would deliver a kick in the teeth to both Canon and Sony. That would be a landscape and studio photographer's dream camera... It's also an easy camera for Nikon to make - they've got the body (D700), they've effectively got the sensor by simply making a D300 sensor with more area, and the D700's data path is actually fast enough (it can do 8 FPS at 12 mp, so it should be almost 4 at 27). It would also have a very nice high-speed crop mode almost for free, because it would simply be a D300 when cropped.

I'm a landscape and nature photographer who has shot both Nikon and Canon extensively over the years. I do tend to print big, and I like subjects with a lot of detail, so what is keeping me shooting Canon and considering the Sony Alpha 900 is the fact that 12mp is simply too low, despite some brilliant lenses on Nikon's part (I actually never sold my Nikon 105VR macro when I reluctantly moved to Canon, hoping that Nikon would come out with the camera I wanted). I just don't like Canon's ergonomics nearly as much as Nikon's, and I might well switch back if Nikon offered something with the same detail capabilities the competition has...

-Dan
 
I think 12MP could very well be the final resolution limit to the 35 mm format. I hear a lot of talk about a new MX format 48 x 48 mm 40 + MP camera being ready with 6 new MX lenses from Nikon. Knowing Nikon they probably feel it's best to move on to something bigger and better rather than investing so much in R&D for higher density pixel sensor that just won't satisfy demanding studio photographers; no matter how much money you throw at the 35 mm format, it's clear it has hit a wall in all manufacturers.
 
12 MP or thereabout is optimal for IQ throughout the frame for both the DX and FX format considering present sensor technology and lens design. Even the new stellar 14-24 (even if good) does not give optimal results on a 20+ MP camera:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html

This is something Canon shooters have been complaining about for a long time.

Nikon needs new primes for their 20+ MP camera.

If you need more MP now, go MF.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member
 
Unbelievable quality even from a 22 megapixel camera. MF is just a dream. The problem is they're to darn expensive and slow! and the high iso is bust!
 
Nikon is just using modifications of the same sensor in multiple cameras. Sensor is maybe the most expensive electronic part in camera and it is a business logic to purchase it in larger quantities to get lower price.
Dan Wells said:
I wonder why Nikon has a tendency to get stuck on a particular pixel
count, update essentially the entire line to that count, and refuse
to offer any other options? They did this once before at 6
megapixels, when they were offering the D50, D70, D100
(semi-discontinued) and two lower-resolution pro bodies (D1x and
D2h). They have now fixated on 12 megapixels, and offer the D90,
D300, D700 and D3 at that count, and nothing higher. I certainly see
their argument about high-ISO performance, and I see a place for a
comparatively low resolution full-frame camera like the D3 and D700,
for high ISOs and fast action. However,do we really need four
variants on the 12mp SLR, including two (D3 and D700) that are so
similar? There are real quality differences between what even the
best 12mp camera (undoubtably Nikon's) can provide and what a 20+mp
camera can give, especially at lower ISOs - why not offer something
with the higher resolution for those of us who don't go above ISO 800
(a full-frame version of the D300 sensor would be in the neighborhood
of 27mp), and the D300 is great up to ISO 1600? A 27mp D700x would
give Nikon bragging rights in the pixel wars, provide the highest
TRUE low-ISO image quality out there, and offer a real choice between
ultra-high performance at low ISO and high-ISO capability. At $4000
(in a D700 body), it would deliver a kick in the teeth to both Canon
and Sony. That would be a landscape and studio photographer's dream
camera... It's also an easy camera for Nikon to make - they've got
the body (D700), they've effectively got the sensor by simply making
a D300 sensor with more area, and the D700's data path is actually
fast enough (it can do 8 FPS at 12 mp, so it should be almost 4 at
27). It would also have a very nice high-speed crop mode almost for
free, because it would simply be a D300 when cropped.
I'm a landscape and nature photographer who has shot both Nikon and
Canon extensively over the years. I do tend to print big, and I like
subjects with a lot of detail, so what is keeping me shooting Canon
and considering the Sony Alpha 900 is the fact that 12mp is simply
too low, despite some brilliant lenses on Nikon's part (I actually
never sold my Nikon 105VR macro when I reluctantly moved to Canon,
hoping that Nikon would come out with the camera I wanted). I just
don't like Canon's ergonomics nearly as much as Nikon's, and I might
well switch back if Nikon offered something with the same detail
capabilities the competition has...

-Dan
Click to expand...
--
Rumpis :o)

http://foto.pudele.com/ - Low intensity blog about photography, Nikon and some other stuff interesting to me. Just for fun. In Latvian.
 
The A900 images at dcresource look great to me. The integrated sensor-shift image stabilization makes every lens you throw at it a VR.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a900-review/gallery.shtml

The optical quality of the Zeiss Vario Sonnar 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA is up to this 24mp sensor. For a landscape photographer Nikon is still missing a 70--200f4 VR and a F4 variant of the 14-24. The huge unprotected front lens (no filter) makes it unpractical for field use, at least for me.

The medium format back field is still quite expensive and there is a lot of room for technical improvement.

I am afraid that the prices for the (small) medium format Nikon system will be skyhigh and probably oriented at the digital medium format back pricing structure.

The Sony is a nice compromise until the technology of digital medium format is improved and the pricing gets more reasonable.
Kaj E said:
12 MP or thereabout is optimal for IQ throughout the frame for both
the DX and FX format considering present sensor technology and lens
design. Even the new stellar 14-24 (even if good) does not give
optimal results on a 20+ MP camera:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html

This is something Canon shooters have been complaining about for a
long time.

Nikon needs new primes for their 20+ MP camera.

If you need more MP now, go MF.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member
Click to expand...
 
Doubling the pixel count is only an increase in resolution of 1.4 X. To double the resolution, you need 4X the pixels (48MP). With that in mind, 21MP or 24MP really isnt that much more in terms of resolving power. What size prints would you need to make to actually see the difference between 12MP and 24MP? If you are regularly making 40 X 60 inch prints, then you probably should be in MF territory.

With that said, Nikon probably will be introducing a D3x with increased pixel count.
By the way, the D2H is 4MP, not 6.
 
Camillo said:
I think 12MP could very well be the final resolution limit to the 35
mm format. I hear a lot of talk about a new MX format 48 x 48 mm 40 +
MP camera being ready with 6 new MX lenses from Nikon. Knowing Nikon
they probably feel it's best to move on to something bigger and
better rather than investing so much in R&D for higher density pixel
sensor that just won't satisfy demanding studio photographers; no
matter how much money you throw at the 35 mm format, it's clear it
has hit a wall in all manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Nikon has never been a true studio photographer's camera. That's what medium and large format are for. In digital it's the same thing.

The R&D required to make a 24 MP FX DSLR now is minimal. The R&D required for an entirely new line of lenses for a medium format Nikon would be immense, from another world. They aren't going to do it. The market is too small.
 
Kaj E said:
12 MP or thereabout is optimal for IQ throughout the frame for both
the DX and FX format considering present sensor technology and lens
design. Even the new stellar 14-24 (even if good) does not give
optimal results on a 20+ MP camera:
Click to expand...
But a 21mm prime designed in the 1980s or earlier does? What does that say about Nikon's lens design ....

Zeiss is bringing out a 21mm soon for the Canon and Nikon mounts. So the lenses are available, or at least some lenses are available. The 24mm PC-E should also be excellent on a high res FX camera.
 
Do you really need a 13,7 MP sensor to do your job? Or a 9,52 MP sensor perhaps?

The 6-10-12 line should keep most people happy. If you need more hopefully there will be a 24MP+ model around the corner.
 
That minimizes cost per unit. If they keep the profit level steady and choose same sensor for many models (3 or so per sensor), they can offer more features that they could if the sensor would change every time. Also RAW conversion and in camera processing is one big task to tweak perfectly, and that gets much easier if the same sensor is used more than once. Simple as that.

--
Osku
 
That leads to bizarre marketing decisions like leaving the AI/AIS compatibility out of a D90, and this way limiting the use of Nikon's own lens pool. There are some great manual Nikon lenses out, you cannot buy new.
Osku said:
.......they can offer more features that they could if the sensor would change every
time. Also RAW conversion and in camera processing is one big task to
tweak perfectly, and that gets much easier if the same sensor is used
more than once. Simple as that.

--
Osku
Click to expand...
 
I'd love to see that MX camera, especially if it doesn't cost like a Phase One back. . If that camera is under $10K and lives up to its heritage, I'll move heaven and earth to get one. Different manufacturers have spoken of this mythical beast for years - there's a Canon rumor around as well, and Pentax got as far as showing a bunch of prototypes of a similar camera.

However, there are numerous high-pixel count 35mm size cameras out there that offer clear resolution advantages over anything Nikon has up to ISO 800 or 1600, and I'm wondering why Nikon doesn't release a quickie D700x to get in that market (even if they ARE planning the MX).Thom Hogan just noted on his website this morning that this would be a quick and easy thing to do, and nobody knows as much about Nikon as Thom... The MX will be a $8000 camera even if they are VERY good/lucky, so a $4000 D700x has a place in their lineup below it. If they aren't going to let a D700x out (I'm sure it is already floating around Nikon HQ), then at least give us some word on the MX at Photokina, even if it's a wooden mockup with a "coming this spring" badge on it. Better yet, do both - that way, Nikon-loving folks who want more resolution can choose between the two options, knowing the price, size, resolution and ISO limits of the two options.

I wonder what the MX will look like? If the sensor is 48 mm square, that's a HUGE mirror (not to mention the largest sensor yet made)! Probably the easiest way to hold a mirror like that is a boxy camera that looks like a classic Hasselblad with a handle on one side (or a slightly bigger version of a current Mamiya/Phase One 645 SLR, which can't actually fit a 48 mm square mirror). If they took the Pentax 67 approach and made a supersize "35mm" SLR, it would be much larger than anything on the market today except the venerable Pentax (the Mamiya ZD got away with it by having a sensor with a short dimension of 36 mm, and is still thicker than any 35mm sensor SLR. I hope the square format is right! I shot Hasselblad for years until I got tired of all the scanning, and I often printed square or nearly square. Even if it's a 40x40 sensor, that would still be a special camera if done right.

Neither the D3 nor D300 pixel densities seem to fit this camera. If it had the same pixel density as the D3 (assuming a sensor size of 48x48 mm, it would be "only" a 32 megapixel camera, and who needs ISOs that high in an MF camera? If it had the D300's density, it would be approaching 80 MP, and, while that makes more sense, it seems overboard (and I think the rumors would mention resolution that exceeds any MF back presently on the market by a comfortable margin)! Using the pixel density of the D200 produces a pixel count of 60mp on a 48x48 sensor.

Interestingly, a 40mm square sensor has a count of 52mp at D300 density and 42mp at D200 density... Both of those are high-end medium format numbers, but not "overboard" numbers

One thing the MX will not be is a fast camera (unless Nikon has made some breakthrough, or the camera has some surprising design like no mirror (all-electronic viewfinding with a super-resolution LCD "ground glass" that can be used like either a medium format camera or a view camera)? Nobody has gotten a medium format mirror to move above 2 FPS, let alone the 3 to 5 we expect from even slow 35mm SLRs. The fastest medium format SLRs ever built were the Rollei 6008s, 6x6 cm SLRs capable of 2 FPS - this speed has also been reached by a few 645 SLRs. The Rolleis were notorious for their mirror vibration, moving that big hunk of glass that fast.

While I'd love to see this camera (and would try very hard to afford it), I wonder if it makes business sense for Nikon. The market just seems too small. Canon sells a couple of thousand 1Ds type cameras each month (and this would be at least that expensive!), plus the medium format back market, which can only be hundreds per month. The MX is a camera that would sell 50,000 per year if it took over its ENTIRE potential market (Canon never sold another Ds, Phase, Hasselblad and Leaf never sold another back and nobody ever sold another view camera - please, Nikon, make tilt/shift lenses for this monster!). Even a great sales projection for it is 25,000 annually. At $10,000 per body, that's $250,000,000 - a lot of money, but Nikon's annual photo gear sales are in the range of $6,000,000,000 - is it worth it for them to do all this R&D (whole new lens line) for a camera that will represent a few percent of its sales? Maybe it's worth it for the prestige it would bring - I don't know?

Anyway, Nikon, if you have anything remotely like this in mind, bring it to Photokina! Even if the one you have is wooden, or doesn't shoot for some other reason, bring it anyway. Let folks know what you're up to, so that you don't lose high-resolution business to companies who have something to show. 12mp is not enough for everything!

-Dan
 
It seems Nikon has decided to make compatibility with older lenses as a feature only in upper level pro cameras. I will not be surprised if successor of D90 will lack screwdriver AF.
glacierpete said:
That leads to bizarre marketing decisions like leaving the AI/AIS
compatibility out of a D90, and this way limiting the use of Nikon's
own lens pool. There are some great manual Nikon lenses out, you
cannot buy new.
Click to expand...
--
Rumpis :o)

http://foto.pudele.com/ - Low intensity blog about photography, Nikon and some other stuff interesting to me. Just for fun. In Latvian.
 
When 6mp was maximum pixel count it was enough for the same percentage of people ;-)
Jeffrey P. Kempster said:
Here we are back to beating our chests and claiming the only thing
that counts is megapixels. 12 is enough for like 99% of people.

If you need more than that, then a medium format camera is probably a
good choice.

--
Jeffrey P. Kempster
Louisville, KY, U.S.A.
http://www.jeffkempster.com
Click to expand...
--
Rumpis :o)

http://foto.pudele.com/ - Low intensity blog about photography, Nikon and some other stuff interesting to me. Just for fun. In Latvian.
 
I don't want more pixels in the FX format because I value low-light capability. If you want larger files, then perhaps you should by medium format gear. Or, better yet, large format with a scanning back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top