Why does Nikon get stuck on particular pixel counts?

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.

Click to expand...

I think it is a pure coincidence that the "standard" sensor size on DX was 12MP at the same time as the high-ISO FX sensor was released. I guess that the "standard" DX size will increase to 15-18 MP (though I have mixed feelings about it)

And they will of course release a FX model with a similar pixel density to the D300. I, for one, would wish they keep 6MP on entry level models, and give them the high ISO capabilities of the D3. But I dont know how likely that is.

I think they have mainly technical reasons for not introducing a high-MP body yet. For example, they probably want even better high-ISO than we get with the D300, and that is not that easy to achieve.

Dan Wells said:

However,do we really need four variants on the 12mp SLR, including two (D3 > and D700) that are so similar?

Click to expand...

Well, if we think of the sensors as the "film", it is only natural to use same film in different cameras, isn't it? I don't find the D90, D300, D700 and D3 that similar.

Dan Wells said:

That would be a landscape and studio photographer's dream
camera...

Click to expand...

I guess not. Poor studio shooter's dream, maybe.

Dan Wells said:

.... and I might
well switch back if Nikon offered something with the same detail
capabilities the competition has...

Click to expand...

Won't take too long till you can check out that offering..

Zardoz said:

Hi friend,

You are joking, right? Canon's EOS-1Ds Mark III is already 20+ MP and
as good, if not better, DR, noise, and per-pixel quality as the D3.
Take your Nikon-tinted glasses off and look at reality.

Click to expand...

I don't share your views on this.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi friend,

It's not so much a view as it is a fact.
--
See my profile page for gear.

Zardoz said:

Hi friend,

It's not so much a view as it is a fact.

Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence to support your facts, but if you feel that the 1ds3 is a better tool, just use it.

As far as I am concerned I am very happy with my D3 and stitching.

Cheers,
Bernard

Zardoz said:

Hi friend,

That argument holds no water. The pixel density of DX is
significantly higher for the same MP.

Click to expand...

You fail to recognize that the resolution in the sweet spot (DX format) is much higher than at the edges (FX format). Not to mention CA and vignetting.

Zardoz said:

I think Nikon users are desperately looking for any explanation for
why 12MP is enough, now that Canon and Sony are offering
significantly higher MP sensors/bodies.

Click to expand...

See the link I provided and the need for extremely good lenses (which neither Nikon or Canon provides at this time) to take full advantage of the increased pixels throughout the FX frame.

For the high MP FX cameras it will be back to primes and no convenient zooms at least for a while. Technology will eventually get there. Some legendary primes are already sufficient but not many.

Zardoz said:

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.

Click to expand...

--
See my profile page for gear.

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

Fact? Then provide a link to a site that has performed noise measurements properly.

I'd use Nikon even if Canon had better noise characteristics because the layout of Canon controls drives me crazy.

A popular misconception circulating Moore's law is the incorrect assumption that exponential processor transistor growth, as predicted by Moore, translates directly into proportional exponential increase processing power or processing speed.

Moore's law also has finite limits, as an exponential curve it will eventually hit a point of disaster. There are also physical limits and tradeoffs to put into place. While it's likely we will be able to put more and more photosites onto a sensor, it doesn't correlate directly to image processing. We get more pixels, but what do we are we trading? More heat, more noise, more processing time, and then when we hit the nyquist limit?

Then there is Wirth's law... Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster --> we can see a correlation in this, noise is getting worse faster than resolution is getting better... Just look at the megapixel/noise ratios in the point and shoot market... We can deal with this with software, and other kinds of sensor builds etc... but this again just seems to point back towards the tradeoffs and limits.

--
A poor photographer blames his tools.

I actually still hold that 6mp is enough, especially if you don't crop. You can make very large and beautiful prints from a 6 megapixel camera. I'd say the biggest difference is that they haven't continued to evolve the 6mp sensors... because they could do more... but a 6mp sensor with the low noise and higher DR of more modern sensors would be perfectly good for beautiful 8x12 prints... And you still get quite good larger prints, especially if you take into account viewing distance... How many people who own any kind of digital camera make larger poster sized prints?

Double the resolution of 6mp is, 24mp.... that would make a great a 16x24 at the same resolution of that 8x12 (at the same viewing distance) and certainly be capable of much larger acceptable images. I can see there being reason for people to want more than 12 megapixels. I would love to make prints at 6feet by 4 feet... but I can't possibly print that large even if I had the file for it... And 1 percent of 50 million people, is still fairly large...

Let's assume for a moment that 6mp is good enough for 99% of people... What is the percentage of people with a digital camera that use DPR? Is it comparable to 1 percent? Logically there's no link, but could it be that more than half of that 1% of people that need more than 6, are here on these forums? Sure.
--
A poor photographer blames his tools.

and how does it look from 1-2ft distance?

I have printed fantastically sharp looking 20"x30" shots from my D70 ISO800.

I have also printed grainless looking 20x30 from my 10mp D200.

And both of them were printed at lowly sam's club.

I do have a D300, and it looks even better in terms of details.. and I can only imagine how good D3 and D700 files will look at even 24"x36".

So what is the largest size you have printed? Where are you printing at? Are you getting bad results when printing at 36x54 - almost 3feetx7feet?? Have you tried printing at elcocolor? look out for their internet specials for large prints - pretty dirt cheap.

While higher MP will help, are you saying you are having problems printing bigger than 24x36??

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...

--
use DXKA303DH for 70 off @ dreamhost

What if you used a CCD display instead of a mirror? That would solve lots of the problems you forsee. Just hypothetical, mind you ; )

I think the "display instead of a mirror" concept is a VERY interesting way this could go, if they could come up with a display that is good enough. That could wind up giving a lot of flexibility (including things we left behind long ago when we left ground-glass viewing. A well put together (and I'm NOT talking necessarily achievable with current technology) MX electronic rangefinder could combine many of the advantages of a 35mm scale SLR, an MF SLR and even a view camera, at least for more deliberate shooting (it's crtainly not for sports!). It's no less portable than a 35 SLR (at least the Mamiya 7 isn't, and this sensor would be a lot smaller than 6x7 - a Mamiya 7 is actually the weight of a D700!). In its default handheld viewing mode, it offers a choice of waist-level or eye-level viewing with a big, articulated LCD with a hood (hope they're smart enough to articulate the LCD) and an EVF, and rumors focus on a square sensor with enough resolution to crop either way in post. That gives a good deal of the medium-format game (assuming the LCD is good enough!) Toss it on a tripod, put a tilt-shift lens on the front, and put your focusing cloth over your head and that big screen becomes the ground glass of a 4x5 (even make it reversible as a menu choice). There should be plenty of room for a 4 or even 5 inch screen with the same dpi as today's best 3 inch screens, and either an optical (non-TTL - think Contax G1 or G2) viewfinder or an EVF.

In response to the previous poster who wondered why I'd switch if I already shot the 21 mp Canon, I don't - couldn't afford to upgrade to it. I DO shoot its 16 MP predecessor, and it was by far the best compromise for me at the time, but there are a few things that are far less than ideal about it. When I bought it many thousands of images ago, it not only had by far the best resolution around, but the best dynamic range short of an MF back (which was three or four times as expensive) as well! The 5D was not an option due to a physical disability (I can't reach some important controls on the 5D, including the DOF preview). The 1DsII takes a heck of a nice picture, but it's heavy (not easy for a one-armed landscape photographer) - at the time, nothing lighter came CLOSE in image quality... It's not as easy to shoot one-handed as a modern Nikon due to layout. Overall, I like it, and if Canon gave me a lighter body with the same or better quality, I'd either replace or augment it, but I guess I still carry a Nikon torch because their cameras are so darned nice to use, so I'd at least consider switching if Nikon made something that was not a loss in image quality below ISO 400 (right now, a 1DsII will beat a D700 easily at low ISO, while the tables are turned at the high ISOs I never use). I probably wouldn't switch for a modest IQ gain in a D3 body (better laid out but just as heavy), but I'd consider it seriously if I could shave a couple of pounds by going to a "D700x" body and get those lovely Nikon ergonomics (I wouldn't lose much money by going to a D700x, either). The proposed MX camera might well be so ideal for what I do that I'd find the money to switch, even though it would be a bigger difference.

-Dan

Dan,

There are some very simple reasons:

1. If you tried to use a sensor that was D300x4 dense (27Mp),
how many lenses would resolve well with it, and how expensive
would those lenses be? (hint: very)

12.8 Mp is a nice number that allows a consumer to pick from among
almost all Nikon's lenses to find one they need that works for a price
they can afford.

I personally don't want to pay several thousand dollars for glass that's
good enough to resolve to 27Mp sensor density, for each lens that I
need. Sometimes a good cheap $100 50mm/F1.8 does the trick.

2. For landscapes in 35mm, I shoot panos and stitch. If I'm really serious,
I shoot a large format view camera and let a lab drumscan the Velvia.
35mm, no matter how convenient, or how much we like it has real
limits - this is one of those.

You will never (given existing and next 2 gens of tech) get even close
to what a good 5x7 or 8x10 piece of film can resolve in terms of detail
when it's drum scanned. You don't have the real estate to compete on
sensor.

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...

Personaly, I wish there would be some consensus among the brands "ok guys, let´s make a deal, no more than 12mp in our cameras, ok?"

Now Nikon is forced to have more megapixels in next gen cameras, for marketing reasons.

Of course, in my view, the coolest thing Nikon could do now would be to keep 12mp even in the next gens... that would be a true statement.

T

In my opinion this can have 2 causes:
A. Marketing, building up pixel count will probably sell more camera's.

B. Nikon's sensor technology is not good enough to compete with other brands. It is fairly simple, Nikon had to come up with some decent high ISO performance, and however you put it. Less pixels give a better high ISO performance...

The issue whether you need more pixels is something else in my opinion... I am pretty sure Nikon will bring out a high MP camera whenever they are ready for it. Or when the market is ready for it (in my opinion it is...), Marketing or sensor technology wise!

Just my opinion...
Nick

"Nikon's sensor technology is not good enough to compete with other brands."

You must be a Canon fan boy because this statement is idiotic.

This "you don't need more than 12 MP" sounds oddly like 'you don't need full frame". I wonder how many of you will jump on the Nikon SLR that does offer 24 MP's like you did when Nikon offered full frame?
--
Small Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/fotoss

First, no I am not a Canon user. I use Nikon for many years now, I have a D3, D2X and before a D70s and D70. I used them all with great pleasure.

Secondly, I stated this as an option, I am NOT saying this is true. But what I am sure of is that nikon's D-SLR line-up has someting to do with the high ISO story... The high ISO performance on the D2x was not top-notch and Nikon had to come up with some a high ISO camera... And I am convinced they made some comprimises there. So there is nothing idiotic about that.

And third, personally I do not need more MP. Hardly ever print anything larger than 20x30cm... So... But there are people who need it hard, and for them Nikon is not an option at the moment. And I can not imagine Nikon is NOT willing to fill this market, or must have a darn good explanation for it. And technology would be a very good explanation for it.

I do not give anything on who is shooting which brand, I am not stitched to Nikon at all. Everybody must use the camera they like, which fullfills their needs. Nothing to do with being Canon- or Nikon "fanboys". Competiotion in the D-SLR branche will give us better and cheaper camera's in the end!

For the work I do, No, I don't need more than 12Mp. Why is that so
hard for people to understand? The 5D people in the other forum are
just apoplectic at that statement.

As I pointed out earlier - higher density requires better glass. Are you
willing to pay several thousand dollars for a lens that will properly resolve
24 or 27 Mp rather than several hundred for 12.8?

There is a physical limitation as to how much light, efficiency, and benefit
one can get in a 35mm package. If you need more than that, then you
need to be looking at other options. There is a big difference between
a Nikon D3 image @ 14bit NEF, and a MF 16 bit, and an even bigger
difference between those two and a 5x7 Velvia 50 film positive.

Here's a tip - to use the velvia, I can use lenses that go back almost 100
years ago and are cheap to get, but resolve better than 35mm or 6x9.

It's all about Real Estate...

fotos said:

This "you don't need more than 12 MP" sounds oddly like 'you don't
need full frame". I wonder how many of you will jump on the Nikon
SLR that does offer 24 MP's like you did when Nikon offered full
frame?
--
Small Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/fotoss

Click to expand...

12 MP is probably the best compromise between hi-ISO performance, resolution, speed, cost etc. Most people will be perfectly happy with such a resolution as soon as they've been educated that more MP doesn't automatically mean better.

But nonetheless, Nikon most definitely will bring out a hi-res FF body for you landscapers, portrait and architecture guys. Just give them a moment to breath. Remember, in just a little over a year, they have bought out SIX new DSLR bodies, amongst them, their first two FF offerings. Let them digest and analyze the situation, they now know what Sony and Canon have offered, I assure you that while it may take a while, their version of the A900/5DII will set a new benchmark, even if it's only an D700 with 24MP.

rhlpetrus said:

to use one that has worked well in lower bodies as R&D costs are paid
back.

The 12MP sensor in D3/D700 will eventually end in a D90 type camera
in a couple of years, when the D3 is updated to a higher MP sensor.

The 12Mp sensor of D300/D90 will be in an entry-level body by PMA2009.

It's so obvious, why really ask this question?

Click to expand...

Agree. And it is always better to get it once right and then reproduce it...

--
Osku