Moore's law and when is enough pixels enough?

You know what other countries say about US, we're spoiled brats! That's a fact Jack.

We complain too much in the wrong places. You know the saying...when in Rome, do what the Romans do. Though, the positive thing about it, if we're in the US, we push the limits and become avant garde.
A short hour drive out of my 1st world town I often can experience 3rd world conditions and thinking :D

I am no optics/sensor expert, but I know Moore all too well ;)

I am hopefully that them sensor designers can squeeze more out of less. We've done that for 30 years on transistors.

The main point is that do you get something meaningful. Of course more pixels is better than fewer. More dynamic range better than less. More CPU processing beter than less.

In my humble usage model my priorities remaing the same. Giving me 32Meg at D3s+ sensitivity is nice, charge me 5K for it I won't bite, charge me 2K and I will.
Ok, so you don't know much about the challenges of Engineering and Science; and don't know much about Economics...I think you're screwed. Dude, you're asking for so much for nothing. I think you just lost your logical sense.
For how I shoot more pixels is of minimum value, to others I appreciate pixels are important.

What I would bite for would be D4 with 16-18 and much better AFS ( translucent mirror? ) Great video and focus ( 30FPS/60FPS ), faster stills. For that I would run out and add a D4 to my D3s.

24Megpixel with matching to D3s and small incremental in video/FPS and focus won't make me buy. I'll wait for D5!

Cheers
Thom has a new article up and more relevant than his last about his field trip to 3rd world country.
Chile, Argentina, Brazil... 3rd world?

--
"The tragedy of old age is not that one is old, but that one is young."
O.Wilde
 
My list of what will get me to buy
1) Superior and smart auto focus both for still and video
A lot of focusing and exposure aids from the digital video industry should be available in the camera. Oddly enough, video monitor manufacturers are adding functions such a 1:1 and "False Colors" and other features much sooner than camera companies
2) Faster frames for stills 12FPS and vidoe 30/60 fps
Agreed. These frames can also be inserted between the shutter mirror flips.
4) Better ISO, I really like shooting to 10K on D3s, would really like one more stop versus more pixels. AFter that probably good enough.
Would you be willing to drop your pixel count to 6 Mpixel?
5) Yeah lastly more pixels. Its nice if you got a good lense that you can crop or blow really big if you screwed up in framing.
Chuckle. After all of that, you're still a customer for more pixels. The camera manufacturers know that there is no one out there, including you, my shutter friend, that will purchase fewer pixels in the interest of superior high-ISO performance.
 
I'm not an electrical engineer, but compare a 6MP D100 APC sensor (or even D2x) with its larger pixels against a new 12MP APC sized DSLR (despite the higher resolution) - the dynamic range, ISO performance - huge improvement!
Check out the SNR graphs at DXOlabs site.

As for higher ISO performance, Nikon has shipped high quality noise reduction processing in the camera. The same and superior processing is possible with software packages running on personal computers. So, if you take your 6 MP D100 RAW files and process them with the new noise reduction software, you will notice that you are seeing D3s-like quality.
 
3 - Better high ISO performance
4 - More pixels, maybe 24Mp
No matter what, even those wanting higher ISO performance still want more megapixels. What is to be done? I think I'm the only fellow out there that would be willing to get a cleaner, sharper ISO 800-1600 (D3s does not offer this offer D3) by going to 6-8 MP .
 
As for higher ISO performance, Nikon has shipped high quality noise reduction processing in the camera. The same and superior processing is possible with software packages running on personal computers. So, if you take your 6 MP D100 RAW files and process them with the new noise reduction software, you will notice that you are seeing D3s-like quality.
There's no evidence that Nikon is doing High ISO NR in RAW, at least for the D3s. As for using newer NR technology against older files like the D100, you can certainly reduce the noise to D3s levels but at the expense of detail.
 
There's no evidence that Nikon is doing High ISO NR in RAW, at least for the D3s.
Agreed, but you can easily see common noise reduction artifacts and loss of detail in any JPG image (camera or Nikon NX2) at ISO800.
As for using newer NR technology against older files like the D100, you can certainly > reduce the noise to D3s levels but at the expense of detail.
We see this loss of detail in the D3-class cameras at any ISO above 400. Did you notice that Nikon never billed the D3s as a superior camera at ISO1600 and below?
 
Agreed, but you can easily see common noise reduction artifacts and loss of detail in any JPG image (camera or Nikon NX2) at ISO800.
I don't shoot JPG so I'm clueless about in-camera JPGs look at various ISOs.
We see this loss of detail in the D3-class cameras at any ISO above 400. Did you notice that Nikon never billed the D3s as a superior camera at ISO1600 and below?
A progressive drop of SNR at each advancing ISO is expected. Are you saying you shouldn't see any loss of detail or that the amount lost is higher than expected/advertised? The D3's ISO SNR slope is above all other mass-produced 35mm cameras right now, at least all the ones I'm aware of.
 
Even if some of us are completely satisfied with a D700, they won't stop because their companies would fold. They will continue with advancements, and there will probably be plenty of takers. I don't begrudge them the upgrade. If I weren't completely convinced that the D700 is all I need and more than I can use I might be waiting for something else, as well. I got myself a D7000 for telephoto stuff, and I m very happy with it, but it is always a comfort to use my D700.

I will say my computer is getting a bit long in the tooth. It seems hardly any new imaging software supports W2K, so can XP be far behind? What I have is fast enough, and I have plenty of HDD, but eventually Nikon software is going to leave my XP behind. I should buy a bloody Apple.
 
I will say my computer is getting a bit long in the tooth. It seems hardly any new imaging software supports W2K, so can XP be far behind? What I have is fast enough, and I have plenty of HDD, but eventually Nikon software is going to leave my XP behind. I should buy a bloody Apple.
Nikon software obsolescence is a real concern. I have a $1500 scanner that won't work under Windows 7 64-bit because Nikon has abandoned support for it. (Thankfully VueScan works with it).

I used to be concerned that someday I would not be able to view my NEF files. Now I'm not particularly concerned with that, but I bet I won't be able to retrieve any of the embedded edits I've already done to thousands of images with CaptureNX2.
 
I'm thinking of getting a new computer this year, and I plan to keep the old one just as it is in order to avoid problems with older photos and logic programs I have written over the years (some still in DOS). I still have the old Pentium 4 I used for so long, but I will junk that when the one I have now becomes the backup.
 
Agreed, but you can easily see common noise reduction artifacts and loss of detail in any JPG image (camera or Nikon NX2) at ISO800.
I don't shoot JPG so I'm clueless about in-camera JPGs look at various ISOs.
You can see it in the NEF and any JPG image generated from that.
A progressive drop of SNR at each advancing ISO is expected. Are you saying you shouldn't see any loss of detail or that the amount lost is higher than expected/advertised? The D3's ISO SNR slope is above all other mass-produced 35mm cameras right now, at least all the ones I'm aware of.
My post was too brief. The improvements in the D3s were largely above ISO1600 primarily with noise-reduction techniques. Marianne Oelund noted that D3s color separation was slightly worse than the D3.
 
Image sensors on the other hand are firmly rooted in visible wavelengths. Pixels are several micometers in dimension, nearly planetary in comparison to cpu transistors. Moore's Law left structures the size of pixels behind before there were any pixels. And pixels work better when they are larger.
There's not very much evidence for that. We're about 1.5μm right now and still shrinking, and pixels don't seem to be working any less well, in fact in some ways better. The people working in teh technology seem to be confident that they can go down to sub micron, so for DSLR, where the smallest are 4μm there is still a long way to go.

I would go as far to say that, as a trend, pixels seem to be working better as they get smaller. Shrinking them doesn't seem to be having a bad effect on quantum efficiency (proportion of available photons collected) and has a beneficial effect on read noise (electronic noise added) per unit area. I publish measurements of both, derived from DxO data here: http://www.sensorgen.info

As you'll see the general trend is for both QE and read noise to improve as pixels shrink, although there are some outliers such as the D3s.

--
Bob
 
I'm not an electrical engineer, but compare a 6MP D100 APC sensor (or even D2x) with its larger pixels against a new 12MP APC sized DSLR (despite the higher resolution) - the dynamic range, ISO performance - huge improvement!
Check out the SNR graphs at DXOlabs site.

As for higher ISO performance, Nikon has shipped high quality noise reduction processing in the camera.
Evidence?
--
Bob
 
I wouldn't rush out and buy a camera with more pixels just "because". There would have to be another quantum leap in digital processing to make it worthwhile.
2/3 stop improvement at ISO800 or 1600 is all it takes for me to upgrade. I'd be willing to take a cut to 8, maybe 6 Mpixels if needed.
 
Funny my Tamron 28-75 on D3s is stunning for some things that a 24-70 2.8 won't touch.

Of course great glass like 200F2 is something else too. Good glass has its place as does great sensor, AFS, etc. To somehow one or the other is naive.
I'd rather spend the money on a high quality lens. Hell, all DSLR's produced today are capable bodies. Don't ask what camera took an image you like, ask which lens they used!
--
http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
 
I read his "whatever" on being a guest in Chile until I got to the part he says that roads stop in Pto. Montt (whatever happened to all the Carretera Austral?) and stopped reading... the rest must be as accurate as that.

How sad to see what age can do to some guys. And ignorance: what about strikes in Europe? a hostage there too? I guess not, he would have used a more "chic" term.

The analysis of the situation: a joke (of course The New York Times paid no attention to that crap.)

Mr. Hogan should stick to what he knows and does, photography. If he had only spent the time it took him to do that writing in taking photos... (not buses or people lying under the US Embassy cloth)...

--
"The tragedy of old age is not that one is old, but that one is young."
O.Wilde
--
"The tragedy of old age is not that one is old, but that one is young."
O.Wilde
 
I am hoping for a D700 upgrade that has both D3S ISO/Noise performance, and D3X MP and DR, all for under $3000.

When I look closely at shots from the D3S and the D3X I am awe struck. If I had deep pockets I would buy those two bodies (and a good crop sensor for the extra reach).

Not having deep pockets, I am happily shooting with my D200, and saving up for Nikons next gen FF in a D700 size.

Some have said that there is no guaranty that Nikon will release such a body. I can wait until a body is available that meets my performance needs/wants with my budget.

--
A Kodak Brownie can produce a great image in the right hands.
 
I read his "whatever" on being a guest in Chile until I got to the part he says that roads stop in Pto. Montt (whatever happened to all the Carretera Austral?) and stopped reading... the rest must be as accurate as that.
Maybe you should bone up on your American idioms (this sentence would be a good starting point).

I read the passage, then looked at a map and his description "seasonal road" seems accurate. Are you suggesting that Carretera Austral is a paved roadway, passable year round?
How sad to see what age can do to some guys. And ignorance: what about strikes in Europe? a hostage there too? I guess not, he would have used a more "chic" term.
What does a strike in Europe have to do his story? Mr. Hogan was there personally and I trust his assessment more than someone whose Nationlism is currently rankled.
The analysis of the situation: a joke (of course The New York Times paid no attention to that crap.)
The NYT is your barometer for World importance? Puleeeze.
Mr. Hogan should stick to what he knows and does, photography. If he had only spent the time it took him to do that writing in taking photos... (not buses or people lying under the US Embassy cloth)...
Perhaps, but so should you.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top