Reading mode: Light Dark

Would you prefer a D400 at 16MP, 18MP, 24MP or 36MP?

Go to last post
16MP. I want way better low-light performance than the D300, but I could care less about more resolution, and I don't want bigger files or slower processing.

Why do you suggest 18MP? Is there an 18MP sensor out there or being rumored?
 
I don't care about MP, both smaller and larger have advantages. I would like better dynamic range (especially highlights, which the D7000 does not handle well), D4 AF module, better buffer... that's really about it.
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.
 
Looking forward to it, whatever the resolution. DX needs a new, seriously excellent, flagship camera. And soon - my D200 is giving out.
--
Pat
 
24 PX of course, no doubt.. More data for cropping is of extreme importance in wildlife & bird photography...
 
10 MP more then enough (D200), have blow-ups over a meter wide, look pretty good to me... need better DR and high iso
 
16MP maybe 24mp at the very most and I think that is stretching it. Realistically, 16mp is enough for me. Just make it fast and accurate. I'm not interested in 36mp. To much data to work with. 24mp is even pushing it. It's obvious that a lot of us could care less about the mega-pixel race. My 6mp D70 still does decent. Not as good as my D5100 but it's decent. Give me a super accurate D400 at 8fps and I'd be happy as a lark. I don't even need video. I can use my D5100 for that.
 
16-24...similiar AF to the D7k but more cross sensors, better accuracy. And at least a 1/2 stop better high iso...64-128 less noise. 6 fps is enough.
 
It would have been interesting to see if they kept the D400 at 16 MP if they could have got the noise down from the D7000, I would have preferred that than the 24 MP we will probably get, but of course if they can get the noise low at 24 MP that would be good, but looking at the D3200 shots it doesn't look like it.
 
The one with the best high ISO performance -- most likely 16 mp.

How about the Fuji X pro 1 sensor.
 
16MP would be enough but my vote does not count since I plan to migrate to a D800. But it's consistent: I intend to use the D800 as an all-in-one 16MP Dx and even more MPs in Fx mode.
--
Thierry
 
16-18 mp would be the ideal for me, but seriously my D300s does all that I need, and 12mp is plenty of resolution for just about everyone. But I doubt we will even see another DX camera that is larger than the D7000's body.
--
Mike
 
A third generation 16 mp sensor with improved DR en high iso will do. The current sensor can do enough frames already, so the only improvement left is video. For the rest? Stuff it in D300s body and Nikon is set for a dynamite demand.
 
NikonMike said:
16-18 mp would be the ideal for me, but seriously my D300s does all that I need, and 12mp is plenty of resolution for just about everyone.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
 
Shooting with my D300/500 f4 AF-S/TC-14E combination, I'm often too close to warblers. I'd like to shoot with my 300 f2.8 VR/TC-17E - cutting my MFD from 5 meters to 2.5 - but don't want to give up reach. A 24 MP DX camera will give me the equivalent reach of 1050mm (35mm equivalent, 12 MP). Now the image of the target in the viewfinder will be 28% smaller, but this won't be a factor at typical distances 2.5 to 12 meters - or might even positive if I'm really close.
--
Jim
 
high ISO as clean as D700, 7fps, buffer 20-25 RAW
 
and so far, it's serving me well. However, still hoping for a DX D400 down the line...:)
 
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