jonrobertp
Forum Pro
Interesting..sure. But what will the D7100 , D400, and 7DII be in a yr from now ? Think I'm gonna wait a bit this time...see what the alternatives are gonna be.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D600 Rumour Update
- Thread starter Clear Blue Sky
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d600
MichaelEchos
Well-known member
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
Dude... Diffraction is not an issue. You can shoot at f11 if you want, but you won't utilise all the megapixels, but you'll still have higher resolution than other cameras due to weaker low pass filter.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Diffraction isn't a sensor issue, and it doesn't suddenly 'start affecting' - at some f-number diffraction takes over from aberration as the main limitation on resolution and the resolution falls from that point, usually between f/4 and f/8 depending on the lens. The pixel count doesn't affect where that point is at all. Nor does the resolution suddenly drop at some f-number according to pixel count and a higher pixel count camera will deliver more resolution at every f-number. So, having fewer pixels does not help with diffraction, all it does is reduce the resolution to the resolution you might have had a some smaller aperture with a lower pixel count camera.
--
Bob
Btw, I never really struggled withthe D300 AF above iso 1600. Not with my fast glass. Anf that's what I use when AF speed is critical. I've doen a lot of iso 2000-4000 with the D300, and with a bit of overexposure and carefull PP to keep the olors and detail in tact I could get 4 out of 10. Not suitable for larger prints though..
So I needed a new sensor and I thought the D7000 would provide me one. The sensor was oké, I could lift the iso bar up without running out of detail and color (although the latter was tougher than I had hoped for). I had higher SS than ever before, giving me better detail and sharpness (but there are situations where I would actually need iso 12800 at least to get the proper SS given the aperture). The thing that hit me was the huge numer of AF errors with a preference of hitting someting in the back (normal if there's nothing else between you and the subject) that doesn't move. It simply could keep up. I've used every AF option there is, but the best results came from the dynamic mode with the smallest number of sensors active. Tested a second body, asked a fellow photographer to let me use his (third body): no change. The combined effects of contrast and speed of subjects and a swift reduction of the AF speed above iso 800 made me decide to return the camera. It cost me €150 because I waited to long.. This is not going to happen to me again.
lock
So I needed a new sensor and I thought the D7000 would provide me one. The sensor was oké, I could lift the iso bar up without running out of detail and color (although the latter was tougher than I had hoped for). I had higher SS than ever before, giving me better detail and sharpness (but there are situations where I would actually need iso 12800 at least to get the proper SS given the aperture). The thing that hit me was the huge numer of AF errors with a preference of hitting someting in the back (normal if there's nothing else between you and the subject) that doesn't move. It simply could keep up. I've used every AF option there is, but the best results came from the dynamic mode with the smallest number of sensors active. Tested a second body, asked a fellow photographer to let me use his (third body): no change. The combined effects of contrast and speed of subjects and a swift reduction of the AF speed above iso 800 made me decide to return the camera. It cost me €150 because I waited to long.. This is not going to happen to me again.
lock
HSway
Senior Member
Thanks. Although this is d300 line dx camera forum it’s hard to overlook importance of such a camera for many users. This specs look a bit better. The weight, size and price of such a camera are a key factor that opens it door to the area where only dx format ruled. I will just repeat my opinion that it would have no doubt a big impact for dx users. and that what kind of replacement the d300 will get remains to be seen. It should obviously get its upgrade. And upgrade means just upgrade. Downgrade in functionality and performance is not upgrade. Hopefully Nikon won’t disappoint any of their trusting users. It would not speak well for the brand. No matter how they are going to achieve it.
Yes, Nikon likes releasing this sort of KO products. Let’s see what exactly gets materialized out of this but NR are good. I can imagine pentax wouldn’t like it much. This would be a very strong position for Nikon. They should price it with long term strategy in mind (especially at the beginning) and that too would suggest surprisingly low price. It would be very strong position with global influence on camera market (more or less most segments), an unpleasant find for some manufactures and a challenge for others. Big sensor in compact bodies is one of the best alternatives we can be given. And the hardest to make manufactures do. More options. Obviously, the camera market is still just taking shape in structure.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
Yes, Nikon likes releasing this sort of KO products. Let’s see what exactly gets materialized out of this but NR are good. I can imagine pentax wouldn’t like it much. This would be a very strong position for Nikon. They should price it with long term strategy in mind (especially at the beginning) and that too would suggest surprisingly low price. It would be very strong position with global influence on camera market (more or less most segments), an unpleasant find for some manufactures and a challenge for others. Big sensor in compact bodies is one of the best alternatives we can be given. And the hardest to make manufactures do. More options. Obviously, the camera market is still just taking shape in structure.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
HSway
Senior Member
snip
Standards of sensor technology nikon/sony is using and was applied in d7000 onwards almost guarantee it.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
Oh I understand the want as it in is nice for them to be the same battery. Just never heard anyone say that the battery was going to be the deciding factor on a camera pick, it never has been from me.
this was the statement I was asking about.
But I can't buy an FX backup camera until I know which battery the new top of line DX camera uses
this was the statement I was asking about.
But I can't buy an FX backup camera until I know which battery the new top of line DX camera uses
MichaelEchos
Well-known member
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
+1 Lots of people have been complaining that higher megapixels will cause more noise, cause more diffraction, cause more motion blur bla bla bla.
It tends to sit in the bag attached to my 300 2.8 VR, unless my primary body goes out for service. Hence I like to rotate batteries. When I was using a D2X for backup with the D300 I had two or three incidents when I really needed it and the battery was depleted.
--
Jim
--
Jim
yea, agree on most of that, mike. the versatility just gives more flexibility in composition quite often. regarding the wide end: i usually zoom in a little bit and create panos. this way i don't have to use the wide end (quality not too good) and don't actually miss any shots. i know, this is a compromise as well, but one i want to take while traveling. i am planning on buying some more primes or one pro zoom as well... not sure about which one though.
regards, tyler
regards, tyler
MichaelEchos
Well-known member
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
Nope, the D4, V1, J1 are all not Sony sensors.snip
Standards of sensor technology nikon/sony is using and was applied in d7000 onwards almost guarantee it.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
HSway
Senior Member
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Higher megapixels definitely cause more noise but the final image is not just what the sensor produces, even raw image is gone through some filtering.
Higher megapixels definitely cause more diffraction, or more correctly, diffraction starts showing at larger aperture. Here is a calculator, try to change the pixel count for the same sensor size and see what is happening with the apertures below.
Yes, higher megapixels can cause motion blur easier and it demands more stability to get the maximum resolution than lower megapixels. That is because less movement is needed to cross the pixel borders.
bobn2
Forum Pro
They don't cause more noise. In fact they cause less noise. They just record more detail in the naturally occurring noise in the structure of light, just as they record more detail in everything. It's not that there was any less noise with bigger pixels, they just can't see the detail.
That is simply not true. Diffraction starts to show at exactly the same f-number whatever the pixel size. Look here:
Same lens on D3 and D3X, in both cases the curve turns down (diffraction starts to show) at f/5.6
The 'crossing pixel borders' idea doesn't help you understand. Nothing will be aligned with pixels in any case, so there is no increased likelihood of 'crossing pixel borders'. All that happens is that more pixels records more resolution.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is quite possible to hand hold a high megapixel camera, for instance:
This is a 100% crop at 1/25 sec, 35mm, hand held.
--
Bob
MichaelEchos
Well-known member
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
I do agree that more megapixels means more motion blur at 100% resolution, but we don't immediately print/display larger just because we bought a camera with a higher resolution.They don't cause more noise. In fact they cause less noise. They just record more detail in the naturally occurring noise in the structure of light, just as they record more detail in everything. It's not that there was any less noise with bigger pixels, they just can't see the detail.
That is simply not true. Diffraction starts to show at exactly the same f-number whatever the pixel size. Look here:
Same lens on D3 and D3X, in both cases the curve turns down (diffraction starts to show) at f/5.6
The 'crossing pixel borders' idea doesn't help you understand. Nothing will be aligned with pixels in any case, so there is no increased likelihood of 'crossing pixel borders'. All that happens is that more pixels records more resolution.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is quite possible to hand hold a high megapixel camera, for instance:
This is a 100% crop at 1/25 sec, 35mm, hand held.
--
Bob
bobn2
Forum Pro
I think we are agreed. However, the point I was making is that it's quite possible to hand hold a D800 without serious shake blur.I do agree that more megapixels means more motion blur at 100% resolution, but we don't immediately print/display larger just because we bought a camera with a higher resolution.They don't cause more noise. In fact they cause less noise. They just record more detail in the naturally occurring noise in the structure of light, just as they record more detail in everything. It's not that there was any less noise with bigger pixels, they just can't see the detail.
That is simply not true. Diffraction starts to show at exactly the same f-number whatever the pixel size. Look here:
Same lens on D3 and D3X, in both cases the curve turns down (diffraction starts to show) at f/5.6
The 'crossing pixel borders' idea doesn't help you understand. Nothing will be aligned with pixels in any case, so there is no increased likelihood of 'crossing pixel borders'. All that happens is that more pixels records more resolution.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is quite possible to hand hold a high megapixel camera, for instance:
This is a 100% crop at 1/25 sec, 35mm, hand held.
--
Bob
--
Bob
HSway
Senior Member
As for the popular diffraction topic, it is interesting in the periphery of the frame generally – and specifically for those interested in high dof field, as are the sensor - lens - interactions and differences or exceptions if we like that we can find (the periphery). Luckily there is an easy answer if interest to anything we need to know and that in fraction of time of some lengthy discussions on the web.
-Not like they bring no benefit or don’t contribute to the knowledge and practice as well, again, depends, they mostly do and to a great degree – I am better adding as people are used to have that tendency of thinking in two poles way – negative/positive – as if their mind was a switch. - not only you read here.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
-Not like they bring no benefit or don’t contribute to the knowledge and practice as well, again, depends, they mostly do and to a great degree – I am better adding as people are used to have that tendency of thinking in two poles way – negative/positive – as if their mind was a switch. - not only you read here.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
HSway
Senior Member
It seems you mean here in mutual agreement that there is no more motion blur with more pixels but that if you enlarge the image much more you see the motion blur better? Well if for example a chimpanzee needs to see a stick better (looking for ants) he also brings it closer to see it better. So that would be four of us – in agreement.
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
Hynek
--
http://www.sunwaysite.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum