They managed to tweak out quite a bit over the D7k sensor with D7100. Well, not Sony, but Toshiba. Though, I would certainly expect Sony to improve too, seeing that their sensors evolved with every new generation. No reason why that should stop now.
Yes!
I would suggest that any 16mp DX camera that was dedicated to sports/action shooting would sell much better than their current action camera offering.
No, no reason to stop at all.
History is replete with naysayers about the limits of science. When they hit the limits, maybe that is the time to be satisfied, but certainly not before.
Sorry Kerry but managers can't sucessfullt tell engineers to break the laws of physics.
Nobody is asking them to do that. What I said was that they certainly improved the d3s sensor, over the d3 and that, IMO, they could have done something similar with the d7k sensor.
I seem to be missing your point. I shoot with a 10mp, Nikon D200 camera now with a slow lens and a low iso camera. Probably many of us do. Thats just the way it is. I manage those parameters pretty well and shoot a lot of BIFS. (See gallery) But I would still like to have 3x as many pixels thus giving me more reach through cropping , without having to use a heavy lens. Seems like a great feature to me. The dx format makes the 300 into a 450 and the 400 becomes 600 and I am often at full 100% crop, so I could crop less or have even longer reach than that. Yes if I used a 2.8 or an f4 I could get another stop or two of shutter speed as well. For me photography has to be fun so I even find the wonderful 80-400 to be somewhat burdensome. So I guess the guys over in nature and wildlife or sports and action would be more excited by the 32MP. BTW you can get a 2 terabyte HD for about $129 for external storage and back-up.
I understand. I have two of those D200, which I still use because I do not have a D400 yet
I have 4 x 2 TB drives in my main computer, and two RAID NAS boxes with 2 x 2 TB drives each on my lan, for backup
Me too. But Nikon chose not to??
Now I didn't say that! :-D
Wow.... ;-) Makes my lil computer with 1 X 1 TB & 1 X 500 GiG drive & couple 250 Gig external backup drives seem minute... ;-)n057 wrote:
I have 4 x 2 TB drives in my main computer, and two RAID NAS boxes with 2 x 2 TB drives each on my lan, for backup
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
Kerry Pierce wrote:
They managed to tweak about another stop out of the d3 sensor, to make the d3s. IMO, they could have done something similar with the d7k sensor, if they really wanted to.
Depends on what you're shooting. For sports, I don't worry about color fidelity. Try shooting a hockey game that is lighted with those goofy lights that change colors with the fluctuation of the AC power. Florescent lights are bad, see this link, but there are others, such as Mercury Vapor lights, which are far worse.
How about having red, white and blue tints in the same photo, like this one in Mercury Vapor lighting? It's very common in the indoor arenas that I see.
Yes. I'd really love to see another pairing like I have with the d300/d700. I like my d800, but it's not a sports/action camera.
Kerry
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
I was referring to them putting a tweaked version of that sensor into a d400. That is something that they could have easily done, perhaps concurrently with the development of the d7k.
That may well be. I have read that we are relatively close to the theoretical limits of performance from the current DX sensors. But, AFAIK, that doesn't account for things like binning or other technological tricks that may be employed.
Yes, I believe that the d1 was actually a 10mp sensor. I don't know how they'd go about doing that today, but I assume that they could improve noise performance by binning.
Okay.
Yes, of course you're right, but that isn't the only problem. The exposure in the red area is about 1/2 to 2/3 a stop darker than the brightest area of the ice. It makes full ice shots like this impossible to take. You must shoot lower shutter speeds and everything as isolated as possible, to get the exposure and the colors somewhat close to correct and to a point that you can fix them in post. You can easily see the difference in the 2 players that are at mid-ice, on the fringes of the white/red toned area, to the closest players in the full red tone.ranalli wrote:
My lord, that looks hideous with those color shifts. Ruins an otherwise good photo.Kerry Pierce wrote:
How about having red, white and blue tints in the same photo, like this one in Mercury Vapor lighting? It's very common in the indoor arenas that I see.
Bajerunner wrote:
Wow.... ;-) Makes my lil computer with 1 X 1 TB & 1 X 500 GiG drive & couple 250 Gig external backup drives seem minute... ;-)n057 wrote:
I have 4 x 2 TB drives in my main computer, and two RAID NAS boxes with 2 x 2 TB drives each on my lan, for backup
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
However, what is the recommended 'final' file version to keep , JPEG at what resolution ?
Some of you also keep NEF's and I agree for important photos but is it necessary for all?
Finally, why do TIFF's explode so much compared to NEF's? I would prefer to keep TIFF's if I was keeping a second format besides the final JPEG, because it would have my initial RAW conversion.
But the TIFF's are large...even from the D300.
Thanks!
not trying to be harsh..how much cropping do you plan on doing?..you may need to invest in longer lenses..fair to say that most photogs here dont crop heavily..just asking
Kerry,
