Replacement for D1x?

gwprovost · Jul 2, 2004

Walter Freiberger said:
Within two or three months there will be the D2X to replace it.

What facts or deductions lead you to that statement?

Member said:
They are good enough for 98% of the DSLR market. Today, and with
improoved noise control even more for the future.

When DX sensors have improved noise control, so will larger sensors, which means they (the larger sensors) will still be more useful.

Member said:
They will deliver film-MF-quality very soon (hopefully with the D2X).

How many megapixels would you say it takes to get medium format quality? Most figures I read say that 35mm format film contains 20mp to 22mp of resolution, so medium format would of course contain quite a bit more. The chance of putting that much resolution on a DX sensor and having a reasonable signal/noise ratio is essentially zero, now and for the forseeable future. It's certainly not going to happen with the D2x within "two or three months." If Nikon could put a competitive 20mp on a D2x that soon, you'd have the 8mp D2x in your hands right now.

Member said:
If you don't agree buy Fuji, Kodak or Canon.

Good advice.

Rumle · Jul 8, 2004

robwalcott said:
robwalcott said:

prints even 20x30 prints looks fantastic!

Click to expand...

???

I shoot the d100 RAW, highest quality, and am never happy with
group pictures. Am I doing something wrong? I don't even like the
prints at 16x20 let alone 20x30 !?

I will have to disagree with you completely, but would (in all
seriousness) love to be proved wrong. Maybe there is such thing as
'magic megapixels' from the d2h?

Im here to learn and make better prints.

R.D. · Jul 8, 2004

My response does not relate to the topic of discussion. So my apologies in advance.

Peter,

Signal to noise ratio degradation is not linear. It is exponential. Therefore, beyond a point, the noise becomes so dominant that the sensor essentially becomes unusable.

Successive generations of technology have tried to overcome this limit by
1. Improving the microlenses
2. Improving the noise estimation and suppresion algorithms
3. Improving the sensitivity of the photo sites (#1 is a part of it)

Progress is possible on all three fronts. But, no matter what we do, we are always trying to achieve a compromise between resolution and noise performance. As an anology, look at deep sub-micron technology. Yes, dies are shrinking, but the leakage current is becoming prohibitively high (and there is no way around it).

The point I am trying to make is, there is only so much one can do before laws of physics catch up. In the example you quoted, if the pixel size is halved, you will get ISO 100 sensitivity but what about the noise performance? Will it be equivalent to the noise performance of the original sensor at ISO 200? All others being equal, it will be much worse.

It can be argued that all other factors will not be euqal since we will make advances on all the three fronts mentioned above. But still, it is a very difficult engineering problem to solve.

Regards
--
-R.D

Peter Herth said:
gwprovost wrote:

12 mp on DX would mean to halve pixel area compared to the D100 for
example. So instead iso 200 - 1600 you will get iso 100 - 800
sensitivity. Nothing for ultra low light, but definitely good for
most situations that typically require resolution.

Peter

.

robwalcott · Jul 29, 2004

Rumle said:
robwalcott said:

Rumle said:

prints even 20x30 prints looks fantastic!

Click to expand...

???

I shoot the d100 RAW, highest quality, and am never happy with
group pictures. Am I doing something wrong? I don't even like the
prints at 16x20 let alone 20x30 !?

I will have to disagree with you completely, but would (in all
seriousness) love to be proved wrong. Maybe there is such thing as
'magic megapixels' from the d2h?

Im here to learn and make better prints.

Click to expand...

DoF · Jul 29, 2004

no text

Search

Replacement for D1x?

gwprovost

Senior Member

Rumle

Senior Member

R.D.

Well-known member

robwalcott

Well-known member

DoF

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts