Yikes! The rumored Nikon D800.

Started Oct 5, 2011 | Discussions
A Owens Veteran Member • Posts: 3,377
Re: A few favorites:
1

canes wrote:

Could you possibly post 50 more pictures? I didnt get get quite annoyed enough scrolling through all those...

Really? I do not understand that. There are some seriously good images in that lot.

A Owens Veteran Member • Posts: 3,377
Re: A few favorites:

Great Bustard wrote:

joger wrote:

I want to get better photos than I'm currently getting and to be able to expand the range of circumstances where I can capture a photo.

so your equipment is taking the pictures and not you

Absolutely.

just a quick one

Sure -- I'm all for quickies.

you can either climb a mountain (which I don't do because I am deeply unfit) or you can drive with your car to the top and have a cappuccino instead

doe it make a difference - of course!! One time you do it with a good pair of shoes and one time you do it with a good set of tires

I agree with the lenses - for the rest I am lost - please post some of your best images and give me an idea which quality level we are talking about?

Tough to choose, but here are a few favorites:

Some lovely images there Joe. Keep them coming!

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 60,932
Re: Yikes! The rumored Nikon D800.

orpheo wrote:

Hm, interesting.

Now I wonder:

  • Why would Nikon not put more of these more efficient pixels on the D3s' sensor two years ago - or lately the D7000's sensor - if pixel size doesn't matter, resolution is so utterly important and/or sells so well?

There are at least two reasons. First, the source of the pixels is different, d3s is Nikon, D7000 is Sony. Second, the pixel count of the D3s was limited by the EXPEED processor - they could have doubled the pixel count, but then it would have been a 4.5FPS camera, and wouldn't have competed in its intended marketplace.

As it was, putting this excellently efficient sensor in the existing D3 allowed Nikon to build a 'mid life kicker' which stole much of the 1DIV's thunder.

  • And only two years after the D3s it's supposedly possible to triple the pixel-count without losses?

The pixel size of the D3s was way above what was needed for that technology, it was dictated by the speed consideration, above. The Nikon 1 series has pixels with 1/4 of the area and much the same performance.

I know, you didn't actually say that, but the way you argue, that seems to be the conclusion to me.

One possible conclusion, not necessarily the right one.

Propably you do have access to more information and/or know better how to interpret it, but all I can see so far is, that comparing raw-files of roughly the same generation of equally sized sensors, better low-light performance always goes along with bigger pixels.

Give an example - I doubt you'll actually find one,

Based on that, my conclusion is, a 36MP-FF-Sensor the likes of the one used in the D7000 wouldn't even come close to the low-light-performance of a D3s. So how much progress is possible in one year with basicly the same sensor type? My optimistic guess would be: 24MP max to keep the level of the D700.

Simply, your conclusion is wrong and based on a false observation. Your guess is pessimistic. We can accurately predict the performance of the three sensors from the measurements DxO has made of the pixels.
D700 pixel has 38% quantum efficiency and 5.3 e- read noise
D3s pixel has 57% quantum efficiency and 2.8 e- read noise
D7000 pixel has 48% quantum efficiency and 2.5 e- read noise (4.3 e- at 12MP FX)
So for the same exposure, the photoelectrons collected compared to D3s, will be

D7000 FX 0.84x, giving a highlight/mid-tone noise of 1.1x, basically 0.25 stop worse.

D700 0.66x, giving a highlight/mid tone noise of 1.25x, basically 0.6 stop worse
In the shadows, again based on the D3s we'd get

D7000 FX, noise is 1.54x, D700 noise is 1.9x. One way of looking at the combined effects is 'tonal range', as defined by DxO. In this case we get, at 25k ISO
D3s - 5.5 bits
D7000 FX - 5.1 bits
D700 - 5.09 bits
Thus this will be a little better than the D700, a bit behind the D3s.
This is based on measurements and analysis.

-- hide signature --

Bob

rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,859
Re: Doesn't that out-resolve many lenses?

Great Bustard wrote:

Dylthedog wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

The rumor is a 4FPS camera with a 36MP Sony Exmor FX sensor using the D7000 pixel design. I hope Canon will compete well with the 5D3, 'cause I can't afford to switch, I like my lenses, and that sensor is pretty much exactly what the doctor ordered (along with Nikon's famous AF).

That's quite a jump in MP - won't that stretch the glass in use whether it's the (rumoured) Nikon or a new Canon?

If it does it will be interesting to see where things go next, the MP will finally be over

More pixels will always resolve more detail, but the Law of Diminsihing returns will affect different lenses differently.

Getting right to the point, a FF version of the 7D sensor would be 46 MP. So, however well FF lenses fare on the 7D is how well they'd fare on a 46 MP FF sensor.

What about corners in terms of detail/distortion? A good FF lens on 7D may not be as good on the FF 46MP sensor. CA also affects corners the most. Nikon realized that quickly with the 70-200 when they released the D3.

Of course, all that depends if you are actually going to print the images larger, but that's the point of having more pixels. no?
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Peter 13 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,301
Re: Doesn't that out-resolve many lenses?

rhlpetrus wrote:

What about corners in terms of detail/distortion? A good FF lens on 7D may not be as good on the FF 46MP sensor. CA also affects corners the most.

With very few exceptions (the 17-40 wide open at 17mm), a good FF lens is better on FF even at the corners , in terms of resolution and CA. And, of course, more mp cannot make it worse.

Of course, all that depends if you are actually going to print the images larger, but that's the point of having more pixels. no?

Not necessarily. We get more detail that can be traded for better NR, for example. Also, a weaker AA filter.

Keith Reeder Veteran Member • Posts: 3,725
A clue from the posting rules...

Posting many pictures - Do not post more than 10 pictures in one message , instead post a link to a gallery. Posting several messages with just one image in each in a short period will be treated as SPAM - it will be deleted. Please do not litter the hardware related forums with galleries - post them in the Samples and Galleries or photo technique forums instead.

Just so you know...

x-vision
x-vision Senior Member • Posts: 1,227
Re: Yikes! The rumored Nikon D800.

sparkling elk wrote:

isn't there really no advantage of larger pixels over smaller ones concerning realisation of best IQ from lowest to highest iso ?

Sure there is: larger pixels have better low-light ability and larger dymamic range than smaller pixels (which, of course, come at the expense of resolution).

Here's a recent article on the subject:

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2011/10/small-pixels-and-machine-vision.html

And here's a quote from the author of the Image Sensors blog, posted as a comment to the article (emphasis is mine):

  • One trade-off in 4T pixel design is between the read noise and the full well ...

The people who argue that more pixels is always better are the same ones who don't understand the inherent trade-off between resolution and low-light ability/DR.

OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Debunking the myth

x-vision wrote:

isn't there really no advantage of larger pixels over smaller ones concerning realisation of best IQ from lowest to highest iso ?

Sure there is: larger pixels have better low-light ability and larger dymamic range than smaller pixels (which, of course, come at the expense of resolution).

Here's a recent article on the subject:

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2011/10/small-pixels-and-machine-vision.html

And here's a quote from the author of the Image Sensors blog, posted as a comment to the article (emphasis is mine):

  • One trade-off in 4T pixel design is between the read noise and the full well ...

The people who argue that more pixels is always better are the same ones who don't understand the inherent trade-off between resolution and low-light ability/DR.

Note the very first reply to the article you linked by Daniel Browning. He goes into more detail why this is wrong in the most bookmarked post in the Open Talk Forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32064270

The simply fact of the matter is that large pixels have no IQ advantage whatsoever over small pixels, and, in fact, quite the opposite. This has be demonstrated with actual photos time and time again:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=37549285

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=37714016

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=39133368

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39400872

The reason people think larger pixels give better IQ, is because they compare, for example, one 2x2 pixel against one 1x1 pixel, rather than one 2x2 pixel against four 1x1 pixels.

This failure to compare at the same enlargement results in completely incorrect conclusions and perpetuates the myth that larger pixels are "better".

OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Re: A few favorites:

joger wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

there's still a lot I would like in terms of operation (ISOless UI with new AE modes to support it, sensor IS, auto-bracketing and merging with a single press of the shutter release, etc., etc., etc.).

we talked about image quality (and in my case printability) and not about operation and the position of this or that button - or did we?

Indeed. The discussion was about IQ, not operation. Just thought I'd throw operation in there.

Of course many buttons and functions could get an overhauling for better ergonomic usability and some companies show that exactly these aspects can be the USP. BUT in terms of cameras I am used to get it in some way (switched from Nikon to Canon three years ago) and had the fear that I will be lost in searching for the right handling being used to the other brand - in fact I am doing the same things but only better compare to Nikon

Since the aperture ring was skipped by Nikon I really see no handling advantage at Nikon just a different way of handling with no advantage for one brand over the other - having said that - I'd like to get more the feeling of my large format equipment and less AF (or none) and more manual operation

I very much like the operation of my 5D, but would like better AF, less shutter lag, and, especially, a good Auto ISO (or, preferable, an ISOless UI with an ISOless sensor).

For images like these:

all done from tripod with MLU and remote firing plus TS-E 17 fully shift and stitched with 5D II resulting in some 35 MPixel final size

I think Canon's TSE lenses are a good reason to stay with Canon, for people who do that kind of photography. Nice examples, by the way!

Dylthedog Contributing Member • Posts: 859
Re: Doesn't that out-resolve many lenses?

RedFox88 wrote:

Dylthedog wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

The rumor is a 4FPS camera with a 36MP Sony Exmor FX sensor using the D7000 pixel design. I hope Canon will compete well with the 5D3, 'cause I can't afford to switch, I like my lenses, and that sensor is pretty much exactly what the doctor ordered (along with Nikon's famous AF).

That's quite a jump in MP - won't that stretch the glass in use whether it's the (rumoured) Nikon or a new Canon?

About 2 or 3 years ago Canon produced a prototype 52 MP aps-h b+w image sensor and Summer 2010 they made a press release about a 120 MP aps-h sensor. 'nuff said.

Just because they can make that kind of sensor doesn't mean they have a lens that out-resolves it. A small but important point

 Dylthedog's gear list:Dylthedog's gear list
Sony RX1R II Olympus PEN-F Sony a7R III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +8 more
Dylthedog Contributing Member • Posts: 859
Re: Doesn't that out-resolve many lenses?

Great Bustard wrote:

More pixels will always resolve more detail, but the Law of Diminsihing returns will affect different lenses differently.

More pixels will never resolve more than the lens can: if you think otherwise I'd love to be educated as to how.

I agree that the closer the MP gets to the ultimate resolving power of the lens you do get diminishing returns, but that's the same for everything. Sensible people stop spending when they can't tell the difference any more.

 Dylthedog's gear list:Dylthedog's gear list
Sony RX1R II Olympus PEN-F Sony a7R III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +8 more
sparkling elk
sparkling elk Contributing Member • Posts: 829
Re: Yikes! The rumored Nikon D800.

x-vision wrote:

sparkling elk wrote:

isn't there really no advantage of larger pixels over smaller ones concerning realisation of best IQ from lowest to highest iso ?

Sure there is: larger pixels have better low-light ability and larger dymamic range than smaller pixels (which, of course, come at the expense of resolution).

Here's a recent article on the subject:

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2011/10/small-pixels-and-machine-vision.html

then i take the "fixed pixel count position" and vote for 2x mp on FF.
thanks relating that blog.

And here's a quote from the author of the Image Sensors blog, posted as a comment to the article (emphasis is mine):

  • One trade-off in 4T pixel design is between the read noise and the full well ...

The people who argue that more pixels is always better are the same ones who don't understand the inherent trade-off between resolution and low-light ability/DR.

 sparkling elk's gear list:sparkling elk's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
Dylthedog Contributing Member • Posts: 859
What happened to the Nyquist Frequency?

Great Bustard wrote:

Getting right to the point, a FF version of the 7D sensor would be 46 MP. So, however well FF lenses fare on the 7D is how well they'd fare on a 46 MP FF sensor.

DPR used to show lens reviews with the Nyquist Frequency marked and sited the 1DsIII as the sensor resolving benchmark; from memory many lenses only out-resolved it in the centre. Moving to 36MP I can see only a few lenses hitting that mark in the very sweetest of spots.

Maybe I missed something because it's no longer marked on the reviews; was proven to be incorrect?

 Dylthedog's gear list:Dylthedog's gear list
Sony RX1R II Olympus PEN-F Sony a7R III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +8 more
Peter 13 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,301
Re: Doesn't that out-resolve many lenses?

Dylthedog wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

More pixels will always resolve more detail, but the Law of Diminsihing returns will affect different lenses differently.

More pixels will never resolve more than the lens can: if you think otherwise I'd love to be educated as to how.

Make that more pixels will always resolve more than the lens can , and it will be correct.

I agree that the closer the MP gets to the ultimate resolving power of the lens you do get diminishing returns, but that's the same for everything.

Resolution of a lens is not measured in pixels. The notion of a "sensor outresolving a lens" is nonsense.

Peter 13 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,301
Re: What happened to the Nyquist Frequency?

Dylthedog wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Getting right to the point, a FF version of the 7D sensor would be 46 MP. So, however well FF lenses fare on the 7D is how well they'd fare on a 46 MP FF sensor.

DPR used to show lens reviews with the Nyquist Frequency marked and sited the 1DsIII as the sensor resolving benchmark; from memory many lenses only out-resolved it in the centre. Moving to 36MP I can see only a few lenses hitting that mark in the very sweetest of spots.

Every single lens tested on PZ, everywhere (even the 17-40 wide open in the corners, as far as I remember) shows improvement from 8mp crop (the 1Ds3 pixel density) to 15mp (about 33 mp on FF). This improvement is about 20-30% in the PZ metric.

OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Re: Doesn't that out-resolve many lenses?

Dylthedog wrote:

More pixels will always resolve more detail, but the Law of Diminsihing returns will affect different lenses differently.

More pixels will never resolve more than the lens can: if you think otherwise I'd love to be educated as to how.

Of course not. What makes you think I believe otherwise? But I'd like to know why you feel that current pixel counts are near the limits of what lenses can resolve.

I agree that the closer the MP gets to the ultimate resolving power of the lens you do get diminishing returns, but that's the same for everything. Sensible people stop spending when they can't tell the difference any more.

Absolutely. In fact, in my post above:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=39529735

I explain the appeal of the D800 in exactly those terms: such a camera is probably at the point where I, personally, would not care about, or be able to make effective use of, better still.

OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,852
Answer:

Dylthedog wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Getting right to the point, a FF version of the 7D sensor would be 46 MP. So, however well FF lenses fare on the 7D is how well they'd fare on a 46 MP FF sensor.

DPR used to show lens reviews with the Nyquist Frequency marked and sited the 1DsIII as the sensor resolving benchmark; from memory many lenses only out-resolved it in the centre. Moving to 36MP I can see only a few lenses hitting that mark in the very sweetest of spots.

Maybe I missed something because it's no longer marked on the reviews; was proven to be incorrect?

Here ya go:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=36731028

Dylthedog Contributing Member • Posts: 859
Re: Answer:

Great Bustard wrote:

Dylthedog wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Getting right to the point, a FF version of the 7D sensor would be 46 MP. So, however well FF lenses fare on the 7D is how well they'd fare on a 46 MP FF sensor.

DPR used to show lens reviews with the Nyquist Frequency marked and sited the 1DsIII as the sensor resolving benchmark; from memory many lenses only out-resolved it in the centre. Moving to 36MP I can see only a few lenses hitting that mark in the very sweetest of spots.

Maybe I missed something because it's no longer marked on the reviews; was proven to be incorrect?

Here ya go:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=36731028

LOL - I sure did miss that

Explains my earlier post!

 Dylthedog's gear list:Dylthedog's gear list
Sony RX1R II Olympus PEN-F Sony a7R III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +8 more
expro Senior Member • Posts: 1,687
Re: Yikes! The rumored Nikon D800.

maybe a quick pop over to the Nikon forum will bring you all back to reality!

grass is greener ....etc.....

 expro's gear list:expro's gear list
Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +10 more
Dylthedog Contributing Member • Posts: 859
Re: Doesn't that out-resolve many lenses?

Peter 13 wrote:

Dylthedog wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

More pixels will always resolve more detail, but the Law of Diminsihing returns will affect different lenses differently.

More pixels will never resolve more than the lens can: if you think otherwise I'd love to be educated as to how.

Make that more pixels will always resolve more than the lens can , and it will be correct.

LOL - you got me!

Of course a sensor can out-resolve a lens, what I meant was that an image thrown by a given lens has a cut-off point where more pixels will not produce more perceived definition. I should have been clearer.

I agree that the closer the MP gets to the ultimate resolving power of the lens you do get diminishing returns, but that's the same for everything.

Resolution of a lens is not measured in pixels. The notion of a "sensor outresolving a lens" is nonsense.

I disagree - analogue vs. digital produces representations that can be observed if not measured with the same units. Subjective, of course. As I said above, there comes a point where pixel density adds nothing to the analogue image being thrown on it.

Besides, above you said that a more pixels can out-resolve a lens. Make your mind up!

 Dylthedog's gear list:Dylthedog's gear list
Sony RX1R II Olympus PEN-F Sony a7R III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads