Hi!

Just wonder if 12mpix FX sensor is enough for shooting details?
I would switch from D300 which have smaller photosides and that means that pixels are smaller on the same size of the sensor - more small details?!

For how big print that I will not notice difference between D3/d700 and for example 1Ds III which is 24mpix?

I would like to update but I really think that ideal FX camera with good control of noise would be arround 16mpix.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Cayzi

I have read that you can't tell the difference at 24"X 30" but even if there was a tiny bit of difference I think the five thousand dollar price difference would cause me to lean toward the D3/700.

Regards,

Don Kesler

http://www.donaldkesler.com

Through the judicious use of adjustment layers, no pixels were actually harmed in the processing of my shots..

>I would switch from D300 which have smaller photosides and
>that means that pixels are smaller on the same size of the
>sensor - more small details?!

That's only true when using the same lens on both cameras. If you use (say) a 24mm lens on a D300 and a 36mm lens on a D700, the angle of view, resolution and level of detail recorded will be the same.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I have gorgeously detailed 24"x36" prints made from shots taken with my D300. When viewed from normal distances for that size of print (you need to be far enough away to take the whole thing in with normal vision), sharpness, fine detail and everything else is professionally salable. 12 megapixels is more than enough for all practical intents and purposes when doing output at 300dpi.

If someone is shooting large landscapes or fashion for reproduction at line screens of 2400 and higher, medium format is the only way to go.

So my view and experience is that at 12 megapixels, full frame, Nikon has found the ideal blend of resolution for print coupled with excellent low noise/high ISO performance. I pulled a shot off my D3 (looking past the spire of Westminster Abbey toward the HP/Big Ben) taken at 9:45 PM on June 30. It's a nice shot of both the spire and Big Ben mainly, framed by trees, shot while standing on the corner of Great Smith & Victoria Street, with a cloudless pale sky in the upper background. Shot with the D300 at ISO1600, it's a decent shot, but printing at large sizes is going to reveal the noise and Noise Ninja hurts the focus. But the same shot with the D3 at 3200 is just superb. There's no reason to think that the D700 won't do just as well.

My point is that once you get past about 10 megapixels, it's no longer megapixels that count most of the time. Noise, color accuracy, contrast control and dynamic range become far more important factors.

More megapixels don't fix or ameliorate noise problems. More megapixels don't improve dynamic range. And since 12 megapixels already provides an incredible amount of detail, critical shooting at very large viewing or output sizes should probably best be done in medium format.

I read somewhere (Rockwell's blog maybe?) that between 20-24 megapixels (depending on the quality of the lens being used), most currently available 35mm glass is no longer effectively usable because these powerful sensors begin recording actual flaws in the glass itself.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Well said, Howard. I do shoot in low light often, and I do have to shoot wide subjects from a short distance, so I am excited about using the FX format. As an aside, am I the only one that subscribes to the notion that bodies come and go, get the best lenses that you can afford. When I add up what I've spent, the price of a new body (even a new D700) is just a fraction of what I have spent on my lenses. Something as basic as a good tripod and ball head can easily be over $1000. AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH...when does it end?

Well said yourself . . . and it NEVER ends. We're all doomed.

During the 35mm film days, we often used the same camera body for many, many years before moving up. Even then, purchase of top quality glass outlived many bodies. I've owned and used my 80-200 for at least two decades. It's been serviced three times by Nikon over the years and remains as sharp as ever. I've got a lot of glass like that and so do many others. You too I guess?

My father-in-law has been using the same, heavy pig of a Manfrotto tripod for more than twenty years. He's an excellent photographer. He used an MGR/MGCR(?) series Manfrotto head for a very long time and only recently upgraded to a Kirk ballhead. Meanwhile, I've gone through five tripods (at least) and countless heads during the same time period. Dopey me - and my photography only improved as my eye improved. Nothing to do with the stupid tripods and heads.

FX in low light/high ISO situations is a revelation. My D3 opened up photo ops I'd been looking trying to get for years. The D700 which I just picked up makes it easier for me to do much of what the D3 does but with a much lighter load on long urban walkabouts.

Anyway, my point is that after 10 megapixels, top quality DX and full frame 35mm-equivalent photography has more to do with composition and lighting than anything else. I think we've reached the point where megapixels are simply not the deciding quality factor anymore.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

The pixel density of the D700 is substantially less than that of the D300. Essentially, the pixel density of the D700 is 5000 as compared to the D300. For a comparable pixel density, the D700 should have near 20MP resolution since its sensor is nearly 3x the size of the D300.



This does not mean that the D700 can't provide great photos.

>The pixel density of the D700 is substantially less than that
>of the D300. Essentially, the pixel density of the D700 is
>5000 as compared to the D300. For a comparable
>pixel density, the D700 should have near 20MP resolution since
>its sensor is nearly 3x the size of the D300.
>

It's a good thing that the D700 does not have the same pixel density of the D300, or--everything else being equal--we would logically have more noise at any given ISO...and lower quality, especially at higher ISOs, no?

Imagine dealing with a 20MP image with more noise and poorer quality. No thank you.

Heck, why not advocate a 10-12 MP sensor from a point-and-shoot? Those are even more dense, no? Those sensors are far tinier, deliver more noise, poorer quality, and have even more limited high ISO choices, correct?

>Heck, why not advocate a 10-12 MP sensor from a
>point-and-shoot? Those are even more dense, no? Those sensors
>are far tinier, deliver more noise, poorer quality, and have
>even more limited high ISO choices, correct?

Ok, so to have more details it is not just in more mpix thing. Things are connected to each other. More mpix mean more noise at high iso which destroy details , etc..

What about low iso then? Low iso = less noise = more details?

Kind regards,
Cayzi

>Ok, so to have more details it is not just in more mpix thing.
>Things are connected to each other. More mpix mean more noise
>at high iso which destroy details , etc..
>
>What about low iso then? Low iso = less noise = more details?

A certain number of megapixels (10-12) is needed in a certain size sensor (FX, DX/APS-C, Four-Thirds), combined with a certain type and level of color accuracy, and whole range of other controls, all processed by a CPU capable of handling the data load presented by the interdependent features and functions applied by the designers and engineers of the camera, in order to achieve a specified quality level.

10-12 megapixels, given the high quality of sensor designs today, provide data capture which records detail sufficiently fine to satisfy the vast majority of 35mm photographers. That's the baseline. That's why we're no longer seeing large increases in pixel density as new models are released. All technology incorporates practical limits - that is, limits beyond which it is no longer cost effective to do the engineering needed to, say, achieve higher pixel density and lower noise on a given size CMOS sensor. When the engineers bump their heads on that sort of ceiling, the next step has to be a larger form factor, but even then there's still a large cost increase.

Once again though, it's not a matter of capturing more objective photographic detail, but rather a matter of improving the clarity, visibility, and editability of existing capturable details by reducing noise, improving color accuracy and other things in order to create a piece of hardware capable of producing better quality photos containing subjectively greater detail.

Your equation is much too simple to be of use in your own photography. Every good camera and every objectively good photographic composition incorporates innumerable considerations before the shutter is pressed. If creating a good camera and a good, detailed photo was as simple as your equation, I think everyone would already be doing it.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>That's why we're no longer seeing large
>increases in pixel density as new models are released.

Canon 1ds III maybe?

Kind regards,
Cayzi

>Canon 1ds III maybe?

The 1Ds MkIII is 21.1MP; the Mk II was 16.7MP. That's not a huge increase (about 26%), especially given the 3 year manufacturing period of the Mk II.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

. For a comparable
>pixel density, the D700 should have near 20MP resolution since
>its sensor is nearly 3x the size of the D300.

I believe that it would need almost 30MP to have the same pixel density since the DX sensor is about 40% the size of the FX sensor.

Jay Newmark
A Chicago Nikonian

>The pixel density of the D700 is substantially less than that
>of the D300. Essentially, the pixel density of the D700 is
>5000 as compared to the D300. For a comparable
>pixel density, the D700 should have near 20MP resolution since
>its sensor is nearly 3x the size of the D300.
>
>
>
>This does not mean that the D700 can't provide great photos.

Agree, but since D300 have more pixel density on same size as D700 that means that you have more pixels on that area , meaning more details?

It is not a topic of mpix war or something I would just like to understand some things.

Kind regards,
Cayzi

>Agree, but since D300 have more pixel density on same size as
>D700 that means that you have more pixels on that area ,
>meaning more details?
>
>It is not a topic of mpix war or something I would just like
>to understand some things.

Read a technical paper on the matter:

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

There are four parts to this article and after reading all four you should have a clear understanding of what various sensors of various sizes and densities can do given current engineering standards.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm
>
>There are four parts to this article and after reading all
>four you should have a clear understanding of what various
>sensors of various sizes and densities can do given current
>engineering standards.

I did read it but this article is not connected to the current engineering standards as you wrote.

Why would be 12mpix a max standard for FX camera. As article says maybe this it the best resolution for handling details and noise control. But for getting more details I guess more mpix is the answer here - logical.

My question was as follows is 12mpix enough on FX to print what A4 picture or bigger?

Kind regards,
Cayzi

>My question was as follows is 12mpix enough on FX to print
>what A4 picture or bigger?

Bigger.

However, the physical sensor size is really irrelevant to your question, and this has led to some of the confusion in this thread, I think. As far as possible print sizes go, it's mostly the number of pixels that counts, not the area over which they are spread.

Most people find that a 12MP FX D3 will produce a good print of at least A3 size with no trouble at all. But then, so will a 12MP FX D700, and a 12MP DX D300

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

>My question was as follows is 12mpix enough on FX to print
>what A4 picture or bigger?

A4? That's your question? Absolutely! I print gorgeously detailed 12mp originals at 24" x 36" and so do thousands of other photographers. A4 is only 8.25" x 11.25" so go print whatever you want from a cropped 12mp original. If you know your final printed output is going to be large, shoot tight rather than loose so you don't loose print size later due to excessive cropping of all sorts of junk that shouldn't have been in the composition in the first place.

For most intents and purposes, good composition solves a lot of problems and makes a lot of considerations about megapixels completely irrelevant.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

I don't know what you mean by "...the D700 is 5000 as compared to the D300...", but in case it helps to answer the original question let's get our figures straight...

The D700 sensor has an area just under 2.31 times the area of a D300 sensor. To have the same pixel density, the D700 would need to be a 28.38 MP camera.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

I had $7K put away for the rumored 24MP D3x that I thought would be announced in 2nd quarter 2008 and hasn't yet. I must say that the D700 completely suprised me. I'm too busy right now to used the cameras and lenses I have already, but I'm going to get a D700 within 3 months to have a small, light D3. I decided that I'd use it more than a 24MP camera. It's a matter of useful resolution and getting the most GOOD pictures.

The problem with a 24MP camera is that MOST people will never take advantage of it and would be better off maybe with a high MP medium format. My logic is as follows.

First, you MUST use any 24MP on a VERY good tripod and head or be in a studio with almost blinding flash. Your certainly not going to get more detail than with a D3's 12MP. Motion blur will wipe out the detail in the extra MP's and all you are doing is increasing your processing time. If you want more detail, ALWAYS shoot from a good tripod with anything over about 6MP and probably even there. I try to always shoot from a tripod with shutter delay on now when it is at all practical. It's just not always practical.

Second, you are going to have to stop down to F8 to F14 or you will not see the extra resolution because of lens limitations with even the best 35mm glass, under most conditions. .

If your predominately a studio photographer or a landscape photographer then maybe 24MP make sense. But even the landscape photographer could just take two rows of 3 pictures each with the D3 and stitch it together for even better resolution.

Right now the camera that will give me the most resolution in many shooting situation is NOT the D3, but the D300 because it allows me to put more megapixel on the subject I want with a given lens because of the DX crop factor. But, most of the time, when I'm NOT pushing the limits of a telephoto lens, the best sharpness or resolution is the D3 because the large photosites let me bump up the ISO without significant noise when I'm handholding or there is a moving subject

More MP usually DOESN'T mean more detail, unless you can meet all the other conditions that it requires. MOST of the time what limits the resolution of your photo is how many kilo of gear you can carry.




D3, D300, D2X & D200
New 14-24 F2.8 too!
If your not shooting Nikon your doing
it WRONG!

My Nikonians Gallery

The best part about a 24-MP Nikon DSLR will be if it drives down the prices of the 12-MP FX bodies.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

There was a professional photographer at my daughters graduation with a 24 MP Cannon. He usually shoots for magazines doing furniture, rooms and architectural shots. He said that the folks he worked for required 24 MP for cropping purposes. He lamented the lack of a 24 MP Nikon and allowed as how he had a huge investment in Nikkor lenses waiting for an appropriate camera.

Philip

>There was a professional photographer at my daughters
>graduation with a 24 MP Cannon. He usually shoots for
>magazines doing furniture, rooms and architectural shots. He
>said that the folks he worked for required 24 MP for cropping
>purposes.

It would seem far simpler just to get a bit closer

24Mp is fine for publishing types, but for my work 10Mp was ample and 12Mp simply makes even bigger files. However I need the low light performance.

There's an insticnt to say more is better; it's not always true.

John
www.blokewithacamera.co.uk

He did a lot of close ups of furniture in rooms with wide angles. Bottom line is it's how he makes his living and when the magazine(s) told him to submit 24 MP shots he did so.

PL

I think people would be surprised at what you can do with how little if only they'd try. I've done real estate in some of the higher-end markets (a business that is close to non-existent right now!), and a perfectly acceptable cover came out of a 6mp file. Inside pictures were easily published from quite small copies of the files - "small" meaning quarter page. Why did I try? Because I had to: I didn't have anything else. Later I ended up trying 4mp for those sorts of work, and that is plenty also.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

- at a D3 Nikon pre launch event I got good A2 print quality from the D3 on jpeg normal at 6400.
I understand the D700 has identical sensor quality and easily out perms the 5D at high ISO with a better fps, buffer and AF. This would seem to put the D700 at best in class
There are rumours about a D900 at Photokina which might if it comes be based on a Sony 22MP sensor.
One thing is for sure - if there is a D900 with more than 20 MP - it will cost more than a D700.

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd