I'm holding out for something in the 48mp-56mp range with 8+fps and of course it has to be a full size body... And now to let my mind run free, it's time for bed... to sleep perchance to dream... the camera of my dreams... A Lytro with so many pixels that I can freeze the world with every press of the shutter... and then leisurely peruse the image composing and printing as I go!
Will shoot for fame...fun...food... a heck I'll shoot anytime anywhere.
I've been using the D3x for some years now, and the 24 Mp size is quite enough in my viewpoint. Most prints, books, are just perfect (if the picture is good )! After years of film, I find that it surpasses it in cleanliness and sharpness. Already the D700's 12 Mp was almost perfect for most uses, the 24Mp add just some crispness. The question was about Mps, not the quality of the sensor in such things as low light capacity, color fidelity, levels of shades between black and white, etc. In all these, new sensor progress can be interesting (and necessary), and surely more important then expanding the Mp !
I'm subject to NAS like most of us here, and of course I'd shoot 36mp (or more) if I had them. But realistically, I've had less than five circumstances in the past two years where I really needed more than 12mp. Granted that I haven't done much birding in the past couple of years, but on the other hand I've been making bigger prints too.
I've also come to realize that I'll almost certainly improve my results more by spending $3000 on workshops than if I spend $3000 on a D800e - and likely by a WIDE margin. It's pretty clear that I am the limiting factor in almost every aspect of my photography.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
What Brian said. Most of the digital shots I've taken that I really liked, some of which were printed quite nicely at 20x30 size, were taken with a D2X or a D3 -- 12-MP bodies. When I don't achieve the kind of results I want, it's not the camera that's the problem!
Well stated Brian. We are all quick to blame our equipment in many situations, even beyond photography, yet we are the real limitation. We just need to recognize and accept that fact, and strive to do better.
My D2X (12 MPix) made exposures that looked quite excellent blown up to 24" x 36" size. (Uncropped) That didn't stop me from springing for a D4 when I had the dough. The difference (for me) in the D4 was NOT the increase of Mpix (though that was nice), but the (slightly) improved AF speed to lock, and the MUCH improved low-light performance. I still like the performance of the D2X in sunlight, but when I go into the dim interiors, and ISO rises above 1600, the D4 has it hands down.
To be totally honest, 12mp would be enough for me. I have printed up to 20x30 and they look great. I wouldn't mind an increase to 16mp just for a little added leeway in cropping but I have zero interest in trying to deal with 36mp files.
I voted for 5.5MP. These days, most of my work is for a newspaper, and for that, 2MP is sufficient for 99.9% of the photos. But I also like to print 8x10s for portfolios, gallery shows, etc. Most of the time, the 2.7MP of the D1H is enough and interpolates/sharpens nicely at this output size. Sometimes, I want a little extra resolution for fine-detailed subjects, cropping, and/or a larger print.
But I'm probably shooting 2.7MP files more than half the time. I also shoot a D1x, which is 5.5MP. On my D200, when I shoot jpeg for newsprint/online publishing, 5.5MP is my most commonly selected jpeg resolution. When I need a bigger file, I tend to go all the way and select raw on the D200. But for things like sports and regular PJ work, I can clear the buffer faster at 5.5MP, and waste less time processing, storage space, etc.
I do want to upgrade to a 12MP FX camera, but not for MP...for low-light image quality. Of course, I would also feel better shooting at 12MP in the future than my current 2.7MP and 5.5MP sizes.
>Don't you wonder what the low-light capability would be if >Nikon made a ~6-MP camera using current sensor tech? >
It would be no better than what we get now, as long as you downsize the output to 6mpx.
There are only two sources of noise, Schott (or Shot) noise and read noise...
Schott noise is caused by the fundamental properties of light and is the major source of noise. Downsizing an image perfectly emulates a smaller sensor, in terms of Schott noise.
Read noise is caused by imperfect electronics. It is possible that fewer pixels might result in less read noise (per pixel) but I don't think there is any real world evidence of that in the current camera offerings. And consider that downsizing averages out read noise too, so even if the higher density sensor delivers more noise per pixel the aggregate (downsized to 6mpx) would not necessarily be worse.
For example, the D800 and D4 have link:http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D800,D4|very similar noise performance] when measured based on a standard output size. The D4 is ever slightly better than the D800 at high ISO's - but very slightly. The D800 is better at or near the base ISO where argualy noise doesn't really matter as much).
I'm solidly in the "12MP is enough" category. I've only once wished for more than the 16MP my D4 provides, and that was because I didn't have nearly a long enough lens for what I was shooting (the Venus transit, last year). If I'd had more warning on that one, I'd've looked into renting a 600mm, maybe with a teleconverter. As it was, I was stuck with 300mm, without any kind of converter.
When my only DSLR was a 6mp D50 I made several 20"x30" prints, and they look great. I made the first one just as an experiment to see how it would come out, and was so happy with it that I made more. Now, with my 12mp D300 I have more than enough mp. While the largest prints I have made are 20"x30" (except, see below), I rarely print that big, so for the most part I feel 12mp is more than enough (that's what I answered) and that 6mp is even enough. I still use the D50 because for many purposes, it will return results as good as my D300 (when the light is good, I know I won't print big, for example).
All of my 20"x30" prints were uncropped, so I can see that if I was cropping, I might want more mp. But it is rare for me to print that large anyway.
My largest print, from my 12mp D300, was 4 feet by 6 feet! I took a team photo of a high school basketball team and gave a jpg to the coach, and he had it blown up and put on the wall of the gym. I don't know how it was made, but I was amazed at how sharp and clear the photo was, even at that size, from 12mp. Despite occasional bouts of NAS for one reason or another, I never have mp envy, and am completely content with my 12mp.
At least 90% of my output (measured either from my digital introduction to date , or limited to the last year) is displayed on the computer only. I don't print much. I have only made two 20 x 30 prints and they were from my 3.3 MPx point & shoot camera. My shots go into websites, newsletters, and occasional publication. All limited size stuff.
Sure, I crop things and sometimes use all 16 MPx from my D4, but those shots fit comfortably into the remaining 10%.
My definition of 100% is only the keepers. I exclude the duds and OOF stuff and shots made by my finger brushing the release accidentally.
There are times when I'd like 36MPx or more, but those times are rare, significantly less than 1% of my shots. High MPx counts have their places but I rarely go there.
you missed out 10 - there are many of us still using a D200. I recently did a shoot for a local school and produced prints from my D200 which measure over 54" on the longest side - looked really good. Although I am about to get a D2Xs - 10mp is large enough at the moment...
Fri 14-Dec-12 02:21 AM | edited Fri 14-Dec-12 02:22 AM by ZoneV
>you missed out 10 - there are many of us still using a D200. >I recently did a shoot for a local school and produced prints >from my D200 which measure over 54" on the longest side - >looked really good. Although I am about to get a D2Xs - 10mp >is large enough at the moment...
Yeah, darn surveys don't have enough spaces! I did consider putting 10 instead of 12 though...but since this is the D1/D2/D3 forum and 12 is the magic number, I just went with it. Thanks for the feedback.
I love the quality of the D3x when I get everything right. Change to 36mp of D800 does not not appeal; I now prefer the solidity and balance of the larger camera body. Action images such as birds in flight, the 10 of my D200 still look good, D300 and D700 better in more challenging conditions, D4 16mp stunning in very challenging conditions. However, one of my favourite images of all is a peaceful winter sunset on 6mp Coolpix, an unplanned shot as a wake wave from a distant ship died on the shore; the camera in the hand when opportunity presents is the only one that counts. All that said, I prefer above all, in the right circumstances, 80mp of the PhaseOne IQ series. Now, I cannot wait to try the Nikon lenses on the new Alpa FPS with the promised Nikon adaptor in front and the IQ180 at the back. Now Nikon, will the D4x match that?
I think the 16 MP of the D4 and D7000 is more than enough for me and my work. I shoot my D800 at Best Quality, FX, Medium size, Fine JPEG. 5520x3680 = 20.3 MegaPixels and prints 18.4x12.3 inches at 300 dpi according to Nikon.
But I would shoot 5:4 format Medium size 16.95 MP if my second camera was a D4 instead of a D600, because I never had a problem cropping a really good 12 MP D3 image from Landscape to Portrait and still printing 17x25.
>All that said, I prefer above all, in the right circumstances, >80mp of the PhaseOne IQ series. Now, I cannot wait to try the >Nikon lenses on the new Alpa FPS with the promised Nikon >adaptor in front and the IQ180 at the back. >Now Nikon, will the D4x match that?
That is an insane back ! and when coupled with High end glass you just stare in dis - belief. I shoot with a Sinar 54M / Schnieder 40/3.5 at ISO 40 and the 22 mp images are of amazing quality..Of course it is a HUGE pain to shoot with and 90% of my work is with a D2Xs where 12mp is more than enough. I know your comment was somewhat in jest, but I wouldnt count on the D4X even coming close to the 22mp digital back - I think its more about Pixel and Glass Quality than about MP count. Match a Sinaron or Rodenstock lens to a Digital Back and I just think the image quality is beyond Nikon Glass.
BUT as I said....90% of the time I grab my trusty Nikon !
My walls aren't big enough to hang larger prints than what I have already hung. The biggest I have is a 24x36 print. If you look at the WHOLE print at once, having more than 12mpx files just isn't needed.
I don't print very big that often, but when I do 12mp has been good enough for me. I think this question also depends on what type of photography a person does.
For example, most of my professional work is photographing people and I've noticed that the crispness from higher megapixel cameras aren't too great for portraits. It's the same problem we are seeing with high definition televisions that can also show every flaw or pore on a person's face. This crispness and detail is great for landscapes, but in my opinion it's terrible for portraits.
It's kind of hard to explain to anyone who hasn't noticed the difference. My D700 images have a sharp but smooth look to them whereas images I see from the D800 and other high megapixel cameras have that high definition crispness that can look overly sharp at times.
Ideally I would like to have two types of cameras. One low megapixel camera that specializes on that sharp but smooth look I'm talking about and just specialized on a higher image quality in general. For example, I keep waiting for the day when my ISO 6400 image looks as good as my ISO 100 images.
I would then get a second camera that specializes on high megapixels and pixel peeping crispness for when I need to do landscapes or anything else that requires a lot of pixel detail. Nikon started to do that for us when they had the D3 and D3X, but now with the D600 and D800 it is like we are forced to have the higher megapixel or don't buy an upgrade. At least the D4 only went to 16mp.
I'm just worried that with Nikon and Canon's race for more megapixels they're overlooking what happens to the look of images when they keep adding megapixels.
It's enough when it pushes the diffraction limits of normal fStops.
I can always down-sample, and indeed what I would like to see is in-camera binning. Astro cameras do that all the time, electronically combine 4 pixels for better noise and lower resolution, but you can switch to full resolution when desirable.
Imagine a 128mpx camera that with switch throw varies from very low noise and about 16mpx for interior action, in steps up to diffraction limited at about F4 for landscapes. No more complaints about huge files as they get downsampled before they become NEF's.
I'd be pretty content with 24mp... the 6000 x 4000 resolution matches that of the top slide scanners without the noise.
A noise free 24mp file is a thing of beauty to work with. I've always contended that 12mp was enough, but give me more, and I'll take it. Ask my in 3-5 years... I may have changed my mind again but for now 24mp will do me just fine.
12MP is the first digital resolution where I didn't feel restricted. Most of my prints are 13x19 so 12mp is enough.
"Enough" One beer is 'enough' too.
Will I take more? Oh, heck yes. Effective higher resolutions require more light to be effective. In full sunlight it would be awesome to get massive mega-pixels. The D800 is nice for group shots but more would be better.