So I've been insomnisurfing the Nikon rumors, what with the D4 just announced, and I came across this interesting tidbit on the Nikon Rumors site.
"There will be a different D800 version/model (or maybe even a special edition) with the antialiasing filter removed."
Rumor also has it that the D800 will sport a 36mp sensor. I have to say, I was surprised to read that. I figured the D700 successor would follow D3's successor, and the D800 would end up with the (confirmed) 16mp chip of the D4. Maybe Nikon does feel the need to try and one-up the 5D line.
Assuming both of those rumors are true, I'm curious to see if there are any alt shooters who would jump on that and what lenses you think would put 36 unfiltered megapixels to their best use.
I'd just live vicariously through other people (I won't be changing systems again for a good long while), but if one fell in my lap, I'd have to temporarily convert the Leica-R 100/2.8, and borrow a ZF 21/2.8 and Leica-R 180/3.4. You know, just to see.
A DSLR without AA would be very interessting - but not a Nikon. Nikon have a to long flange back distance for M42, C/Y, Pentax, Leica R lenses - and I donīt want to buy Leitax adapters for my 100+ lenses :-)
At the moment I have my infrared camera EOS Rebel XT without AA filter - but I would need a BG 39 filter or something like that for normal photography. And 8 Megapixels are not that ideal for this I think.
But I think about doing the same special infrared modification for my EOS 5D too. And there I would buy an prepare a kind of daylight filter - so I would have the change to work with an hot mirror DSLR camera or with infrared or whatever filter I want.
On my work I have cameras without AA filter - but I did not make comparisons with my normal cameras up to now :-/
36MP is way more than I need for general photography, and I would think that many of my great lenses would suddenly be disappointing. I am even leery of the 24MP of the D3x, and lean more toward the D4 with its 16MP. In my opinion, the optimal MP count for a 135 format factor camera is around 16-18MP. Leica, Nikon and Canon now all get that, finally. The D800 and potentially the 5DIII are really aimed at the MP addicts. Medium format makes more sense with that many pixels. There, the sweet spot is IMO 40-60MP. The 80MP sensors are too large IMO.
I have been waiting for a large MP camera with good low iso IQ which does not need good high iso IQ to use for landscape photography. I have had the 1ds3 for so long now and have watched Canon sit on their A$$ and waste their lead in high end 35mm FF sensors.
I would have never guessed that 24MP APS-C sensor cameras would be out well before the next high MP replacement for the 1ds3. All my alt glass is ready to welcome the extra MP's. They will handle it much better than what people are excepting through their NEX's with their high pixel counts on those small lenses with the corner problems.
I am hpoing for a better MP camera from Canon than a 5d-3 with anemic AF and slow FPS and I hope it may be the rumored 3-d. Sony high-end FF with mirror line is dead.
I may try the D800 if I don't see any announcement soon by Canon.
To say the 1d-x was a replacement solution for 1ds3 users was a crock.
I understand everyone doesn't want more MP but there must be still be a large enough market for a high MP camera to warrant coming out with it now.
It has always made more sense to me to make to separate different FF cameras, one with large MP and for low to medium iso and one like the 1d-x, high iso with smaller MP sensor. Seems like Canon can not design a good high end camera with performance/features which would make buyers want to pay the extra money.
Their design cycles are way to long for their pro-end.
I can always use more resolution for some of the work I do and I'm sure the better Leica R and Zeiss glass would do fine with FF 36MP's. What I'm not so sure about though is forking over the rumored $4K the D800 is reported to cost just to find out.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I can always use more resolution for some of the work I do and I'm sure the better Leica R and Zeiss glass would do fine with FF 36MP's. What I'm not so sure about though is forking over the rumored $4K the D800 is reported to cost just to find out.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Yes, not cheap but much better price than a MFDB.
Yes cheaper but it's not a MFDB. I guess I would regret spending the bones on the Nikon only to see Sony release the same sensor in the forthcoming A-mount/ NEX style body later in the year for close to half the price...and I suspect that's what will happen.
ZoneV wrote:
A DSLR without AA would be very interessting - but not a Nikon. Nikon have a to long flange back distance for M42, C/Y, Pentax, Leica R lenses - and I donīt want to buy Leitax adapters for my 100+ lenses :-)
At the moment I have my infrared camera EOS Rebel XT without AA filter - but I would need a BG 39 filter or something like that for normal photography. And 8 Megapixels are not that ideal for this I think.
But I think about doing the same special infrared modification for my EOS 5D too. And there I would buy an prepare a kind of daylight filter - so I would have the change to work with an hot mirror DSLR camera or with infrared or whatever filter I want.
On my work I have cameras without AA filter - but I did not make comparisons with my normal cameras up to now :-/
Most very cheap ones like Helios 44 for experimentation. Only very few Zeiss, Canon FD or such better ones.
Suppose 100 will fit to Canon somehow - partly after mount conversion.
On work I work with machine vision cameras - most with F-mount or even only C-mount :-/
No AA filter. But only usable with power and PC controlled :-/
Why do you need special lenses? I get as much detail as my Sony A850 is capable of with the CZ 24-70, the 70-200/2.8, and a few others. Even some old M42 glass with an adapter. Just go down a stop or two on any of them and they're good.
And if a lens can do that to a 24MP AA-filtered imager, then it will do even better at 36MP without the attenuation of a filter. It's only half again as many pixels (but much more entropy potential), and only some 20% finer pitch.
Modern lenses really are in a different league. (My old Canon 28-70L I had some ten years ago would have been pretty sad.)
Jan Brittenson wrote:
Why do you need special lenses? I get as much detail as my Sony A850 is capable of with the CZ 24-70...
Impressive if you can do so but my bet is the Zeiss 21 might be able to show more detail from the A850 sensor over the entire frame, particularly in the corners, whereas the zoom may run into some issues on the wide end (say at 24mm) in taking full advantage of the sensor. Move to 36MP and the situation would be even worse.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
Why do you need special lenses? I get as much detail as my Sony A850 is capable of with the CZ 24-70, the 70-200/2.8, and a few others. Even some old M42 glass with an adapter. Just go down a stop or two on any of them and they're good.
And if a lens can do that to a 24MP AA-filtered imager, then it will do even better at 36MP without the attenuation of a filter. It's only half again as many pixels (but much more entropy potential), and only some 20% finer pitch.
Modern lenses really are in a different league. (My old Canon 28-70L I had some ten years ago would have been pretty sad.) ...Show more →
It's not a need for special lenses (or a need for 36mp) as far as I'm concerned. I'd just be curious to see what some of the highest resolving DSLR lenses could do with 36 unfiltered MP. It would all be to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of the 15 year old geek inside me.
carstenw wrote:
36MP is way more than I need for general photography, and I would think that many of my great lenses would suddenly be disappointing. I am even leery of the 24MP of the D3x, and lean more toward the D4 with its 16MP. In my opinion, the optimal MP count for a 135 format factor camera is around 16-18MP. Leica, Nikon and Canon now all get that, finally. The D800 and potentially the 5DIII are really aimed at the MP addicts. Medium format makes more sense with that many pixels. There, the sweet spot is IMO 40-60MP. The 80MP sensors are too large IMO....Show more →
I don't need 36mp either. I don't really need the 24 that I have in the A900, but there are times when I'm glad I have them (the crop zoom can come in handy when you don't have a long enough lens). And I agree that 16-18 seems optimal given today's technology, or at least a good place to perfect today's tech. I think the 1Dx and D4 and the rise in interest the M9 gave Leica are strong indications of a maturing industry. But there have to be boundary-pushers, because a mature industry can very easily become a stagnant industry.
