Steve Perry wrote:
The rumor mill seems to think later this year with a revised 36Mp sensor. I like my D800 bodies, but I'd really like to go back to the pro body with that kind of sensor. Ahh, I miss my D3x!
Jim Gilley wrote:
Big Lloyd says 56MP and October announcement. I'm hoping he is right, but I'd settle for live view that actually works.
I'm usually the first guy in line for more MP, but honestly, 36Mp is starting to stress even my best glass around the edges (like the 14-24 & 24-70). Granted, the final image would still be slightly better with more MP - especially the central region, but I think at 56MP we're starting to get to the point of diminishing returns optically and paying for it with FPS and buffer depth.
My issue is I really liked my D3x for both landscapes and wildlife. It's only downfalls was, yup, buffer size and FPS. So, personally, I'm kind of hoping for something high res but with a deep buffer and faster FPS. Best of both worlds all in one camera.
Although, if they build it @ 56MP I'll probably still buy and favor my primes heavily
Why is it no one is ever happy with what's out? You didn't have this bullshit when film was out. I camera shot full frame film and that was that. Sure there were better films and what not buy there wasn't this crying crap that goes on now.
The D4 with the 16 megapixels it has is plenty. The D800 is a bit overkill, so if you think you need more then you have issues. Lol
D4x with maybe 20-24 is perfect. Just work on more fps and even better high iso. I would love to shoot an entire wedding without flash would be awesome.
Mar 10, 2013 at 02:34 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
paparazzinick wrote:
Why is it no one is ever happy with what's out? You didn't have this bullshit when film was out. I camera shot full frame film and that was that. Sure there were better films and what not buy there wasn't this crying crap that goes on now.
The D4 with the 16 megapixels it has is plenty. The D800 is a bit overkill, so if you think you need more then you have issues. Lol
D4x with maybe 20-24 is perfect. Just work on more fps and even better high iso. I would love to shoot an entire wedding without flash would be awesome. ...Show more →
Ha! I hated film and prayed for the day of digital cameras like what the satellites were using ... I stopped bitching when they came out with the D70s. I upgraded to the D300 when I got into sports ... my only gripe is that my well loved D300 is getting old and there's no point in getting another one if a D400 is due out soon. I'm quite happy to wait as my D300 still has plenty of life left in it.
There will always be a market for a high mp D4x at $8000 or more. Look at Nikon's exotic zooms that costs $8000 and more. The market volume might be low BUT they are still being made.
36 MPX is enough , however maybe they can improve the sensor that's going into the D4x.
If it's the same sensor as the D 800 -D800 E , not many people are going to fork out $6 K for it.
These sensors generate data that needs to be offloaded to a storage device.
This doesn't strike me as the type of process that won't increase quite a bit as technology improves, so a 30mp sensor doing 12fps or some variant of this is likely, whether this year or next. 60mp doing 24fps some time after that.
Of course these are the numbers that companies can sell, but I sure hope they put as much effort into cleaner high iso's and DR.
Mar 10, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Red G8R wrote:
There will always be a market for a high mp D4x at $8000 or more. Look at Nikon's exotic zooms that costs $8000 and more. The market volume might be low BUT they are still being made.
Charging $8K for a lens that retains most of its value and will last decades is very different than charging $8K for a camera body that will lose 50% of its value in just a few years and will be superceeded in less than 5.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Charging $8K for a lens that retains most of its value and will last decades is very different than charging $8K for a camera body that will lose 50% of its value in just a few years and will be superceeded in less than 5.
Yup - when it comes to my expensive glass, I feel like I'm just "renting" it for a few years because when I sell it I still get quite a bit of the original purchase price back. Usually the worst case scenario is a 25% loss (although if prices go up it can be much less).
I'd buy a D4X. I'd pay for faster/better low-light AF (over the D800), better circuitry, better mirror damping (less mirror slap), and if it's going to be over 36MP, definitely want sRaw, better live-view implementation in low light. The D800 is pretty wonderful but I know that there's room for improvement in a D4X.
The D800(E) is already showing the limits of most lenses and the limits of manufacturing precision only because with 36 MP, folks can now print or display larger w/o showing ugly digital artifacts and softness.
54 MP---if folks keep enlarging the image more and more--- will go beyond what any reasonably priced lens and conventionally constructed body can deliver.
In other words, we're reaching the point where we're enlarging the defects---defects that cannot be eliminated at a price that consumers are willing to pay.
On film, medium or large format solved this issue. I haven't seen a proposal for a 4x5 digital sensor, and medium format digital equipment is ludicrously expensive.
The prime value of 54 MP will be, as 36 MP is now, as oversampling for a small print, not a replacement for large formats.
The 12 MP of the D3 was a miracle in it's day; I bought two in 2008. But I could see the digital artifacts and lack of resolution in 17x22 inkjet prints.
24 MP would probably have fixed that, but I'm fine with the slight oversampling that 36 MP gets me. Too bad the D800 has glaucoma viewfinder optics--maybe a D4X would fix that problem for me.
If Nikon issues a D4X with 36 MP, it should only be a couple or three hundred USD more than the D4; If Nikon goes for 54 MP, they can grotesquely inflate the price the way they did with the D3X.
Jeez, I was concerned over what the 36mp D800 files would do to my workflow. 54mp would be a handful.
As we keep pushing the megapixels higher, I wonder when a camera manufacturer will introduce the ability to capture lower resolution raw files? And, when that happens, will said manufacturer implement some processing wizardry into their routine that will allow the camera to oversample the lower resolution raw file (vs. just sampling, say, every other photosite), thus retaining some of the benefits of the higher megapixel count, without the file sizes?
You'd need some pretty good CPU horsepower to do that kind of processing on the fly, but it'd be interesting to gain some of the noise reduction and increased color accuracy of the high resolution sensor but not have to process 54mp raw files.
edit: to clarify, I realize that you could buy a lower resolution camera, but the processing I'm talking about above would allow you to capture full 54mp files when you need them, and capture lower resolutions when you don't, but still retain some of the benefits of the high resolution sensor.
@binary visions, I agree, the D800 files are slow to process even on the fastest of systems. The technique you described is called pixel binning, which ideally would be done on-sensor and so wouldn't require extra DSP processing; it would actually require less processing, allowing for high FPS in that mode.
For large MP images I think it's time raw converters incorporate GPU acceleration into their processing pipelines. x86 performance gains over the last few generations has been meager and isn't keeping up with MP.
Nikon's 24Mp DX bodies' pixel pitch duplicated in a FF sensor would be equal to 60Mp. So dense pixels are already a reality. A big problem would be enough on-chip memory to process the files. The MF 40+ Mp bodies are lucky to get 1 FPS and their hi ISO is not good.
Nikon's 24Mp DX bodies' pixel pitch duplicated in a FF sensor would be equal to 60Mp. So dense pixels are already a reality. A big problem would be enough on-chip memory to process the files. The MF 40+ Mp bodies are lucky to get 1 FPS and their hi ISO is not good.
