Gee, and I was happy with my D300/D700 combo. I guess I'm just out of touch with reality!
24 megapixels? Man, I thought the 12 megapixel files were filling up my multiple NAS drives. It never ends. I suspect if Nikon comes out with this, Canon will have to come out with a 29 mp answer to it, requiring a 31 mp answer from Nikon, bringing us a 39 mp answer from Canon... all with better noise reduction and speed than before.
Then all of a sudden someone will ask if anyone has actually had one of these long enough to take any photos other than samples - well no, because a new camera just came out and I was taking samples with it!
Storage won't be a problem, because the new 10 terabit drives that are bound to be released shortly so downloading your 256 Gb CF cards won't be so bad on the drive space. Obtain one of the new Buffalo Terastations with 10 of those bad boys and you'll be set up with a 90 terabit storage unit in a RAID 5 configuration. Problem solved... until Nikon releases the new tera-pixel sensor...
Seriously, the advancements are wonderful. You don't have to buy the latest to get great results, regardless of whether you shoot Nikon or Canon. In all, I think we will benefit from them, unless one is into cycling through gear using buy and sell. The used market is taking the biggest hit. I just bought the D700 a couple of months ago (I think) and it already is dropping in price. But I am enjoying it. It is a great photo-taking machine, and that is really what I bought it for. Same thing with the D300.
When I decide it is time to upgrade, the rate at which the new releases are coming out dictates that the jump is likely to be huge. That's okay by me. While I tried to keep up to take advantage of the advances, I think I'll just enjoy what I have for a while. I'll get to the newer gear soon enough. Besides, does anyone really think 24 megapixels will actually make us take better photographs? Higher resolution, maybe, but probably not any better. I think we've already surpassed film.
Well look at it this way... after everyone upgrades and realizes that they don't need 22-29mp sensors... Our current lineup will be worth more money!!!! har.
For me personally, this is the perfect camera. I LOVE to print big (20x30) and I'll take all the extra (good quality) pixels I can get! Sure, you can up rez a 12MP file, but does anyone think that the uprezzed file is going to even be on par? Please...
If I could afford a digital hassy with a 39MP back, you can bet that's what I'd be shooting landscapes with!
Plus, if I need to crop, I have lots of overhead to work with (great for wildlife). Soon as it's announced, I'm ordering one from my local camera store.
Besides, two or three years ago, many of the same people now shooting 12MP would argue that 6 or 8 was more than enough, who wants to store that much data, I'd need a faster computer, 400 ISO is all I'd ever want ect... I wonder if any of those folks ever upgraded...
6-8MP really is all I want and I have lovely 30x20 prints form a 6MP D50! 12MP is a bit of overkill for my needs at the moment. An 8MP DX sensor in a D80 body with the ISO performance of the D3 is what I want! Not that I'm going to let go of my new D300 anytime soon!!!!
firewireguy wrote:
6-8MP really is all I want and I have lovely 30x20 prints form a 6MP D50! 12MP is a bit of overkill for my needs at the moment. An 8MP DX sensor in a D80 body with the ISO performance of the D3 is what I want! Not that I'm going to let go of my new D300 anytime soon!!!!
Wow, a 20x30 print from a D50! That's a BIG stretch (no pun intended).
Of all the Nikon cameras I've used that one makes the worst large prints. (D40, D50, D70, D100, D200, and D300).
I see artifacts in most of the 8x10's form our D50's, and 13 x 19 is already a good stretch. There is NO WAY I'd find a 20 x 30 from a D50 acceptable, unless there was a trip line 15 feet from the image keeping me away from it.
firewireguy wrote:
truncate half of it and save as a jpeg to get it printed, obviously!
I think you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if the final output media has lower dynamic range, there is still a valid case for high dynamic range at capture. The captured high dynamic range can be mapped on to the lower output dynamic range using tone curves.
In simple terms there will be more detail in the shadows and highlights that can be used in the final print if processed correctly.
However I doubt that the first true 16-bit sensor will be a high pixel-density sensor. I would have thought the technology would be easier to develop for large pixel sensors.
Make no mistake, dynamic range is the next major opportunity for sensor improvement. The MP race is over for 35mm sensors. I suspect the vast majority of photographers buying 5D-II and A900 won't have sufficient lens quality or technical understanding to make the extra pixels count.
firewireguy wrote:
6-8MP really is all I want and I have lovely 30x20 prints form a 6MP D50! 12MP is a bit of overkill for my needs at the moment. An 8MP DX sensor in a D80 body with the ISO performance of the D3 is what I want! Not that I'm going to let go of my new D300 anytime soon!!!!
Yeah, but my point is that a 24MP 20x30 is going to be better than one from 6, 8 or 12MP, given equal circumstances. No matter how nice a 20x30 your 6 or 8 mp camera made, if it were shot with a 24MP camera it would be better. Are you saying that's not true?
I think it's all about what you do in photography. I have not had a reason to do a 20x30 print so to me it's not a priority to constantly upgrade. However, NAS takes over sometimes to a certain point of staying up with the technology even when you don't even really need it.
24 megapixels sounds like a lot, but really, 24 is to 12 what 4 is to 2 megapixels, for example. It is the ratio that matters, not the absolute increase. Hopefully in a couple years Nikon will double it again to get to 50 megapixels or 100. At that point, though, we'll definitely need better lenses.
My source for Nikon information tells me the D3X will not be available until PMA in February, the 6495.00 price noted in this thread seems to be the correct price point. I am told the dynamic range for the new D3X will blow us away bringing us one step closer to film quality high lights and shadow detail.
greeneggs wrote:
24 megapixels sounds like a lot, but really, 24 is to 12 what 4 is to 2 megapixels, for example. It is the ratio that matters, not the absolute increase. Hopefully in a couple years Nikon will double it again to get to 50 megapixels or 100. At that point, though, we'll definitely need better lenses.
I think some better lenses will be needed even with 24 MP.
David Kenney wrote:
My source for Nikon information tells me the D3X will not be available until PMA in February, the 6495.00 price noted in this thread seems to be the correct price point. I am told the dynamic range for the new D3X will blow us away bringing us one step closer to film quality high lights and shadow detail.
Man, if that's true, WOW!! This will be one amazing camera. DR improvements would be great. It's going to be a looooong wait till feb though!
Steve
Oct 11, 2008 at 07:54 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
David Kenney wrote:
My source for Nikon information tells me the D3X will not be available until PMA in February, the 6495.00 price noted in this thread seems to be the correct price point. I am told the dynamic range for the new D3X will blow us away bringing us one step closer to film quality high lights and shadow detail.
And it hovers and frames the shot for you and comes with a toilet paper roll ...
David Kenney wrote:
My source for Nikon information tells me the D3X will not be available until PMA in February, the 6495.00 price noted in this thread seems to be the correct price point. I am told the dynamic range for the new D3X will blow us away bringing us one step closer to film quality high lights and shadow detail.
Announced or shipping at PMA? I have to figure out how long I can keep my 1Ds3 without losing too much value.
