This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009the d300s killer
p.9 #1the d300s killer
if Nikon introduces their 14/15MP D400 it will look like old news.
Then why have they released five 12mp bodies since the D2x? So by your thinking the D3, D700, D300/s & D90 were all "old news" when released?
Who knows what Nikon will do. Maybe there are folks out there that are happy with 12MP and just want more DR and better high/low ISO performance? Maybe Nikon might even listen to these crazy folk
Personally I think a 12-14MP crop body with the same high ISO performance and DR as a D3 and improved AF would be 'good news' to the ears of many Nikon users.
Cheers
Leigh
Then why have they released five 12mp bodies since the D2x? So by your thinking the D3, D700, D300/s & D90 were all "old news" when released?
Who knows what Nikon will do. Maybe there are folks out there that are happy with 12MP and just want more DR and better high/low ISO performance? Maybe Nikon might even listen to these crazy folk
Personally I think a 12-14MP crop body with the same high ISO performance and DR as a D3 and improved AF would be 'good news' to the ears of many Nikon users.
Cheers
Leigh
Sep 08, 2009 at 01:06 AM
p.9 #2the d300s killer
That won't happen for many years. You're not going to get D3-level ISO performance from a sensor that's only two thirds as large as the D3's.
Sep 08, 2009 at 01:26 AM
p.9 #3the d300s killer
LMT1972 wrote:
Then why have they released five 12mp bodies since the D2x? So by your thinking the D3, D700, D300/s & D90 were all "old news" when released?
Who knows what Nikon will do. Maybe there are folks out there that are happy with 12MP and just want more DR and better high/low ISO performance? Maybe Nikon might even listen to these crazy folk
Personally I think a 12-14MP crop body with the same high ISO performance and DR as a D3 and improved AF would be 'good news' to the ears of many Nikon users.
Cheers
Leigh
speaking simply for the D3 and no other body, the fact it was not old news or crusitfied for haveing 12MP, was because it shoots 9 FX FPS and 11 DX FPS, so it didn't matter the 24.5 MP D3X shoots 5 FPS, D3's a speed body like the D2H, most people were still satified when that came out with 4.1 MP's even though canon had put out the 8.1 MP 1D mark 2, some though said "to little to late", everyone has their opinion on what is and isn't enough MP's, in speed bodies be satified with what you get, wether 4 or 12 MP's
Earlier quote
if Nikon introduces their 14/15MP D400 it will look like old news.Who knows what Nikon will do. Maybe there are folks out there that are happy with 12MP and just want more DR and better high/low ISO performance? Maybe Nikon might even listen to these crazy folk
Personally I think a 12-14MP crop body with the same high ISO performance and DR as a D3 and improved AF would be 'good news' to the ears of many Nikon users.
Cheers
Leigh
speaking simply for the D3 and no other body, the fact it was not old news or crusitfied for haveing 12MP, was because it shoots 9 FX FPS and 11 DX FPS, so it didn't matter the 24.5 MP D3X shoots 5 FPS, D3's a speed body like the D2H, most people were still satified when that came out with 4.1 MP's even though canon had put out the 8.1 MP 1D mark 2, some though said "to little to late", everyone has their opinion on what is and isn't enough MP's, in speed bodies be satified with what you get, wether 4 or 12 MP's
Sep 08, 2009 at 05:39 AM
p.9 #4the d300s killer
LMT1972 wrote:
Then why have they released five 12mp bodies since the D2x? So by your thinking the D3, D700, D300/s & D90 were all "old news" when released?
Who knows what Nikon will do. Maybe there are folks out there that are happy with 12MP and just want more DR and better high/low ISO performance? Maybe Nikon might even listen to these crazy folk
Personally I think a 12-14MP crop body with the same high ISO performance and DR as a D3 and improved AF would be 'good news' to the ears of many Nikon users.
Cheers
Leigh
+1
At this point in time, I see no reason to want more MPs in DX format. Hogan says that DX is probably capable of going to 20 to 24 MPs. I don't care about more MPs. I want speed, good noise and DR performance, all cross type sensors and 12mp is enough. That's what I told nikon in a survey that I took 3 or 4 months ago.
Users that buy d300 level cameras should have sufficient sophistication to not fall for the consumer high MP sales trick. Without clear benefit to the user, what's the point of adding more MPs? When canon reduced MPs in their latest G series digicam, I thought that the MP race was finally over. Now, I guess it isn't and nikon marketing will probably follow along like a dumb little puppy.
Earlier quote
if Nikon introduces their 14/15MP D400 it will look like old news.Who knows what Nikon will do. Maybe there are folks out there that are happy with 12MP and just want more DR and better high/low ISO performance? Maybe Nikon might even listen to these crazy folk
Personally I think a 12-14MP crop body with the same high ISO performance and DR as a D3 and improved AF would be 'good news' to the ears of many Nikon users.
Cheers
Leigh
+1
At this point in time, I see no reason to want more MPs in DX format. Hogan says that DX is probably capable of going to 20 to 24 MPs. I don't care about more MPs. I want speed, good noise and DR performance, all cross type sensors and 12mp is enough. That's what I told nikon in a survey that I took 3 or 4 months ago. Users that buy d300 level cameras should have sufficient sophistication to not fall for the consumer high MP sales trick. Without clear benefit to the user, what's the point of adding more MPs? When canon reduced MPs in their latest G series digicam, I thought that the MP race was finally over. Now, I guess it isn't and nikon marketing will probably follow along like a dumb little puppy.
Sep 08, 2009 at 06:31 AM
p.9 #5the d300s killer
To be honest, there's a very interesting trade-off between noise/DR and MP count.
Canon have stated from day one that the goal they want from their cameras is the ability to print finer details. Of course they have a stake in this because they also produce printers as well! But that aside, they're main belief (correctly IMO) is that a photographer needs more detail from their prints.
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.
So I do think the correct path for the photographer is more MP (note I mean the photographer who prints, not the photographer who resizes to 800px and uploads to web :/). Unfortunately though there are limitations to more MP. Canon have allegedly stated that they believe the max-out for the APS-C sensor (1.6 crop) is 21mp or thereabouts.
Canon have stated from day one that the goal they want from their cameras is the ability to print finer details. Of course they have a stake in this because they also produce printers as well! But that aside, they're main belief (correctly IMO) is that a photographer needs more detail from their prints.
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.
So I do think the correct path for the photographer is more MP (note I mean the photographer who prints, not the photographer who resizes to 800px and uploads to web :/). Unfortunately though there are limitations to more MP. Canon have allegedly stated that they believe the max-out for the APS-C sensor (1.6 crop) is 21mp or thereabouts.
Sep 08, 2009 at 08:31 AM
p.9 #6the d300s killer
Adam L wrote:
Canon have stated from day one that the goal they want from their cameras is the ability to print finer details. Of course they have a stake in this because they also produce printers as well! But that aside, they're main belief (correctly IMO) is that a photographer needs more detail from their prints.
I agree.
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.
What size prints are you talking about? Where is the print size line for this "big step"?
So I do think the correct path for the photographer is more MP (note I mean the photographer who prints, not the photographer who resizes to 800px and uploads to web :/). Unfortunately though there are limitations to more MP. Canon have allegedly stated that they believe the max-out for the APS-C sensor (1.6 crop) is 21mp or thereabouts.
I'm talking about prints too, as are most folks, I believe. You certainly don't need a 12mp camera to make web pics....
Canon have stated from day one that the goal they want from their cameras is the ability to print finer details. Of course they have a stake in this because they also produce printers as well! But that aside, they're main belief (correctly IMO) is that a photographer needs more detail from their prints.
I agree.
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.
What size prints are you talking about? Where is the print size line for this "big step"?
So I do think the correct path for the photographer is more MP (note I mean the photographer who prints, not the photographer who resizes to 800px and uploads to web :/). Unfortunately though there are limitations to more MP. Canon have allegedly stated that they believe the max-out for the APS-C sensor (1.6 crop) is 21mp or thereabouts.
I'm talking about prints too, as are most folks, I believe. You certainly don't need a 12mp camera to make web pics....
Sep 08, 2009 at 10:45 AM
p.9 #7the d300s killer
Kerry Pierce wrote:
What size prints are you talking about? Where is the print size line for this "big step"?
From what I hear you might notice the difference at 15X10 and above, but more like 20x24. Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying that 12mp can't print big! I know it can print very big with a lot of detail. It's just the bigger prints will show more detail with twice the pixels (with a lens that can resolve it of course! Lucky Nikonians and your 14-24!)
Adam L wrote
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.From what I hear you might notice the difference at 15X10 and above, but more like 20x24. Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying that 12mp can't print big! I know it can print very big with a lot of detail. It's just the bigger prints will show more detail with twice the pixels (with a lens that can resolve it of course! Lucky Nikonians and your 14-24!)
Sep 08, 2009 at 01:14 PM
p.9 #8the d300s killer
Adam L wrote:
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
What size prints are you talking about? Where is the print size line for this "big step"?
Adam L wrote:
From what I hear you might notice the difference at 15X10 and above, but more like 20x24. Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying that 12mp can't print big! I know it can print very big with a lot of detail. It's just the bigger prints will show more detail with twice the pixels (with a lens that can resolve it of course! Lucky Nikonians and your 14-24!)
Keeping in mind that this discussion was about the 7D "killing" the D300s. If I'm not mistaken, the difference works out to 17% more linear resolution for the 7D, that probably amounts to about a 24 inch print compared to a 20 inch print. The ability to get that extra 17% will (as you pointed out) depend on the lens; as well as on good support, good technique, exact focus, and on good lighting.
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
What size prints are you talking about? Where is the print size line for this "big step"?
Adam L wrote:
From what I hear you might notice the difference at 15X10 and above, but more like 20x24. Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying that 12mp can't print big! I know it can print very big with a lot of detail. It's just the bigger prints will show more detail with twice the pixels (with a lens that can resolve it of course! Lucky Nikonians and your 14-24!)
Keeping in mind that this discussion was about the 7D "killing" the D300s. If I'm not mistaken, the difference works out to 17% more linear resolution for the 7D, that probably amounts to about a 24 inch print compared to a 20 inch print. The ability to get that extra 17% will (as you pointed out) depend on the lens; as well as on good support, good technique, exact focus, and on good lighting.
Sep 08, 2009 at 03:03 PM
p.9 #9the d300s killer
Adam L wrote:
From what I hear you might notice the difference at 15X10 and above, but more like 20x24. Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying that 12mp can't print big! I know it can print very big with a lot of detail. It's just the bigger prints will show more detail with twice the pixels (with a lens that can resolve it of course! Lucky Nikonians and your 14-24!)
Yes, that's about what I figured. The point I was making earlier concerned more MPs on DX cameras. I don't believe that most users, especially DX users, are regularly and routinely printing larger than 12x18. So, what tangible benefit comes with more MPs at that level? I don't know, but I do know that technique and lenses play a huge role, no matter how many MPs you have. I'd much rather print 12x18 with a 6mp image that was taken with excellent technique and glass, than an 18mp camera that wasn't.
I suppose that it's inevitable that the marketing types will push the MPs to and beyond the limits. Noise can be mistaken for detail/sharpness too. You can easily see that by adding fine grain noise to any image and then looking at it from a proper viewing size/distance and then comparing it to the original. So, yeah, add a bazillion more MPs, cuz who cares about noise/DR now? Worrying about noise is just so yesterday.
My position is simple. I don't believe that increasing MPs is a good thing, unless and until I can see a real benefit without pixel peeping. I'd want to be able to see a significant difference in my 12x18 prints, viewed at normal viewing distance. I don't see the point in routinely looking at images at 100% or higher on a computer screen or in looking at prints with a 10x loop either. IME, most customers promptly put your artwork masterpiece behind the cheapest frame and glass that they can and then don't light it properly or even clean the glass regularly or properly, if ever.
That's where I'm coming from.
From what I hear you might notice the difference at 15X10 and above, but more like 20x24. Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying that 12mp can't print big! I know it can print very big with a lot of detail. It's just the bigger prints will show more detail with twice the pixels (with a lens that can resolve it of course! Lucky Nikonians and your 14-24!)
Yes, that's about what I figured. The point I was making earlier concerned more MPs on DX cameras. I don't believe that most users, especially DX users, are regularly and routinely printing larger than 12x18. So, what tangible benefit comes with more MPs at that level? I don't know, but I do know that technique and lenses play a huge role, no matter how many MPs you have. I'd much rather print 12x18 with a 6mp image that was taken with excellent technique and glass, than an 18mp camera that wasn't.
I suppose that it's inevitable that the marketing types will push the MPs to and beyond the limits. Noise can be mistaken for detail/sharpness too. You can easily see that by adding fine grain noise to any image and then looking at it from a proper viewing size/distance and then comparing it to the original. So, yeah, add a bazillion more MPs, cuz who cares about noise/DR now? Worrying about noise is just so yesterday.
My position is simple. I don't believe that increasing MPs is a good thing, unless and until I can see a real benefit without pixel peeping. I'd want to be able to see a significant difference in my 12x18 prints, viewed at normal viewing distance. I don't see the point in routinely looking at images at 100% or higher on a computer screen or in looking at prints with a 10x loop either. IME, most customers promptly put your artwork masterpiece behind the cheapest frame and glass that they can and then don't light it properly or even clean the glass regularly or properly, if ever.
That's where I'm coming from.
Sep 08, 2009 at 03:32 PM
p.9 #10the d300s killer
Adam L wrote:
What size prints are you talking about? Where is the print size line for this "big step"?From what I hear you might notice the difference at 15X10 and above, but more like 20x24. Before anyone thinks otherwise, I'm not saying that 12mp can't print big! I know it can print very big with a lot of detail. It's just the bigger prints will show more detail with twice the pixels (with a lens that can resolve it of course! Lucky Nikonians and your 14-24!)
FWIW the difference in linear resolution between 12mp and 21mp is only ~30%, noticeable in large prints, but hardly earth shattering. It is of course up to the user to decide if the cost of upgrading is worth that 30% of extra resolution. It has been said that it take an almost 50% improvement in the number total pixel to create a noticeable improvement in print quality. IE from 12mp to 18mp.
This small jump from the 12mp world to the 21-24mp world is only the beginning. Once we see sensors in the 50mp range we will have truly double the resolving power of our 12mp bodies. I foresee at least one more intermediate jump to the 36mp range in the future before we hit the 50-60mp range. That would allow the companies to give the users the additional 50% more pixels that get them a noticeable increase in image quality at least two more time before we reach the limits of bayer sensors. 12mp->24mp->36mp->50mp
They may of course ring out more intermediate steps to increase profits, it remains to be seen though what the market will bear. Once we reach that 50+mp range things become very interesting and I'm truly curious what will happen, or if we'll actually even get there in 35mm format DSLRs. We'll need lenses that are at their best by f/4 if we want all that resolution goodness, ridiculously fast solid state storage and GB's of RAM for our processing, and big ass memory cards
I'm sure the sensor manufacturers are very aware of the limits of their technology and have R&D labs doing all they can to figure out how to make money in the future. We'll soon reach a point where they've gotten all they can from a traditional sensor and they'll have to release new technologies to keep feeding us. Very similar to how once 10,000rpm hard drives hit their limit with perpendicular recording technology we started to see the birth of solid state hard drives.
“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” — Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
Edit: I have been beaten by two very good comments before I finished this one
Kerry Pierce wrote
Adam L wrote
Example: Even though the difference in DR between the 5D and 5D II is relatively small, people who have used a 5DII and PRINTED files from it remark about noticeably better results. Not a small difference here, I'm talking quite a big step. And you can only get that from more MP.FWIW the difference in linear resolution between 12mp and 21mp is only ~30%, noticeable in large prints, but hardly earth shattering. It is of course up to the user to decide if the cost of upgrading is worth that 30% of extra resolution. It has been said that it take an almost 50% improvement in the number total pixel to create a noticeable improvement in print quality. IE from 12mp to 18mp.
This small jump from the 12mp world to the 21-24mp world is only the beginning. Once we see sensors in the 50mp range we will have truly double the resolving power of our 12mp bodies. I foresee at least one more intermediate jump to the 36mp range in the future before we hit the 50-60mp range. That would allow the companies to give the users the additional 50% more pixels that get them a noticeable increase in image quality at least two more time before we reach the limits of bayer sensors. 12mp->24mp->36mp->50mp
They may of course ring out more intermediate steps to increase profits, it remains to be seen though what the market will bear. Once we reach that 50+mp range things become very interesting and I'm truly curious what will happen, or if we'll actually even get there in 35mm format DSLRs. We'll need lenses that are at their best by f/4 if we want all that resolution goodness, ridiculously fast solid state storage and GB's of RAM for our processing, and big ass memory cards
I'm sure the sensor manufacturers are very aware of the limits of their technology and have R&D labs doing all they can to figure out how to make money in the future. We'll soon reach a point where they've gotten all they can from a traditional sensor and they'll have to release new technologies to keep feeding us. Very similar to how once 10,000rpm hard drives hit their limit with perpendicular recording technology we started to see the birth of solid state hard drives.
“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” — Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
Edit: I have been beaten by two very good comments before I finished this one
Sep 08, 2009 at 03:41 PM
p.9 #11the d300s killer
One of the largest reasons I'm staying put with the 12mp D700 is I FINALLY have a group of lenses which ALL are sharp, at the very least stopped down and provide the performance I would like in the conditions I shoot. It's hard enough to get there in the first place. In many cases lots of trial and error (fortunately not nearly as much was required with this Nikon kit vs. the Canon's I've struggled through over the years). The Nikkors are fairly consistent, not so with the Canon lineup in my experiences. I do happen to appreciate sharp corners. Some folks ignore not having that as they claim they don't need it in their shooting style. With landscape being probably at least 80%+ of what I do, I DO require that. The D700 also admittedly promotes better overall performance of the lens over my experience with the DX format bodies such as the D200 and D300. It's a very rare day that I shoot animals so no worries there. I won't paint with a wide brush. One just needs to determine what their shooting requirements are, then from there they should be able to come to better conclusions what they need for a body and lenses. I had a 70-200 f2.8vr for example. Many treat this lens like a religion. I sold it as I felt once getting the D700 it wasn't up to the task as it was with the D300 I had prior. I'm pretty darned satisfied with the sharpness of the 70-300vr (2nd copy) I have wide open right out to 300mm (unlike some folks reports). I even managed to get an exemplary copy of the Tamron 28-300vc which gets quite a bit of use. I keep my 24-70 f2.8 for the really critical work, and it most certainly delivers in spades.
As for resolution, for myself since I print to 13x19 and don't crop a lot I find it more than meets my needs. Sure makes for a fine 13x19 with no issues. There will always be techies who will require the largest and highest this and that. AT least I feel I have reached a level that truly meets my needs. Would I love a nice 300mm f2.8vr or a 200-400vr....you betcha. What a nice way to go. Do I have or will I expend the $5000 for one of those? Not very likely unless someone hands me a winning lotto ticket.
As for resolution, for myself since I print to 13x19 and don't crop a lot I find it more than meets my needs. Sure makes for a fine 13x19 with no issues. There will always be techies who will require the largest and highest this and that. AT least I feel I have reached a level that truly meets my needs. Would I love a nice 300mm f2.8vr or a 200-400vr....you betcha. What a nice way to go. Do I have or will I expend the $5000 for one of those? Not very likely unless someone hands me a winning lotto ticket.
Sep 08, 2009 at 05:55 PM
p.9 #12the d300s killer
Jammy Straub wrote:
remains to be seen though what the market will bear. Once we reach that 50+mp range things become very interesting and I'm truly curious what will happen, or if we'll actually even get there in 35mm format DSLRs. We'll need lenses that are at their best by f/4 if we want all that resolution goodness
And what happens to those folks that want and need more DOF than f/4 will provide? Where does all of that resolution goodness go then, to the res goodness bank?
All lenses will become monster tilt lenses, capable of resolving the hairs on a gnats azz at 100 yards, to maximize the resolution goodness on a specific focal plane, for the mere price of $10k for the cheapie kit lenses?
Maybe super auto focus bracketing at 30fps and a free copy of Helicon Focus for anyone that needs more DOF?
At 100mp, they could do away with complex apertures, cuz every lens will be a fixed f/2 or f/1.4.
Wow, lots of neat stuff coming.
remains to be seen though what the market will bear. Once we reach that 50+mp range things become very interesting and I'm truly curious what will happen, or if we'll actually even get there in 35mm format DSLRs. We'll need lenses that are at their best by f/4 if we want all that resolution goodness
And what happens to those folks that want and need more DOF than f/4 will provide? Where does all of that resolution goodness go then, to the res goodness bank?
All lenses will become monster tilt lenses, capable of resolving the hairs on a gnats azz at 100 yards, to maximize the resolution goodness on a specific focal plane, for the mere price of $10k for the cheapie kit lenses?
Maybe super auto focus bracketing at 30fps and a free copy of Helicon Focus for anyone that needs more DOF?
At 100mp, they could do away with complex apertures, cuz every lens will be a fixed f/2 or f/1.4.
Wow, lots of neat stuff coming.
Sep 08, 2009 at 06:03 PM
p.9 #13the d300s killer
Kerry Pierce wrote:
-----
At 100mp, they could do away with complex apertures, cuz every lens will be a fixed f/2 or f/1.4.
Wow, lots of neat stuff coming.
Totally,
I could definitely see us having focus bracketing at some point. That would be easy to implement in AF-S mode. We all wonder what features the new bodies will have, well there's one to wish for I hadn't thought of.
Edit: I find it odd that knowing that certain lenses suffer from from a change of focus plane as they stop down that no one has created a lens/body that uses a look up table to change the focus based on aperture. The 50L comes to mind, we are still in the infancy of all this digital photography stuff.
-----
At 100mp, they could do away with complex apertures, cuz every lens will be a fixed f/2 or f/1.4.
Wow, lots of neat stuff coming.
Totally,
I could definitely see us having focus bracketing at some point. That would be easy to implement in AF-S mode. We all wonder what features the new bodies will have, well there's one to wish for I hadn't thought of.Edit: I find it odd that knowing that certain lenses suffer from from a change of focus plane as they stop down that no one has created a lens/body that uses a look up table to change the focus based on aperture. The 50L comes to mind, we are still in the infancy of all this digital photography stuff.
Sep 08, 2009 at 06:22 PM
p.9 #14the d300s killer
LeifG wrote:
Does this mean I now have to cary my D200 in a brown paper bag?
Umm, I don't. I really like my D200...and my D700. (My D70 is a bit of an orphan, but maybe I'll just turn it into an IR camera.)
Does this mean I now have to cary my D200 in a brown paper bag?
Umm, I don't. I really like my D200...and my D700. (My D70 is a bit of an orphan, but maybe I'll just turn it into an IR camera.)
Sep 08, 2009 at 06:44 PM
p.9 #15the d300s killer
TonyBeach wrote:
Keeping in mind that this discussion was about the 7D "killing" the D300s. If I'm not mistaken, the difference works out to 17% more linear resolution for the 7D, that probably amounts to about a 24 inch print compared to a 20 inch print. The ability to get that extra 17% will (as you pointed out) depend on the lens; as well as on good support, good technique, exact focus, and on good lighting.
The "killing" statement by the OP was honestly stupid. No camera kills any other camera, literally or figuratively! Even in the D3 vs the MK III arena, the MK III was never as bad as the internet made it to be. It's reputation was sucked up, spun around and spat back out by gear-head forum junkies.
As to the other point, the ability to shoot that much bigger with the same detail is important to some photographers. Maybe not everyone, but it's handy.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Yes, that's about what I figured. The point I was making earlier concerned more MPs on DX cameras. I don't believe that most users, especially DX users, are regularly and routinely printing larger than 12x18. So, what tangible benefit comes with more MPs at that level? I don't know, but I do know that technique and lenses play a huge role, no matter how many MPs you have. I'd much rather print 12x18 with a 6mp image that was taken with excellent technique and glass, than an 18mp camera that wasn't.
I suppose that it's inevitable that the marketing...Show more →
I agree with your statements whole-heartedly. MP is (currently) a feature of diminishing returns. And without large advancements in camera technology or the reversal of the known laws of physics, at a certain point it becomes not just a diminished return, but a negative one.
But more MP does have it's uses. Not for the 100% crop pixel-peeping crowd, becase
1. They'll never be happy
2. They're missing the point
It's for the photographer who wants to print larger size, or print at the same size with more detail, for whatever reason.
Jammy Straub wrote:
FWIW the difference in linear resolution between 12mp and 21mp is only ~30%, noticeable in large prints, but hardly earth shattering. It is of course up to the user to decide if the cost of upgrading is worth that 30% of extra resolution. It has been said that it take an almost 50% improvement in the number total pixel to create a noticeable improvement in print quality. IE from 12mp to 18mp.
This small jump from the 12mp world to the 21-24mp world is only the beginning. Once we see sensors in the 50mp range we will have truly double...Show more →
30% is in my books, a fairly impressive increase!
As for the upcoming high MP sensors, Canon mentioned a few years back about a technology called "pixel binning" (I'm not sure if Nikon R&D have something similar planned), whereby if you have a 50mp sensor, the processor bins a large percentage of the data and averages out the remaining data to produce a file with much more DR but still with high resolution. I can't recall what the final image size would be, but I think it was around the 21mp range or a bit less.
Keeping in mind that this discussion was about the 7D "killing" the D300s. If I'm not mistaken, the difference works out to 17% more linear resolution for the 7D, that probably amounts to about a 24 inch print compared to a 20 inch print. The ability to get that extra 17% will (as you pointed out) depend on the lens; as well as on good support, good technique, exact focus, and on good lighting.
The "killing" statement by the OP was honestly stupid. No camera kills any other camera, literally or figuratively! Even in the D3 vs the MK III arena, the MK III was never as bad as the internet made it to be. It's reputation was sucked up, spun around and spat back out by gear-head forum junkies.
As to the other point, the ability to shoot that much bigger with the same detail is important to some photographers. Maybe not everyone, but it's handy.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Yes, that's about what I figured. The point I was making earlier concerned more MPs on DX cameras. I don't believe that most users, especially DX users, are regularly and routinely printing larger than 12x18. So, what tangible benefit comes with more MPs at that level? I don't know, but I do know that technique and lenses play a huge role, no matter how many MPs you have. I'd much rather print 12x18 with a 6mp image that was taken with excellent technique and glass, than an 18mp camera that wasn't.
I suppose that it's inevitable that the marketing...Show more →
I agree with your statements whole-heartedly. MP is (currently) a feature of diminishing returns. And without large advancements in camera technology or the reversal of the known laws of physics, at a certain point it becomes not just a diminished return, but a negative one.
But more MP does have it's uses. Not for the 100% crop pixel-peeping crowd, becase
1. They'll never be happy
2. They're missing the point
It's for the photographer who wants to print larger size, or print at the same size with more detail, for whatever reason.
Jammy Straub wrote:
FWIW the difference in linear resolution between 12mp and 21mp is only ~30%, noticeable in large prints, but hardly earth shattering. It is of course up to the user to decide if the cost of upgrading is worth that 30% of extra resolution. It has been said that it take an almost 50% improvement in the number total pixel to create a noticeable improvement in print quality. IE from 12mp to 18mp.
This small jump from the 12mp world to the 21-24mp world is only the beginning. Once we see sensors in the 50mp range we will have truly double...Show more →
30% is in my books, a fairly impressive increase!
As for the upcoming high MP sensors, Canon mentioned a few years back about a technology called "pixel binning" (I'm not sure if Nikon R&D have something similar planned), whereby if you have a 50mp sensor, the processor bins a large percentage of the data and averages out the remaining data to produce a file with much more DR but still with high resolution. I can't recall what the final image size would be, but I think it was around the 21mp range or a bit less.
Sep 08, 2009 at 07:03 PM
p.9 #16the d300s killer
There's one thing I think a lot of people are forgetting about diffraction - no matter how high the resolution, a higher res camera will never be WORSE at a given aperture than a lower res camera.
It's my understanding that the diffraction is still there no matter what - lower resolution sensors just can't gather enough data to show it.
The reason a really high res camera (think 40MP FF format) would show diffraction at 5.6 or so is because it can actually gather enough info to show it. 12MP doesn't gather enough info for you to notice.
At least, I think that's right,
!
It's my understanding that the diffraction is still there no matter what - lower resolution sensors just can't gather enough data to show it.
The reason a really high res camera (think 40MP FF format) would show diffraction at 5.6 or so is because it can actually gather enough info to show it. 12MP doesn't gather enough info for you to notice.
At least, I think that's right,
!Sep 08, 2009 at 08:30 PM
p.9 #17the d300s killer
Steve Perry wrote:
There's one thing I think a lot of people are forgetting about diffraction - no matter how high the resolution, a higher res camera will never be WORSE at a given aperture than a lower res camera.
It's my understanding that the diffraction is still there no matter what - lower resolution sensors just can't gather enough data to show it.
The reason a really high res camera (think 40MP FF format) would show diffraction at 5.6 or so is because it can actually gather enough info to show it. 12MP doesn't gather enough info for you to notice....Show more →
+1
Ding ding ding we have a winner. Bang on Steve.
There's one thing I think a lot of people are forgetting about diffraction - no matter how high the resolution, a higher res camera will never be WORSE at a given aperture than a lower res camera.
It's my understanding that the diffraction is still there no matter what - lower resolution sensors just can't gather enough data to show it.
The reason a really high res camera (think 40MP FF format) would show diffraction at 5.6 or so is because it can actually gather enough info to show it. 12MP doesn't gather enough info for you to notice....Show more →
+1
Ding ding ding we have a winner. Bang on Steve.
Sep 08, 2009 at 08:38 PM
p.9 #18the d300s killer
Steve Perry wrote:
There's one thing I think a lot of people are forgetting about diffraction - no matter how high the resolution, a higher res camera will never be WORSE at a given aperture than a lower res camera.
It's my understanding that the diffraction is still there no matter what - lower resolution sensors just can't gather enough data to show it.
The reason a really high res camera (think 40MP FF format) would show diffraction at 5.6 or so is because it can actually gather enough info to show it. 12MP doesn't gather enough info for you to notice....Show more →
Dunno if it's right or not. Do know that I'd much rather pay $2k for a camera that won't show me the fine details at all, than pay $8k for a camera that turns those fine details to mush and acts like the lower res $2k camera.
There's one thing I think a lot of people are forgetting about diffraction - no matter how high the resolution, a higher res camera will never be WORSE at a given aperture than a lower res camera.
It's my understanding that the diffraction is still there no matter what - lower resolution sensors just can't gather enough data to show it.
The reason a really high res camera (think 40MP FF format) would show diffraction at 5.6 or so is because it can actually gather enough info to show it. 12MP doesn't gather enough info for you to notice....Show more →
Dunno if it's right or not. Do know that I'd much rather pay $2k for a camera that won't show me the fine details at all, than pay $8k for a camera that turns those fine details to mush and acts like the lower res $2k camera.
Sep 08, 2009 at 10:38 PM
p.9 #19the d300s killer
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sorry Paul, but nothin's died over here. Old school D300 still cranks out stuff Canon can't touch...AF that WORKS! 
Hmmm, I've used a D300 and it's AF is nowhere near as good as the 1D MkIII. In fact, even the D700 and D3 don't quite match it's speed. Nice picture though.
Sorry Paul, but nothin's died over here.
Old school D300 still cranks out stuff Canon can't touch...AF that WORKS! Hmmm, I've used a D300 and it's AF is nowhere near as good as the 1D MkIII. In fact, even the D700 and D3 don't quite match it's speed. Nice picture though.
Sep 08, 2009 at 10:44 PM
p.9 #20the d300s killer
You realize this is quite a useless post here, don't you?
From my own testing with a friend's D700, the D3/D700/D300 AF is really outstanding at tracking moving targets, and most likely the 7D will be very good for tracking as well (at least it appreared to have been designed for this). I was rather disapointed regarding the D700 speed of locking and hunting of outer AF points after all the hype around, but most likely user error
From my own testing with a friend's D700, the D3/D700/D300 AF is really outstanding at tracking moving targets, and most likely the 7D will be very good for tracking as well (at least it appreared to have been designed for this). I was rather disapointed regarding the D700 speed of locking and hunting of outer AF points after all the hype around, but most likely user error
Sep 09, 2009 at 02:55 AM