Megapixels

How soon will Nikon increase megapixels on their line, especially the D-200?

I'm holding off buying one anticipating this event.

If you wait forever, you can have a million megapixels.

Come on Guy, be serious. He isn't going to wait that long. Randy, I would wait half that for 500,000 megs.

If you wait 0 days and you're a billionaire you can try going with the 4 Gigapixel Project

<CENTER><BR><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.gigapxl.org/">click</A>

<BR><BR>

Full View <BR><BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.gigapxl.org/images/Petco100-800.jpg"><BR><BR><BR>

 

Crop<BR><BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.gigapxl.org/images/PetcoScoreCrowd.jpg">

<BR><BR>

 

It's like trying to find Waldo.

Why do you wish for more megapixels? More dynamic range would be much more useful. A camera that puts out a more useable JPEG file would be more useful.A camera that has a variable output to compare to using either Fuji 50 or Kodak Ektachome would be more useful.

Maybe you just like the MP race or the FPS race.

A 3mp image produces just as good of an 8 x 10 as a 10mp image. A 30mp image will not look any different when printed as an 8 x 10 either.

 

High megapixel cameras will only give you the ability to make huge posters with more detail or allow extreme crops with little or no loss of image quality. It will likely be more cost effective to use a d200 with the right lens, even if it is an expensive one, than to pay the very, very high price for a super megapixel camera (let say in the 20 or 30 megapixel range) to have the ability to make extreme crop with a less powerful lens.

 

Another think to keep in mind that it would take a 40mp file to double the resolution of a 10mp file (the increase in resolution from a 6mp to 10mp is only about 20% or 25% - if you take the time to compare identicall 6 and 10mp images, you will see that there is basically no difference).

 

Of course, if you have unlimited funds, you can get the high megapixel camera and the powerful expensive telephoto/zoom lens.

 

Melvin hit a home run with his remarks.

 

It will likely be a long wait before there is an affordable 30-40mp camera. And when it does become available, it will likely be expensive for quite a while. A camera with 12, 15 or 18mp will not give you a significant increase in image quality.

 

I think I just talked myself into getting the Nikon 400mm 2.8 lens!

Elliot, I disagree. I have 8x10" enlargements from my Nikon 990 and 8x10" enlargements from my D70s. The D70s enlargements are much more detailed than the Nikon 990 enlargements.

 

The Nikon 990 shot a 5x7" image at 3mp, the D70s shot a 7x10" file at 6mp, and the D80 can produce amazing enlargements up to 12x18". I find the resolution of the D80 at 10mp beats 35mm film scanned with a Nikon 4000ED film scanner (60mb file).

 

Dave

listen to Melvin.

 

the race for the ultimate DSLR will not be won because of megapixels. look at Canon's new

entry, the 1D mark III - 10.1 megapixels - yet Canon claims that this camera produces the

best image quality of any Canon yet. surpassing the 16 megapixel 1Ds markII.

 

this camera also excels at: dynamic range, low light performance, 10! fps, control to limit

blown highlights, a 3" screen with live view mode, should i go on?

 

keep in mind that i'm a proud Nikon guy. but i'm ready to invest my money in a camera

that will

serve me for a long time and serve my recent insane investment in some of Nikon's best

glass justice. that camera just might be the mark III if Nikon remains incapable. but i do

have faith.

 

megapixels is only a part (albeit a major one) of the chain that produces the final image.

there's only so much room on a sensor's plain and we're starting to reach that amount in a

DSLR sensor. see this month's article in Digital Photo Pro exactly about this subject.

 

yet there's a lot of room for improvement in other areas of refinement as Canon has

expertly proved. and the Fuji S5, offering a resolution of a 6 MP camera, but to our eyes,

with the added dynamic range from the second sensor and the brilliant film color options,

produces an image that, in many cases will be more appealing than a D200 image

(subjective - don't flame). not quite enough for me to drop 2k on one yet, but i might want

one down the road.

 

i will say that i'm hoping for a D3 by autumn, with similar features - but most importantly

- IMAGE QUALITY - of the mark III. i don't need 10fps but all the other bells and whistles

sure sound perfect.

 

for now, my D200 is serving me quite nicely and i'm starting to earn money with it. i smile

every time i get my hands on it. speaking of which, i'm going to go now and try my 85 1.4

with extension tubes for the first time...(hint, less complaints -

more shutter sounds :)

I remember when I first shot with a Rolleicord camera. I had been shooting with a 35mm in

black and white, and when I first printed from a 6x6cm negative, the detail was amazing.

Later I began shooting with Agfapan 25 through my Rolleiflex for the highest amount of

resolution.

 

I like fine detail. That's why I look forward to more megapixels. For now, the D80 is very

satisfying and will be for years to come.

 

Dave

<I>If you wait 0 days and you're a billionaire you can try going with the 4 Gigapixel Project

</I><P>Which of course is using film!

From the Gigapixal Project website: <P><I>Defining the upper limits of large-format film

photography, digital scanning and image processing, custom-built Gigapxl cameras

capture images with unprecedented resolution.<P>

 

It would take a video wall of 10,000 television screens or <B>600 prints from a professional

digital SLR camera to capture as much information as that contained in a single Gigapxl

exposure.</B>

"How soon will Nikon increase megapixels on their line, especially the D-200? I'm holding off buying one anticipating this event"

 

Randy, But when do you buy one as Nikon are always working on the next generation camera. The normal model change timescale of amateur (D200) DSLR's is 18 months.

Ahhhhhh grrrr now i have to get a gigapixel camera, do you think it will be an upgrade from a d50? Also would you get a 50 1.4 or save the money and get the 1.8 for it lol.

Randy,

Please don't get sucked into the megapixel myth. More is not necessarly better. It's simply a marketing ploy. Consumers expect rapid technical advances and the number of megapixels is seen by some as a way to measure so called improvements in picture quality. Example: my D2Xs is a superb tool at 12+ megapixels, however at high iso's- above 800 iso, it's my opinion that images from my D200,D2H and Fuji S5 are superior from a noise standpoint. Small sensors tend to generate noise. There is a point of dimishing return. Different tools for different jobs/projects. You're missing opportunities for great pictures every day. I would not hold off for the latest/greatest. The D200 is a fine camera and an excellent value.

Regards,

Dave Becker

"Elliot, I disagree. I have 8x10" enlargements from my Nikon 990 and 8x10" enlargements from my D70s. The D70s enlargements are much more detailed than the Nikon 990 enlargements."

 

 

That is like saying all ball games played with a racket are the same. You aren't just comparing the number of pixels here. You are also comparing physically different sized senor pixels, in different size sensors utilizing different technology and different internal processing engines. Just as tennis, racquetball and squash are all different, not all pixels are created equally.

Ric, this is OT, but when you said "i will say that i'm hoping for a D3 by autumn, with similar features - but most importantly - IMAGE QUALITY - of the mark III"; you are comparing two cameras that are still largely hypothetical from the user's standpoint. I am reasonably certain you will get your wish though, the Q.T. from informed sources is that the D3 is going to be a big deal.

 

I sincerely hope the Mark III is a big hit and lives up to all the hype Canon has made of it. That way, I can pick up a used D2x and a couple of nice lenses all the more cheaply this Summer as many fickle, wealthy photogs dump their Nikon gear.

 

As for the OP, 10-12 MPs is the optimal density of photosites on a DX sensor. Anything more than that will be so diffraction limited that the only way to realize it will be to shoot below f/8 or even f/5.6, which doesn't leave much room for DOF.

Ellis,

 

No, pixels are the same size when you open an image in photoshop. What you are talking

about are things that determine how much dynamic range an image can have, and that is

important too. Right now the Fuji S series DSLR cameras are the king of dynamic range. My

friend has a new D80 and loves it, but his old Fuji S2 Pro has more dynamic range. I'm

talking about overall resolution.

 

The 990 had 2048 horizontal pixels in an image, the D70s had 3008, the D80 has 3872.

When I zoom in on an image I can see more information in the D80 photos than I could in

the D70s photos, and certainly more than in the old 990 photos. I want true medium

format resolution in a digital image, and 10mp is far from that. I think we'll need around

22mp or so in a DSLR to match a good medium format piece of film.

 

I remember when I shot Agfapan 25 through my 1950 Rolleiflex with the 75mm Zeiss-

Opton Tessar lens. When in the darkroom and louping the image to fine focus before

printing, the detail would go on and on. I could read the text inside the parking meter in

the center of the photo of a building in downtown Portland, OR. It was incredible! Digital

hasn't gotten there yet, but it will. And I welcome it. I just hope I can afford it!

 

I still love film. I shoot mainly black and white. Color slide film, for me anyway, has been

eclipsed by digital. And not to mention, my closet doesn't have any more room for new

Kodak Carousels! I stopped putting slides in carousels 10 years ago in fact.

 

Dave

</i> Dave you will get more noise with a smaller sensor and also less detail because a lens on a 990 will not resolve as well as a lens on a D70.

 

Also at higher resolutions where it approaches medium format capabilities, the small sensor (35mm) designed lenses will not take advantage of the full capabilities of a high megapixel count camera.

</i>If you are going to use HTML - please also close out the effect. (all the responses above in italic!)

</I>Done

what the megapixels have to do with a cool picture.!?

 

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_0079-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>