Is the pixel war over?

[arun_seetharam]

<p>So, the D3s is out....and I see that it uses prettymuch the same sensor and AF system as the D700. But the surprising part to me was that Nikon did not increase the pixel count. They kept it at 12.1MP. At some point experts were debating that the pixelage should be atleast 15MP to reproduce the Film quality and so on.<br>

Does this (D3s Keeping it at 12.1MP) pass a message that this is the best mean pixel count for the best reproduction of a picture? With least noise of course...<br>

Appreciate your thoughts on this....</p>

 

[sandysocks]

<p>Maybe. On the other hand, this could be the ISO champ while another model is the megapixel champ, specialists for different uses.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>D3s doesn't seem to be aimed at the pixel war crowd...it's more of an upgrade to the D3 (which is 2 years old now) in terms of High ISO processing and video.</p>

<p>The pixel war will be "over" when Nikon introduces a D3Xs with a 15 MP count... :-)</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[1815photography]

<p>I'd rather have a 12MP usable low light image than a 24MP grainy useless low light image.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>All of the "s" models (D70s, D2Xs, D300s, and now the D3s) are just slight modifications from the earlier camera. The D70s bumped up the rear LCD by .2 inches or so. The D2Xs added a larger buffer. D300s added video.<br>

If you want really new features then you have to wait for the D4 which will probably be out in 2011 based on Nikon's previous 4 year product cycles.<br>

I'm actually surprised that Nikon redesigned at least some part of the D3 sensor for improved high ISO performance. Based on the press release it is about 1-2 stops better than before.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Over? No. Some folks will never be satisfied. That's particularly true of megapickles. I can only assume that the people who demand more pickles must have routinely printed 16x20 or larger and used medium or large format film before the digital era.</p>

<p>For me, the D3S appears to be exactly what I've wanted since getting the D2H. It adds the essential features I've been missing:</p>

<ul>

<li>Top notch high ISO performance. </li>

<li>Just enough megapickles to suit my needs.</li>

</ul>

<p>As a lifelong available light photographer, this would be an ideal accompaniment to my reckless push processing of b&w film. And in more than 30 years of photography I have rarely printed larger than 11x14.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it's still larger than I'd like. The same performance in a D700 or smaller body would be better.</p>

[mark liddell]

<p>Internet 'experts' have been arguing forever on how many MP is equivalent to film with all kinds of rhetoric, dodgy tests and baseless maths.</p>

<p>The D3s having just the same MP as the D3/D700 is no surprise, it's just a minor revision and not a whole new camera.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>7D with 18MP is another approach. I think I prefer the Nikon way 'low' pixel count high iso and the 'high' pixel for IQ.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Film quality at ISO 25600 is not so great...</p>

[luis_g]

<p> No, the pixel wars aren't over. This is just a Mexican stand-off kind of pause. There are so many patents already granted for radical tech changes that what we now take as convention will soon be history, and not in a Moore-cycle steady change, but in a phase-shift. Far cheaper sensors, unbelievable ISOs, and gigapixel cameras are in our near-future.</p>

<p> </p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Who cares, I just moved from an F100 to a D700 because I did not want DX in my system. I had some large prints done, which were stunning, but since I'm an amateur, I do not need more pixels since I rarerly print that large anyway.<br>

It's the name of the game in technological advancement. Every purchase you do is made obsolete by the next thingy. Does that make your camera less interesting? Not in my book.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Lex, as usual, even if he is horizontally perpendicular rather than vertically so, is right. For those of us who are more interested in photography than pixels, however, I think Nikon is right on in this case. I find my old 8MP camera to still be more than adequate for most things, although I do have "bigger" sensors too. I think that it's always nice to have even more pixels, but it sure isn't necessary, and bravo to Nikon for being bold enough to buck the trend. Luis G is also right, but that is not so much <em><strong>more</strong> </em> pixels as it is improving the use of the ones you do have.</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Lex. LOL<br>

Megapickles. That's the new boy in town.</p>

[leonard_forte1]

<p>I want more megapickles! More megapickles means more resolution and greater cropping capability. I dont care about shooting at ISO 2500000</p>

[david_l3]

<p>Look at all the low light and night shots from photojournalists in the LENS blog in the NY Times, and other media "pictures of the day" sites. More ISO sensitivity seems a real plus for photojournalists. I shoot indoor music events with my Nikon DSLR. Almost always the light levels in those places are dismal. I'd love an upgrade to lower noise at high ISO's. </p>

[demetrius_olivieri]

<p>Blindness and ignorance!! If you are questioning as to why Nikon chose to withold the megapixel count on the camera, you are obviously a consumer and not a marketing/technology expert working for Nikon.<br>

These small steps up in features and pixel counts from model to model is the manufactures Manna from heaven. It keeps the consumers in a perpetual state of mind of "keeping up with the jones's." In film days you could buy a pro-level camera and not really feel the need to upgrade it for 5-10 years! Not much money in that for the manufactures, is there?<br>

If they dramaticaly increased both pixel count and expidited the release of higher pixel count cameras, this would equate to lower overall camera prices and less of a profit potential for the companies. 12 years ago a "pro" level 4Mp camera would cost in the thousands.<br>

Instead, they string us along, trickling out, little by little, keeping us all wanting, consuming, and ignorant!<br>

The diamond is not a precious stone, Debeers has vaults filled to the ceiling, and slowly trickle the supply out to both control profit, and therefore demand....<br>

-Demetrius</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Personally I'm disappointed - Canon now have one at 15MP & the latest at 18MP & both are crop sensors. Nikon seem to be ignoring that aspect as far as I'm concerned. As much as I do find high ISO helpful more than I expected - - I am disappointed in the announcements.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"I am disappointed in the announcements."</p>

<p>Why? How large do you print?</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>I always hesitate to express an opinion in such well-informed company — but what the hell.</p>

<p>I believe that pixel size matters, just as pixel count matters. If you crowd more pixels onto a given-sized sensor, the pixel wells will be deeper in proportion to the area of CMOS at the bottom of the well. In my low-tech understanding, fewer pixels means a better ratio in that respect — hence the improved ISO performance.</p>

<p>I suppose there is a crossover point that represents the best trade-off between these two dynamics. Perhaps that crossover point is not at exactly 12.1 mpx — maybe it's at 15 or some other (probably similar) number. </p>

<p>Added to this is the old saw that the larger the print, the greater the viewing distance.</p>

<p>So in response to Arun's provocative question, I do think we're reaching a point of rapidly-diminishing returns on the practice of crowding more pixels onto the sensors.</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>As I read the title of your post, I wondered, how many pixels do my D200 and D700 have? As God as my witness, I am not sure.</p>

<p>So, for me, pixel count ain't it anymore. Frankly, high ISO performance is much bigger.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Actually, I really don't mind. My D300 gives plenty of good pixels for my use. Also remember, that if you increase the pixel count, the files get larger, you computer needs more time to chew on them, and you are probably facing a computer upgrade soon.....</p>

<p>just my 2cents.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Why don't we just say than some people need more megapickles and some need more high ISO performance?<br>

Some people need an SUV and some a sport car. We learned to live with that already so let's apply it to cameras too.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Going from 12 mpix to 15 mpix is pretty insignificant. The difference between 12 and 18 megapixels has some significance, although it seems that there is clearly a price to pay in terms of high ISO performance and dynamic range, at least in DX. I think that having 12 mpix makes a lot of sense as a compromise for most users. Granted, it would be nice to have a higher resolution FX camera different (and cheaper) than the D3X.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Megapickles. That's the new boy in town.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Without realising it, I once refered to megapixels as <em>pixie megals</em> whilst talking to someone at work.</p>

[dwight200]

<p>Somewhere many many years ago (pre-digital, even), I saw a picture, recognizable as a portrait of Lincoln, done with something like 24 pixels, 3 bit depth. I haven't been able to find it on the web.</p>

<p>My first digital camera was 1.2 megapixels. I could copy a 8.5 x 11 page with it and read everything down to 7 point type.</p>

<p>Now I'm using 12 MPx (MPkl?) and it does everything I need it to. I used to shoot in 4 x 5 format (half a century ago) but 12 MPx does better than I did then. (My lenses are better and the film of that era wasn't all that fast, so that's part of the reason).</p>

<p>IMHO, megapickle increases are overrated. Resolution goes as the square root of the increase, so it takes a really really large increase to be significant.</p>