Is the pixel war over?

[donald_weston1]

<p>Definitely use the right horses for courses. There is no perfect camera, but there are great cameras. Have shot everything from 8x10 to a G9 and neither one is good if you need the other. Currently have 3 cameras, a 5D2, D300 and an EP1. This basically covers the gamut of shooting. More often I split the difference and use the D300, which I consider photo swiss army knife. My 4x5 more often then not, sits in the closet unused now for about 3 yrs. I print big up to 24x36 and for that I can tell you, you do not need more then 12 mp, if you are shooting with good technique. Even the Ep1 will allow for this under the correct conditions and good light. JMHO.....</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with this statement, so there will always be suckers like me for high-resolution cameras</p>

[trevans]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>I happen to think that everyone should just drive hatchback rally cars, but then again my fantasy world is a fun and muddy one. ;)</p>

<p>I don't wonder if we'll get to the point where you can choose options for your camera as you can with cars. Just as with engine choices on cars, maybe we could get sensor choices (provided they're the same form factor)... do you want the high-ISO 10MP DX sensor, or the high-res 18MP sensor? Or do you want the specialized B&W/IR sensor? (drool)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<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.<br>

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>

</blockquote>

<p>Good points raised here. Of course, the thing to remember is that not only do pixel size (light gathering ability), crowded pixels (heat and crosstalk), and other sensor-specific specs, but so does the amplifier and A/D converter behind it. I don't know this, but I'm guessing that the evolutionary 's' cameras keep the same sensor (expensive to change) and might fiddle with the amplifier circuits (cheap) and maybe the firmware (cheaper still).<br>

I do wonder what this crossover point might be that you talk about... but I think a better way to describe it would be (all other things being equal) the ratio of pixel area to pixel volume, or maybe the ratio of individual pixel area to total sensor area.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>Gigapixels...nothing like 500MB JPGs. Nikon has to make product improvements somewhere. One path is large sensor, ultra low noise, the other is large sensor, ultra dense pixel count. Choose what you need. </p>

[david_bradley1]

<p>I would relish more megapickles.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>I hope to revisit this thread in 25 years.</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>I'd rather have both high pixel count and low noise performance. You may think this is wishful thinking, but 200 years ago no one thought they'd be able to send a letter to anywhere in the world for free that would arrive in two or three seconds.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Well I still use an old Nikon D1h with 2.75mp. 8x10 inch prints look great and I can't print any bigger than that at home so it works for me just fine. My D80 has more megapickels :) but nobody that I have shown prints to can tell any difference between between the two camera most will choose one image over another based on how bright the colors are or whether they find the image attractive or not. I have never done tripod mounted images side by side of the same subject or shot test charts and never will. I bought the D80 because it is smaller and more practical for holidays due to better battery life and a much smaller charger.</p>

[nikolo5]

<p>Good time!<br>

I think the pixel war will be never out. Like the Gbytes war in HDDs or flash memory is not still.. for few years these "standards" of 12-24 Mpix might be frozen, afterwards a new turn of the spiral will start.<br>

Sincerely,<br>

NB.</p>

[jkiffmeyer]

<p>The "war" is over, just like the war for bigger SUVs is over, but there will always be people who want/need the biggest they can get, (my pastor has 8 kids, fit them in a compact...) and so the battle will wage on to make products for people who want them. There is more of an ongoing war in ISO and video, though that is nothing like the megapickle war since only select people are wanting those features, but almost everyone really wanted more pickles until it got over 6-12.</p>

<p>Going forward it makes sense for Nikon to provide the high megapickles to those who want/need them, and high ISO for those who want/need them. The D4x will be cheaper and more pickled, and the D4 will sit around the same spot and improve in iso and other features. I expect a D700x to match the D3x in pickles at some point, if for no other reason than to counter the 5DII from canon.</p>

<p>Personally I care way more that I move up to full frame than changing from my current 12 pickles on DX, and I would love a new format of camera from nikon that was a square sensor filling the full coverage of the lens in both directions. Portrait photos would never need flipping the camera, just flipping a switch so that the crop was portrait orientation. Or select to capture the full square and crop in computer later for landscape or portrait. </p>

[robertcain]

<p>Hey, welcome back. Ironically I set a calendar reminder to today to remind me to go back to this article and see where the "megapixel war" has gone. Well here the line up of the latest cameras from each manufacturer:<br>

Nikon D810A: - 36MP<br>

Canon EOS 5DS: - 51MP<br>

Leica SL (Typ 601) - 24MP<br>

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II - 42MP - Although the Sony Alpha 7S II is 12MP but @ 400K ISO<br>

Pentax K-3 II - 24MP</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Bob, great idea to calendar this thread, thanks for that...</p>

<p>I've settled on the Df (16 MP) for the long haul. The war is over for me.</p>

<p>- Dan</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I still feel that the pixel war is pretty much over. When Canon introduced the 5DS a few months ago, with 51MP, very few Nikon users have posted that Nikon must now "catch up" with Canon as 36MP isn't sufficient. Most people realize that the difference between 36 and 51MP is small and is also difficult to realize due to optics/lens, technique, and subject limitations. There are far more complaints from Nikon users that Nikon hasn't updated the D300/D300S to compete against Canon's 7D Mark II.</p>

<p>I have had a D800E (36MP) since 2012, but in these days I use the D750 (24MP) a lot more. To me, 36MP is often too many, which leads to large image files, slow frame rate, and lower-quality pixels, which in turn affect high-ISO results, etc.</p>

[chuck]

I think pixel wars is not over, it's just that it won't be fought on all fronts anymore. Entry level and mid-range will probably

stay at 20-30 Mpixels for a long time. But top end bodies will continue to feel the pressure for more pixels. The reason

why people may not be switching from Nikon to canon over EOS5Drs is probably because 1) 36 to 50 is not a huge leap.

2) Nikon has been the king of pixel count for so long most people probably assume Nikon will one up canon soon, and it's

just a matter of time. So It would be hasty and kinda stupid to jump from Nikon to canon just for 30% more pixels of lower

dynamic range, only to have Nikon leap frog canon shortly afterwards.

 

If Eos5D were 72Mpixels, I think there would be a lot of jumpers. I think in 3 or 4 years, successors of D810 and Eos5Drs will be pushing 100 Mpixels, if not more.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Chuck, I have talked to some friends who use Canon and they are mainly landscape photographers. Obviously that is merely the opinion of a few, but even they are not interested in "upgrading" from the 5D Mark III (21MP) to the 5DS.</p>

<p>It will be completely meaningless to cramp more than 50MP onto an FX sensor because the pixels will be so small that you'll have diffraction in all apertures. Addition to that, the sensor will likely out-resolve most if not all lenses at their best aperture, and it'll be difficult to find subjects with so much detail to require so many pixels to make any difference at all.</p>

<p>Camera companies can advertise 50, 100MP as some marketing slogan, mainly for the uninformed. In reality, you'll only have larger image files that take up more memory space and slow down the frame rates. You will not have more resolution one way or another, unless you move up to a larger format.</p>