Thirty-Six Megapixels?

[wogears]

<p>A reliable <a href="http://www.nikonrumors.com">rumor </a>from a guy whose brother used to date a Nikon rep says that the soon-to-be-announced D800 will have a 24x36 mm sensor (a/k/a 'full frame') with no less than 36 megapixels. Sounds unbelievable at first, but apparently similar speculation abounds in the Sony world, where the a900's successor is supposed to have the same pixel count. So the question is, "What do we need with that many MP? Won't it have poor high-ISO quality? What about The Bokeh?" (Sorry. Forget the bokeh.)</p>

<p>Here are my brief thoughts, formed in a state of considerable exhaustion. The first thing we are going to hear is that the sensor will out-resolve the lens. Fair enough. Who cares? 6x7 cm Velvia out-resolves any MF lens, even including Zeiss Glass™. Does that mean we didn't need medium format? I can see the difference between images shot with a Canon 1Ds III and an 80 mp back on a 'Blad. Resolution counts. 36 MP gives 4900x7350 files. That's a 24x36 print at 200 ppi. I like that. As I said, I'm tired, so I'll let those with more sleep carry on the discussion.</p>

<p>--Les</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>But Les, just imagine the never-seen-before details of a squirrel with 36 megapixels! </p>

[User_5888660]

<p>I'm sure it will matter to some photographers. Personally, I like my D700 and don't need to update just to get more MPs. But, I have a friend who shoots weddings for a living, she is salivating over the prospect of the new Nikon. </p>

<p>I think digital cameras are finally getting to the place computers got to about a decade ago. The advances will apply to a smaller and smaller group. The "need" to upgrade is diminishing. </p>

[Mike D]

<p>I have a couple of 16 MP D7000s which replaced a couple of 12 MP Nikon bodies. I haven't looked backed. The images just appear sharper with 16 MP and I have more options to crop in post processing. My next body will be 36 MP body and I can't wait.</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p> Won't it have poor high-ISO quality? </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>At low iso, there will be no problem. Just great resolution. At high iso, if you are not happy, just down size to 18 MP. But it will probably be a 18 MP image that is better than current Nikons at 12 MP. You can always downsize and still maintain or increase quality. But you can never create resolution that was never captured by a lower resolution camera. It may even have an option to do this downsize resampling for you automatically.<br>

= Tommy</p>

[john_macpherson]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00ZR1k"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael Chang</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 06, 2011; 09:56 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But Les, just imagine the never-seen-before details of a squirrel with 36 megapixels!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be a joy.</p>

<p>But the reality is that all we'll get on numerous forums to show the wonders of the fantastic new sensor are cats, cats and more bl**dy cats, close up, upside down, blurry bokeh cats, and cats whiskers.</p>

<p>Dont get me wrong, I quite like cats. But sometimes it would be quite nice to see some squirrels.</p>

 

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Cat's <em>eating</em> squirrels, at 100 meters, cropped out of the center of a 36mp frame, and printed from 12 pixels on A3 paper. That's the test, man. I heard that's how Nikon reps are showing this new camera at the clandestine trade shows where it's being demonstrated to blindfolded audiences who will remain locked up on the secret island of Dr. Nikkor until the actual public release of the product, which will be any minute now, indefinitely.<br /><br />Me? I'd use it, gladly. But the <em>lens </em>price penalty for us D300 users would be painful indeed.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Well, I am sure that our eyes would soon learn to appreciate 36 MP digital prints and note how well they compare to MF prints drum scanned and printed through a professional lab. I rather like the idea of buying a cheap Sony A900 when the new model takes over!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>There are 18 and 24 MP APS-C cameras. FX is twice the size. 36-48 could be done using the same tech - and I'd be very surprised if Sony were not working on it.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>But the reality is that all we'll get on numerous forums to show the wonders of the fantastic new sensor are cats, cats and more bl**dy cats, close up, upside down, blurry bokeh cats, and cats whiskers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about the brick walls? Can't forget them.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Oh no, cats ON brick walls.......aaargh time to lie down I think.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Yes, it is possible to cram too many pixels on a chip. Sony's new A77 is a good example of this where the increased pixel density makes the 24mp chip's IQ look worse than their older 16mp one, epecially at high ISOs (.<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=sony_slta77&masterSample=dsc00238.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=sony_slta77&slot0Sample=dsc00238.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=sony_nex5&slot1Sample=sonynex5_iso3200.acr&slot2Camera=nikon_d7000&slot2Sample=dsc1_1891.acr&slot3Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot3Sample=img_0053.acr&x=0.27937359915064286&y=-1.0071300189552618">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=sony_slta77&masterSample=dsc00238.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=sony_slta77&slot0Sample=dsc00238.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=sony_nex5&slot1Sample=sonynex5_iso3200.acr&slot2Camera=nikon_d7000&slot2Sample=dsc1_1891.acr&slot3Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot3Sample=img_0053.acr&x=0.27937359915064286&y=-1.0071300189552618</a>)<br>

So I'd take a wait and see atitude. After all, marketing hype to the contrary, there actually is something known as the laws of physics that can't be exceeded. Whether that limit has been reached yet or not is what Nikon will show us.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>How much money does it take to be too rich?<br>

Or<br>

How many pixies can dance on the head of a sensor?<br>

A question from the <em>Summa Cameralogica</em></p>

[wogears]

<p><strong>@Mike:</strong> This assumes you don't downsample the 24MP file to match the 16MP. Once you do, the noise is pretty much the same.</p>

[dan_south]

I'm waiting for the inevitable faux logic to pop up on this discussion.

 

Theory 1 - If you can't take a good photo with 6 MP, you're a failure as a photographer.

 

Debunked - Plenty of people can take good pictures regardless of the technology that they use. Why should they be

deprived of the latest advances just because somebody else has composition issues?

 

Theory 2 - Great photos have been taken with grainy old film. Therefore, you don't need anything better.

 

Debunked - Those photos were taken with what was available in that time and place. If the photographer had had a

36 MP camera in his/her hand, the image would have no less emotional or historic impact. Just more detail.

 

Theory 3 - I shoot weddings with 6 MP, and my clients are thrilled.

 

Debunked - Your clients aren't photo editors or imaging experts.

 

Theory 4 - I use a 4 MP camera phone, and it gives me all of the resolution that I'll ever need.

 

Debunked - Great! You are like a lot of other people, and that's one reason why smart phones are very popular.

Luckily for me, you won't be on the waiting list for my new hi-res camera, because I have some serious pixels to expose.

 

Now if you'll please excuse me, the shuttle to Dr. Nikon's secret island will be departing shortly.

 

;-)

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Berkley…</p>

<p>Thank you for your thoughtful questions and thoughts. May I add mine?</p>

<p>1. Too many pixels for high ISO quality?</p>

<p>I think the answer is “how good is the hardware and software?” We’ve seen the ISO quality/pixel density rise dramatically in the last few years. Even look at the ability of the tiny thumbtack sized 16 MP receptors on compact cameras to capture a decent quality result (yes, but not up to “professional” standards). The software and hardware engineering that went into that has been amazing. Also there is personal choice. I, unlike many others I’m sure, would gladly drop a magnitude of ISO, i.e. acceptable level of noise at 1600 ISO rather than 3200 ISO, in favor of 36MP rather than 21MP or 24MP.</p>

<p>2. Lens resolution?</p>

<p>First: Lens resolution is usually much higher than the published figures. The published figures come from someone’s interpretation of where to decide the number lies from results obtained on the film they were using to do the test, set against a film backing plate, hopefully without any film curl, having focused the lens the best they can, etc. The absolute ‘in air” resolution is much higher. Although I have an “official” USAF 1951 test chart I’ve not used it in the days of Techpan with my Mamiya 7II. However, in a real world test, focusing the 80mm lens (the best I could) at close to 300 meters, I got detail on Techpan that I could not get on Velvia 50. The two shots were taken within five minutes of each other to ensure the same light, air particulate, etc. This difference shows up on a 4000 PPI Nikon 9000 scan. Using a metallic deposit on glass Edmund Scientific test glass, I’ve rated the 9000 at about 3800 true PPI. With a microscope, I can see a much larger difference. My conclusion is that my MF lens out resolves both Velvia and the published results for the lens.</p>

<p>Second: When using a quality scanner (like a drum scanner) each pixel reported to the computer is made up of information that comes from three passes of the pickup device, once each with a red, green and blue filter. With a Bayer Array each pixel only has one filter. Each array quadrant is made up of four pixels, two green and one each of red and blue. The computer chip and software then interpolate a color value for each one of the four pixels. In other words a 36MP chip is interpolating information upwards from 9MP worth of pixel groups. I find it hard to believe that a good lens like one of the better Canon “L” or CZ primes cannot resolve 9MP over an area of 864 sq. mm.</p>

<p>There are a lot of people who would argue with what I have posted so far. They may even be right. However the next and very last camera I will purchase will have a real optical viewfinder and be 30+MP or nothing. 36MP sounds good to me.</p>

<p><br />A. T. Burke</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>Isn't a "reliable rumor" and oxymoron?</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't a "reliable rumor" an oxymoron?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's on the INTERNET, it MUST be true.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I love my D700's image quality. It looks terrific at 200, and very good at ISO's up to 1600. Usable at 3200 and 6400. But I do want more resolution eventually. When Nikon releases an FX body the same size as the D700 with 24 megapixels I will be interested, but not before then. Upgrading to anything less than 24 megapixels is a waste of time in my opinion.</p>

<p>When I zoom in to actual pixels on an image taken with my D700, I do wish for more fine detail. I guess it is like horsepower in a car, more is always better, but there is a tradeoff with gas mileage as there is with noise.</p>

<p>I don't buy the notion that the sensor outresolves the lens. This certainly isn't true with the D700, and I never heard anybody say it was the case with the D3x either.</p>

[dan_south]

>> I guess it is like horsepower in a car, more is always better, but there is a tradeoff with gas mileage as there is

with noise.

 

+1000

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>So what? When I scan a 6x9 Fuji Provia 100F slide @ 4.000 ppi/spi I get a 120 MegaPixel image or 12.900 x 8.600 pixels @ true 48 bit color depth. CaNiSonIkon still have a long way to go to reach this resolution. They are still limited to 14/32 bit... </p>

<p>I've made so many great images with my analog cameras (35 mm, 6x9, LF), these mega-pimple figures sound like hot air to me.</p>

<p>However, nobody starts screaming when reading these figures, because it's something that's been available for a long time and because it's not a hype promoted by a greedy industry and doesn't come with the buzz word 'digital'.</p>

<p>I've followed the mega-pimple discussion now for almost a decade, but in my opinion the quality of images didn't change at all. The opposite happened: today we see more lousy, flat, boring and emotionless pictures than ever before.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The opposite happened: today we see more lousy, flat, boring and emotionless pictures than ever before." </em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Jens, the ratio of good to lousy pictures have probably remained constant. We see more lousy photos because the Internet made their visibility possible, but there are proportionally as many spectacular photos and photographers if we look in the right places. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>today we see more lousy, flat, boring and emotionless pictures than ever before.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael is right. It's only because we see so many more photos that this could be true. In fact, I see far more good photos now than I did before, even if the percentages have stayed the same. What's really amazing is when someone can take dynamic, interesting and emotional photos like <a href="http://goo.gl/TAkJk">the ones in this gallery</a> using just a phone. Once one lets go of being a materials scientist, it's possible to take much better photos.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Benthien… “I've followed the mega-pimple discussion now for almost a decade, but in my opinion the quality of images didn't change at all. The opposite happened: today we see more lousy, flat, boring and emotionless pictures than ever before.”</p>

<p>Mr. Chang… “Jens, the ratio of good to lousy pictures have probably remained constant. We see more lousy photos because the Internet made their visibility possible, but there are proportionally as many spectacular photos and photographers if we look in the right places.”</p>

<p>Mr. Spirer… “Michael is right. It's only because we see so many more photos that this could be true. In fact, I see far more good photos now than I did before, even if the percentages have stayed the same. What's really amazing is when someone can take dynamic, interesting and emotional photos like the ones in this gallery using just a phone. Once one lets go of being a materials scientist, it's possible to take much better photos.”</p>

<p>When could I have heard this type of discussion before? Could it have been in the late 30s when Argus came out with their low priced “A”? Or was it after WWII when GIs brought home a bunch of low cost 35mm “miniature” cameras? Or maybe, when Polaroid came onto the scene in the late 40s? Or could it have been when the Instamatic made the scene? Or possibly could it have been when the small, cheaper auto-focus compacts became affordable?</p>

<p>Or maybe it is just that my memory is playing tricks on me.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>if the rumors are reliable then:</p>

<p>1. i just cannot wait for this new 36pixel d800 to be announced because then:<br>

2. i expect the prices for d700 to fall substantial, because:<br>

3. a minority of working photographers will certainly need to buy the new item but a majority of those who must have the latest and the "best" will buy it too - then<br>

4. those who really want an FX but have been unable to afford the current prices, will have access to it for around 2000<br>

so, i will keep my fingers crossed, pick up a cheaper d700 and not bother any squirrels or cats :)</p>