When Will Nikon Counter Canon's 5DsR?

[Uhooru]

<p>Well, Leica has the older R lenses lenses that were amazing, but they are all manual, I believe. </p>

[donbright]

<p>The counter would be in spirit to keep these threads going. Other than that, why?</p>

[5711]

<p>i have heard theyre even going for 73mp in the next nikon d500x with 37 fps!<br>

oh my</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p><em>we do not need them to put 50, 100 or 200 MP sensors in tiny cameras</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally i agree to that, but the market works different...<br>

In General the old saying still goes :<br>

<em>- "The availability creates the need"</em><br>

And the industry knows that verry well...</p>

 

[glenncadman]

<p>All things being equal wouldn't we would all choose a camera with more pixels than less? If there was a D610 with 50MP or a D610 with 24MP at the same price with the same everything else I would have gone with the 50MP version. However if there was a D610 with 24MP with better dynamic range and 16 bit color vs a 50MP with 12 bit color and normal dynamic range, I would choose the 24MP version.<br>

Maybe the market for future cameras will split into the a hypothetical Nikon D900 "Art" and the D900 "Sport". The art series , slow, but increased HDR, 16 bit color with real creaminess, optimized for best quality portraits and landscapes printed to paper vs a sport optimized (mirrorless) for high speed shooting ( 32fs in 8K), AF capture and files optimized for online jpeg conversion ( 8 bit color) . It will be interesting the if the next D5 vs the D800 successor shows this dichotomy of photographic outcomes. That being said no company is going to willingly tool up two very expensive production lines just to fabricate two sensor types if they can possibly avoid it. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>All things being equal wouldn't we would all choose a camera with more pixels than less?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, because things inevitably will not be the same. Suppose that on a pixel level there is no penalty to pay for having physically smaller pixels, and we're comparing same generation silicon and software, then more megapixels will leave me with larger files, increased requirements for processing etc. Given that my uses never ever come close to needing all the extra megapixels, I would be perfectly happy with the lower MP version too.<br>

And given that things really aren't equal, the lower MP camera makes more sense for most of us; I do wholeheartedly agree with QG analysis. There is a niche market that needs more, and they're better served with physically larger sensors to get there. The rest of us.....let's be realistic there: nearly all people I know (in person) with higher megapixel cameras than my D700 do not print, or print less than 10 photos per year at a size larger than A4. So, really, there is a point where more pixels really stop being useful for the mass market.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>split into the a hypothetical Nikon D900 "Art" and the D900 "Sport".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like the D3 versus the D3x; the D4 versus the D800? Nikon already does this.</p>

<p>What is this extra creaminess that is mentioned a few times in this thread? I know some lenses to which it would be an applicable adjective, but a sensor? What does that have to do with it?</p>

[glenncadman]

<p>It is hard to explain creaminess with examples from a computer monitor, what I am meaning is the seamless "creamlike" tonality you see in the normally professionally printed photography at exhibitions etc, normally from medium or large format film cameras. I dont think it is only a lens factor, more a factor of the media/sensor that receives those nicely aligned photons. <br /> Of course anyone can argue that difference that doesn't make a difference is not a difference: if there is no visible difference between photographic outcomes in selecting a 50MP sensor over a 24MP sensor then why bother? But of course reality is that there will be a difference with more pixels, the ability to crop/zoom, extract fine details etc that make me want a 50MP sensor over a 24MP sensor (all things else being equal). <br /><br />The "compute" factor however I don't think is such an issue, disk is phenomenally cheap a 50MP image is going to consume around 50MB, 2TB disk sells for US$80 or US$160 for two so you have a backup, around 40,000 images or 1cent each. My laptop has 8000MB of RAM and 4 CPU cores, more than memory more then enough to process a single image or even to blend a panorama, as would any computer produced in this decade and likely to be owned by a person who buys a top end camera system..<br /> Processing 4K at 60f/sec however is the desktop challenge.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>more a factor of the media/sensor that receives those nicely aligned photons</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the ability to crop/zoom, extract fine details etc that make me want a 50MP sensor over a 24MP sensor (all things else being equal). <br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mm I think there is a little issue here.... , it is virtually impossible to create a lens that will always transmit an image to the sensor where all channels ( be it RGB or CMYK) will be nicely alligned within 1 pixel, this becomes more difficult whn the density of the sensor increases, Meaning , with current technology, that cropping from a 50mp sensor might not always give you a better quality image then it would when utilizing a 24mp sensor, especcilly when the crop factor increases . THer is a break-off point somewhere i guess. Possibly the minimum aperture will play a role here too, diffraction from aperture will be more visible when using a higher density sensor ... </p>

 

[kivivuori]

<p>I think the problem is not having good enough lenses (expensive), but I know that in 99,99% cases it`s very difficult to capture 100 lp/mm (equals 7200 x 4800 pix in 24x36 sensor). You have to have a strudy tripod, no AA-filter in front of the sensor and optimal conditions.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Esa: That's really not true. Is the pixel-level contrast as high with a 36MP FX body as it is with a 12MP DX body? No, of course not (although the strong AA filter on the D700 really compensated for that). Can you resolve detail with "good" contrast? Yes. Pick a suitable aperture and a fast enough shutter speed, and all is more than acceptably sharp. Run it through mild image processing (usually DxO, in my case) and there's a heck of a lot of detail there. Yes, I tend to stick to the f/4-f/5.6 range more than I would with the D700, and I use good lenses, but daylight is plenty to get you to a suitable fraction of the shutter speed for sharpness, especially with VR. Could I get slightly better sharpness with a long exposure on a solid tripod with good lens support? Of course. But not by enough to be typically visible.<br />

<br />

The D8x0 cameras <i>are</i> more demanding of optics and technique than the 24MP FX bodies if you want pixel-level sharpness, just as they're more demanding than the D700/D3. Not much, but a bit. The 5Ds R will be a little more demanding still - but still only a bit. Nikon and (now) Canon make 24MP consumer bodies, and they're capable of decent detail resolution as well. If it was that hard to take a decent photo, all consumer bodies would still be 2MP. Getting pixel-level detail out of a 100MP body will be harder than it is with a D8x0, but only about as much harder as a D8x0 is compared with the D700.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>All things being equal wouldn't we would all choose a camera with more pixels than less? If there was a D610 with 50MP or a D610 with 24MP at the same price with the same everything else I would have gone with the 50MP version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not, because things will never be equal. As I pointed out earlier, I added a 24MP D750 in addition to the 36 D800E precisely for fewer pixels, which is what I prefer in most situations. For the occasions that can benefit from 36MP, I still have the D800E.</p>

<p>As I pointed out earlier, when the pixels get smaller and smaller, diffraction will set in earlier and earlier, wiping out all advantages from the extra pixels. You will have more pixels and therefore much larger image files and frequently slower frame rate, but diffraction will prevent you from getting more details in your images. As a result, you will be carrying the extra pixels and large image files. You'll have bragging rights for having more pixels, but in reality, your images will have no real advantage over those from 36MP cameras.</p>

<p>Additionally, whether your subject indeed have more details to be captured in the first place, photographer technique, lens quality ... are all issues.</p>

<p>I used to recommend the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S over the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S due to the 17-35 being a more useful zoom range. However, I noticed in 2010 that on the 24MP D3X, the 17-35's edge performance was no longer acceptable near 17mm. Back then it wasn't a serious problem since very few people had the $8000 D3X. As soon as Nikon introduced the popular D800 and then D600 in 2012, every time I have to quality my recommendation of the 17-35mm/f2.8 nowadays. Some lenses are not up to the job for even 24MP, at least in some part of the zoom range and in some apertures.</p>

<p>If you indeed need more pixels, you cannot keep squeezing them into 24x36mm. That is why you need larger format so that you can once again use f8, f11 without diffraction problems.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>"Sigma does a better job in marketing, ......this way Sigma creates a market for their products before they are even starting production ..." Maybe this is why I buy more Sigma lenses than Nikon. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>More pixels mean larger prints, which may not actually mean much in a practical sense. It also means fewer problems with Moire on cloth and other repetitive patterns. Finally, you can crop more and still have enough pixels left for larger prints. This reduces your dependency on large, heavy and expensive zoom lenses. Of course smaller pixels tend to have more relative noise than larger ones, hence smaller dynamic range and lower maximum ISO. These are design limits, rather than intrinsic, so not all pixels are equal, and the game is continually improving.</p>

<p>Diffraction in a lens is proportional to the relative aperture. A 50mm lens and 80mm lens have the same propensity for diffraction at the same aperture (f/11, or whatever). Longer lenses have larger openings, but the exit pupil is further from the focal plane, resulting in the same spread. Sensor resolution has no effect on diffraction, except you may see problems with the lens more clearly.</p>

<p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>Shun,<br>

<br />“If you indeed need more pixels, you cannot keep squeezing them into 24x36mm. That is why you need larger format so that you can once again use f8, f11 without diffraction problems”<br>

<br />If you are having the following scenario:<br>

<br />Someone wants f8 on 50MP FX camera but doesn’t like the amount of diffraction softening at pixel level (because f8 airy disc is 10.7 microns and the pixel size is 4.2).<br>

<br />Are you proposing they should switch to a larger format for larger pixels so they can take their photo at f8 and reduce the f8 diffraction impact as pixel size is bigger (for example MF 54mm x 40mm pixel size would be of 6.6 microns for 50MP)?<br>

<br />But this f8 on a larger format has less depth of field (assuming the same field of view in the final photo) so more out of focus blur in your final photo.<br>

<br />So you stop down to get your DoF back. You would need f12.3 on the medium format example. That gives you an airy disc of 16.6 vs pixel size of 6.6, that’s the same ratio as airy disc of 10.7 vs pixel size of 4.2.<br>

<br />If you want the same final photo it looks like you have gained nothing in terms of the diffraction softening artefact. So I’m not sure going to a larger format will get you round the diffraction problem</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>We're ignoring quite a lot of effects here. Firstly, we're assuming that the pixel quality drops off as the pixel count increases. Historically, that has absolutely been true. With the 36MP Sony sensors, it's only arguably true (the per-pixel dynamic range is very good, although the high-ISO performance is slightly worse). With the stacked approach of the A7r II, there is a chance that even this difference will have gone away. Or not, we'll have to wait for reviews.<br />

<br />

File sizes are bigger if you record the full sensor resolution. Of course, maybe you don't need to do that - if the sensor resolution is high enough, you can bin down to smaller sizes. Nikon (and to an extent Canon) made such a pig's ear of small RAW that the concept seems unappealing, but logically there's no problem, at least if your debayering software knows what it's doing (and if Phase One don't sue you because of Sensor+ - though I maintain what it does is obvious). Do this and moiré is better than using a camera at lower resolution.<br />

<br />

For a fixed resolution of output, sensor resolution can currently hurt. If you're capturing a 1920x1080 signal using a D800's sensor, and if you're doing so by point sampling the sensor at the relevant locations (I don't believe it's that bad, but the argument holds), you're reading something like one in 14 pixels from the sensor (7360/1920 is about 3.8), ignoring the aspect ratio crop. No wonder high-ISO video from a D800 sucks. On a D750, that number is nearer one in ten. But offer decent pixel binning (or more read-out) and you can use all the sensor area. You can also reconstruct video with full colour data at each nominal pixel. And, again, I think video is what's going to push the sensor resolutions, at least a little.<br />

<br />

Then there's the 'nobody makes 40" prints' argument. True, they don't. But most people don't peer at a 40" print from right next to it (unless it's been shot with an ultrawide and they're going for immersion). People do pan around images at the pixel level digitally, because they can. Yes, images on Photo,net are normally 700 pixels wide, and a lot of online snaps in social media are small (and look bad if they're shot bigger). It was only recently that I established that Instagram is now a social media network popular with kids, as opposed to a bit of software for unpredictably messing up a perfectly good photo. (Speaking of, I saw Jurassic World recently. One of the kids seemed to be trying to document everything with what looked alarmingly like a Holga. Seriously, you go to a park full of dinosaurs and your choice of recording equipment is a blurry thing with almost no exposure control? Bloody hipsters. Maybe I imagined it, and it was just a digital camera inexplicably <i>styled</i> like a Holga.) <i>Anyway.</i> There are plenty of online ways to share big images. Sometimes <a href="http://www.in2white.com/">very</a> big images. I've seen a wall-sized Ansel Adams large format print - very nice, but certainly not all that sharp. Even UHD and 5K monitors are starting to become more common.<br />

<br />

So, all else being equal, let's have more pixels. Let's just make sure that all else really is equal. It can be.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Jon: Larger formats don't fix diffraction (at the same depth of field), although I did have to get over a brain fade to persuade myself of this. What they do is let you use a smaller relative aperture to do it, so a lot of optical aberrations go away. Given a 5x4 camera with a 150mm f/2.8 lens, you'll get an image that's in the same ballpark as a 50mm f/0.95 (or maybe 0.8). The 35mm lenses that are that fast? Kind of specialist, and really not very good at wide apertures. It's much easier to build an optically good f/2.8 lens, even with large coverage, than it is to make an f/0.8 lens. The same applies even at more reasonable apertures. I presume lens availability has historically been a factor in the look people expect - people tend to think of medium format cameras as having a shallow depth of field and little film grain because that's what you get if you use the same relative aperture as you would on 35mm. If both lenses are f/2.8, that may be all you could do. But since there aren't so many f/1.4 lenses with medium format coverage, medium format no longer has the advantage on this - though 135/FX still tends to have the edge on DX and below.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Nikon routinely telegraphs new products by reducing the price of existing products which would compete for the same market niche. In general, they don't announce products months ahead of their release, but they seldom introduce revolutionary changes either. Consider that 36 MP (the 800/810) has only 20% more resolution than 24 MP. the 50 MP Canon is only 40% "better" than 24 MP.</p>

<p>I would have jumped for the Sony A7Rii for increased high ISO performance, better AF and a silent shutter even if the resolution had remained at 24MP. For me, 42 MP is a bonus not a deal maker. (I won't turn it down, considering it doesn't have an AA filter, which sweetens the MP advantage considerably.) I was not turned on to the D800 or D810 because of the size and weight, and the comparison of Nikon lenses with my experience with Leica (later Sony/Zeiss) beginning last summer. If the rumored "D900" with 75 MP were announced next week, I would not change course unless the package included some metaphysical features.</p>

<p>Early marketing is a sound business practice, as long as you keep your reputation for delivering on time. When Microsoft failed to deliver a new Windows version, they became an industry icon for "vaporware." It establishes your place in line, should the competition have a similar product available sooner. If you like Nikon (Leica, Zeiss, etc.), and accept the price, earlier availability from Sigma or Tamron will probably go unheeded.</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>Andrew, I was really only pointing out that larger format doesn't appear to fix the diffraction problems.</p>

<p>I agree that for the shallowest DOF large format may be easier but obviously there are plenty of other considerations when choosing a system especially if going to the extremes of the focal lengths and apertures on a system (size, weight, cost, build quality, plus the modern additions like auto focus systems, VR etc).</p>

<p>I don't know much about large format but it looks like 150mm large format lenses are often f5.6 (so a 50/1.4 in FX?) and a 2.8 one not so common. The only one I came across (not that I looked hard!) was a 150mm Xenotar f2.8, "It weighs seven times as much as the Fujinon-W (f5.6), and if you work with it on your camera you get the feeling that you are budging a spacecraft through a swamp"!</p>

<p>I guess there is always a compromise needed somewhere depending on your own priorities.</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Very good thoughts, opinions and answers. Personally I would ask "When will Nikon counter the amazing Sony (Alpha) A7R II" Incredible camera...Sony is really on track with the shape of things to come!</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Why did Sony elect to release a camera with 42 MP, not 50 MP? After all, Sony makes 40% of all the digital sensors on the market, including Nikon and medium format cameras. According to their senior manager of the digital imaging goup, 42 MP is the ideal size to record full frame 4K video with minimal binning, and video is a big part of mirrorless future. The A7Rii records 4K directly to memory, not to an external recorder like the A7S, 4,2,2 quality at 100 MB/s - broadcast quality.</p>

<p>I have used my A7ii to record video in parallel with other HD video cameras, and found the results to be compatible and easily matched and mixed. It's a little tricky to handle the 29 minute maximum per clip (stop and restart) and batteries that last just under an hour, but I did it and will no doubt do it again when I need the footage.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0717419525/interview-kimio-maki-of-sony-the-customer-s-voice-is-the-most-important-data-for-me</p>

[5711]

<p>it is a very well explained article and easy to cross reference wether or not it is good.<br /> it is damn good actually.<br /> i do not want to quote or write as if it was my knowledge.<br /> i got a part of it from him and i think he makes a very valid point,<br /> especially intersting to this conversation.<br /> read it.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/">http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/</a></p>

<p>at the end of the article he writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>Greater sensor resolution enables you to theoretically capture greater levels of detail.</li>

</ul>

<p>but that extra level of detail is somewhat problematic because:</p>

<ul>

<li>Diffraction renders it ‘soft’.</li>

<li></li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>and that softness i have seen in more than one exhibition. <br /> lots of people seem not to be capable of handling such a camera as the d8x0.<br /> now imagine the disaster with 50...</p>

[glenncadman]

<p>Here is the thing I get confused, all things being equal , a sensor with even more pixels will be at worst no benefit, how could they be result in a deleterious soft image relative to a fewer pixel sensor?. Imagine a hypothetical "35mm" FX 250MP (18000x 12000) sensor in which clearly pixel size is so small diffraction will occur, how can the imagines is produces on my 14-24mm F2.8 be "softer" than a 25MP sensor as I have in my D610? I can accept an argument that with diffraction all those pixels may not render a sharper imagine, but I cannot possibly think that having 250MP would result in an overall softer image once RAW software developing crunches the file. The new samsung galaxy 6 has a 16MP camera, the sensor must be tiny relative to a FX sensor, if the galaxy 6 sensor with the same pixel density was expanded up to FX size it would have to be a 100MP sensor. I cannot imagine that such a supersized Galaxy6 sensor, all things being equal is going to give a worse image than a 24MP sensor.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Glenn, I think that as the pixel count increases so does the size of each pixel decrease and therefore amplification must increase. That can lead to softer results due to noise reduction and other internal processing. Mobile phone images look quite soft at the pixel level - the added resolution is wasted and due to the additional processing end up looking worse.</p>

[5711]

<p>read the link i posted...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Edward: I was completely guessing about the 4K/UHD/FUHD thing, but I was hypothesising about sensors in general. It's a shame that there's confirmation in that article that the A7R II <i>can't</i> read FUHD from the full sensor and use 2x downsampling to get 4K output - there's specific mention that it has to line skip. Mark Weir says it can read every sensel from the Super35 crop, but that's 5168x2912 - not enough to oversample UHD. I'm not really clear why <i>more</i> than FUHD (7680x4320) but less than 4K (8192x4320) is "ideal" for video, either. It's a shame that they confirm the A7s still has the low-light edge, and that they currently still have the lossy raw compression. The A7R II still looks like an interesting camera, but I wouldn't be surprised to see more things done in a similar sensor resolution in the future.<br />

<br />

Glenn: You're quite right. The issue with smaller sensor sites is noise in getting the data off the sensor, slower frame rates, and arguably some issues with well size (the sensor sites saturating). You tend to lose some sensor area to the electronics as well, but gapless microlenses, BSI sensors and stacked sensors mitigate that a lot more than was the case a decade ago.<br />

<br />

Norbert: Diffraction can be compensated for. You can either use a larger aperture, and potentially stack images to deal with the depth of field reduction, or rely on deconvolution (which I believe DxO does, otherwise I'd expect the last landscape I shot at f/22 to be much softer than it was). Like any sharpening, deconvolution does tend to make bokeh look slightly worse and it accentuates noise, but it can be handled in moderation. It's one benefit to Nikon sensors with a high dynamic range. Have a look <a href="https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/08/the-diffraction-limit-how-small-is-too-small/">here</a>, <a href="http://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/image-restoration1/index.html">here</a>.<br />

<br />

Ian: As you say, the problem for mobile sensors is that, with a few exceptions, the sensor size is tiny, so it's not getting much light. The denoising applied is typically quite extreme, though there's a lot of work that goes on to produce the best mobile images (because all the reviews compare JPEGs!) and the resulting need for sharpening and denoising does produce the kind of per-pixel details best described as "ew". That said, give them enough light and most mobile phones can do a surprisingly decent job - as can many compact cameras. I'm not going to deny that, at pixel level, a bigger sensor helps. How much going above the 135 sensor size actually matters is another argument - even with a collection area advantage, economies of scale mean that there's usually more development going on in the consumer sizes (though Sony appear to have transferred some of that to the 50MP CMOS sensor seen in several medium-format devices). Of course, that might be another reason Sony went with sub-50MP in the A7R II - to avoid making their own medium-format sensors look bad!</p>