glenncadman

<p>Using a Nikon 300mm F2.8 and Lightroom to stitch a panorama together, however there is darker exposure bars around edges of each frame. How do I fix this do I need lens correction? <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18044766-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="151" /></p><div></div>

<p>OK imagine the engineering gloves are off, but no magic physics, light waves/photos are defracted and optical laws must be obeyed, what would be the "ultimate" FX (35mm) sensor be? ie. the engineering end point as far as MP , ISO and dynamic range, above which would serve no advantage in incremental improvements? <br /><br />He who cannot be named in this forum (Ken RockW) has a mouse rollover comparison between detailed the 5DRS and 5D MIII images and unless it is a fabrication ( or more kindly "fictional" comparison) it does seem that there is a noticeable improvement between the resolution of images of a 5DR (50MP) and the 22MP. </p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>I second Michael B, what is missing is better HDR and improved creaminess, even broader ISO without degradation, yes it is technologically more difficult, than just having more smaller pixels; maybe 3 orders of magnitude between resolving a bright sky and the bark of a dark tree in the same shot very hard to capture the full range and tones. i was of the understanding that 35mm velvia resolution was more or less equivalent to a 50MP camera with 16bit color. The new <a href="http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/sony-officially-announces-the-a7rii-full-frame-42mp-mirrorless-camera/">42MP Sony alpha 7R </a>would appear to be moving towards both bigger and better, a very attractive camera, one would expect Sony not to waste the huge investment in tooling up for such a sensor and we should await what Nikon can do with it.<br> "I will finally be able to take good photos when I get my hands on the next generation of gear"....<em>Ansel Adams (or not)</em></p>

<p>Not sure why my edits didnt display, but i made export smaller. </p><div></div>

<p>The ice cracks are the star of the picture, light reflection leading to background clock tower</p><div></div>