The Megapixel Race.......Nikon's next step?

[Overread]

True and pancake lenses are becoming more popular as well so for shorter range stuff its more possible; though f2.8 or wider glass is still going to come with some weight to it - and anything over 100mm is going to get bigger.

The bigger question though is ergonomics. film cameras were restricted by the way film worked; DSLRs have kept the look but really when you look at it its not perfect. Indeed mirrorless cut down on a lot of holding space for a setup (esp if you don't have dainty hands).

Mirrorless removes more restrictions and thus barring the LCD suggests that they could go for a totally new erganomic design.

I'm not sure how film cameras were restricted by the way film worked i also have big hands and have no trouble with my small Leica M's and A7, i also never put grips on my DSLR's

I'm referring to the shape of the body itself. A film camera had to have space for the film, the flat plane for it to record to and then another part for it to wind onto. SLRs also had to (in the past) have a full mirrorbox setup which again partly dictated the possible shape of the camera. Now in the digital age we have the potentail to change the shape of the camera to one that might be more ergonomic to hold.

 

[unpopular]

Sony FE lenses mostly do not have these benefits.

That is not what I was saying. I am saying that all these technical issues can be resolved with current technology. (ultrasonic AF motors are not large at all!)

But I was making a point about future technology needing to overcome the bulk of a swinging mirror as sensor size must inevitably be made larger.

The pixel density issue is real for so many reasons.

OTOH, there are tricks to get around resolution. Hasselblad (IIRC) is already using superresolution which makes 50mp into 200mp (with six exposures). If superresolution can be carried out in fast shutter time (or even limited to, say, 1/250 or under), we may see a massive and sudden increase in useable resolution. The multi-exposure approach will certainly be available for stationary subjects sooner than later - even if you don't have $50,000 with B&H written on it.

Being that Sony/Minolta has always had sensors capable of controlled shifting to compensate for shake, I don't know why Sony hasn't incorporated super resolution yet (it's not a new concept) - and it's a little frustrating it hasn't.

So, maybe there is still a place for small format after all.

 

[photoguy99]

Why must sensors inevitably be made larger?

The trend for 150 years has been pretty steadily the other way.

 

[unpopular]

Cost, sensitivity, diffraction limit, the number of photons you can physically fit into a single hole with any degree of predictability (though, we're a ways from that).

 

[Derrel]

Speaking of super-resolution from multi-sampling the sensor data...Olympus announced their OMD EM5 Mark II in mid-February 2015. This camera can use the sensor-shift system that is located in the body to combine multiple images into one file. I've seen a few sample pics: the images are MUCH more detailed than the native 16 megapixel single-capture images are. Thom Hogan addressed some of the issues this system has last week in his article, The Downside to More Pixels at The Downside to More Pixels byThom Thom Hogan

here's a quickie early article talking about the new camera. Olympus to Make 40MP Sensor Shift Photos Possible During Handheld Shooting

 

[Overread]

Now that interesting! Limited to 1/60sec or slower, but still fascinating and also perfectly doable for landscape or similar work. If it advances up into the faster shutter speeds it could really make a huge difference to the camera market and what is possible!

 

[Solarflare]

Why must sensors inevitably be made larger?

The trend for 150 years has been pretty steadily the other way.

Well, thats wrong.

If you want more resolution, larger sensors was always the way to go.

Also, the digital area progresses the other way around.

Speaking of super-resolution from multi-sampling the sensor data...Olympus announced their OMD EM5 Mark II in mid-February 2015. This camera can use the sensor-shift system that is located in the body to combine multiple images into one file. [...]

Thats no new technology. Though their idea to make it also work handheld is intriguing.

 

[photoguy99]

No, no. The trend has been smaller pretty steadily.

The TREND has been PRETTY STEADILY smaller.

Read all the words. Yes people still go 8x10 and larger for various special cases.

But the TREND has been PRETTY STEADILY toward smaller formats.

unpopular appeared to be talking about TRENDS which is why I made the statement I made.

 

[Derrel]

I'd agree, the trend has been toward smaller capture formats since about 1900 or so. The smaller formats offer greater depth of field for EACH and every single picture angle. 6x6 cm rollfilm has very shallow DOF with is normal angle of view lens, the 80mm f/2.8 prime; full frame 35mm or 24x36mm digital has more DOF with its normal 50mm lens; APS-C has a bit more DOF; m4/3 has even more DOF; TINY formats like cell phone sized sensors have almost hyperfocal depth of field even with their lens at f/2.8 and focused to a meter and a half distant. Over the course of a century, photography has shifted from large capture devices being the norm, to medium-sized capture, to small, and now, to TINY capture sizes being pretty widespread.

The biggest change in picture-taking as format have grown smaller and smaller is less and less need to focus absolutely critically, and the ability to have deep depth of field pictures made easily. With a 4x5 camera on a tight headshot, it's tricky to get the nose in focus and the ears in focus. With a smartphone, that is nooooo problem. Boom! Done! Even one-handedly!

According to some recent heavy-duty sales data analysis I saw presented at CES (in an online video), consumers the world over are favoring greater convenience and simplicity over the lure of "more MP" and "more features". Adding more and more and more megapixels is NOT solving the problem of declining sales in the d-slr market space. People want easier-to-use imaging devices, not ones that have higher MP count and more features. I don't think it matters what Nikon does next--the need for a 50 megapixel camera to match Canon's newest announced models is very limited, and a 50 megapixel Nikon body is really not going to help sales very much.

 

[Braineack]

The trend of everything is smaller, but most smaller things are better.

using tapatalk.

 

[unpopular]

unpopular appeared to be talking about TRENDS which is why I made the statement I made.

No. I was talking about technological limitations, specifically, on professional and prosumer markets. In these markets there has been a trend toward larger, full frame formats (A7, 5D/6D, D600/D800).

 

[TTLui]

Give me a super light, smaller, D4s type body, perhaps made of carbon fibre and magnesium (even if it cost more than the outgoing model) I don't need more megapixels. 20 megapixels should be just fine. I just need lightweight/portability and the same functionality and speed as the flag ship camera.

 

[LostLensCap]

Nikon may make a body like an 810Z that would be 50+ MP. I'm sure Sony can, and probably has, expand the 24mp AP-C sensor to FX size which would more than do the job. Aim it at the advanced studio/landscape shooter and charge like $3,900.00 for it. But, like Derrel wrote, will it improve Nikon's bottom line? Probably not.

 

[Solarflare]

Well, I disagree, IMHO the current trend in photography is getting bigger in sensor size.

Especially if you're like me and want maximum low light performance, big sensors and bright primes is the way to go.

 

[shadowlands]

I'm honestly fine with 36MP. It's plenty. But I still use my D300 for most things I do, like running around, etc...
When I do a paid job, or travel, I bust out the D800 RAW, but of course, it takes more time, post processing.
But it's not a huge difference when compared to my former D700. Just a little more time.