D800?

[Nikon_Josh]

Why are you all knocking 36MP?

Because with all due respect Blair...:thumbup:

It may well have average low light performance due to an over crammed sensor, it may suffer from diffraction issues, it will take up huge amounts of space on peoples memory cards and hard drives when shooting RAW, 36MP could potentially out resolve many lenses, camera shake will be more visible in photos potentially.

Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.

Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures.

And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.

 

[greybeard]

Why are you all knocking 36MP?

Because with all due respect Blair...:thumbup:

It may well have average low light performance due to an over crammed sensor, it may suffer from diffraction issues, it will take up huge amounts of space on peoples memory cards and hard drives when shooting RAW, 36MP could potentially out resolve many lenses, camera shake will be more visible in photos potentially.

Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.

Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures.

And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.

One thing for sure, it would be a total waste to use anything other than the very best glass.

 

[Heitz]

I'm probably wrong here, but I thought that the 36MP stuff was because they were going to use the Foveon system? i.e., 3 sensors, 1 for each channel? Which would be 3 12MP sensors, each of which would not be 'crammed'. Has no one else heard this?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'm probably wrong here, but I thought that the 36MP stuff was because they were going to use the Foveon system? i.e., 3 sensors, 1 for each channel? Which would be 3 12MP sensors, each of which would not be 'crammed'. Has no one else heard this?

Not that I have heard myself, but would be interesting if Nikon did do that. I haven't heard of Sony are developing anything like this??

 

[greybeard]

I have can't see Nikon putting out anything that doesn't work well in low light.

 

[manaheim]

I'm probably wrong here, but I thought that the 36MP stuff was because they were going to use the Foveon system? i.e., 3 sensors, 1 for each channel? Which would be 3 12MP sensors, each of which would not be 'crammed'. Has no one else heard this?

Never heard of this but if it's still 35mm size the surface area would still be the same and this still crammed, no?

 

[KmH]

No, not really because the Foveon sensor pixels are essentially stacked on top of each other.

Foveon X3 sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It uses an array of photosites, each of which consists of three vertically stacked photodiodes, organized in a two-dimensional grid. Each of the three stacked photodiodes responds to different wavelengths of light, i.e., each has a different spectral sensitivity curve. This difference is due to that fact that different wavelengths of light penetrate silicon to different depths.[SUP][4][/SUP] The signals from the three photodiodes are then processed, resulting in data that provides the three additive primary colors, red, green, and blue.

 

[manaheim]

Wow wild.

 

[spicyTuna]

I was hoping the d800 would be the poor man's d4 using the same sensor because i would love to have the super low light capabilities of the d4. Perhaps the d700 took away too many sales from the d3. I think I'll wait for now.

 

[Heitz]

Right KMH -- I was thinking that the whole '36MP' thing is sort of a marketing strategy. Its really a 12MP image, but with 3 times the data because of independent channels. If that IS in fact what they plan on doing.

 

[greybeard]

That doesn't make much sense, 12 mp resolution with 36 mp file size. What would be the advantage of that?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

That doesn't make much sense, 12 mp resolution with 36 mp file size. What would be the advantage of that?

3 times better noise performance for red and blue channel and 1 time better noise performance for green channel.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Was told that my D700 is beyond economical repair yesterday. I'll be calling State Farm as soon as they open again after the snow to let them know and advance the claim I made last week. Considering that I barely shoot digital to begin with nowadays, I think I can wait till next month to see when it's announced.

I probably wouldn't pay $3500 straight out for it...but considering insurance is involved, it will be a cheap upgrade.

The difference between 12 and 36MP is pretty big. I'll enjoy printing 20x30's with minimal enlargement of the file. What i'm REALLY hoping for is the long exposure performance. I mostly use digital for night time exposures...I'd hate for them to be compromised with hot pixels. This is one thing the D700 is stellar in.

We'll see though!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Why are you all knocking 36MP?

Because with all due respect Blair...:thumbup:

It may well have average low light performance due to an over crammed sensor, it may suffer from diffraction issues, it will take up huge amounts of space on peoples memory cards and hard drives when shooting RAW, 36MP could potentially out resolve many lenses, camera shake will be more visible in photos potentially.

Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.

Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures.

And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.

Average low light performance? This sensor is expected to be not as good the D700, but better than D7000 (one generation newer with the same pixel size). So it won't really be worse than D700 very much, maybe just a bit. When you downsize and combine those pixels, you are likely to get better low light performance than the D700, maybe even better than D3s. Diffraction issue and camera shake issue is not a problem, if you don't mind you could downsize the image with better image quality without camera shake and diffraction. You can always downsize pictures without reduction is quality but you'll never get better quality upsizing. So, the only penalty in a 36MP sensor is lower FPS, larger files and slightly worse low light performance.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Why are you all knocking 36MP?

Because with all due respect Blair...:thumbup:

It may well have average low light performance due to an over crammed sensor, it may suffer from diffraction issues, it will take up huge amounts of space on peoples memory cards and hard drives when shooting RAW, 36MP could potentially out resolve many lenses, camera shake will be more visible in photos potentially.

Why they can't go to something like 24MP?? I really don't know. 24MP will offer great high resolution images while remaining a reasonable amount of pixels. Yes I know, 36MP on FX is the same density as 16MP on DX. But who needs 36MP apart from studio and pro landscape photographers? I think 36MP makes the D800 a studio camera that is also being marketed to consumers? This is where this whole episode becomes confusing to me. I guess, Nikon are trying to steal Canons 5D Mark II market back a bit.

Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see the detail levels produced by the D800. At the same time, I am hoping this love session with Sony will not begin to hinder Nikon. 36MP seems to be overkill, I don't think Nikon needs to go the heavy marketing based route that Sony always take things with higher and higher megapixel figures.

And before Skieur comes on here, thinking I am flaming Sony. For once, I am not flaming Sony at all! I may dislike the company that is Sony, but Sony are doing amazing things with sensor production. Nikon then take the sensor and develop it more to get optimum performance, Pentax did the same with the K5 sensor.

One thing for sure, it would be a total waste to use anything other than the very best glass.

It's not really correct, if D800 uses the same AA filter in D7000, then 36MP is not a waste. Because the AA filter in D7000 is so strong, anything better than the 50mm 1.8G wouldn't even get any better performance.