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.

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.

Can you explain to me why diffraction and camera shake will not be issues? I'm afraid Michael, Thom Hogan disagrees with you strongly on this statement.

Better than the D3S at High ISO's? When you downsize these files??

Can you perhaps explain what you mean by that aswell?? If an image is blurred through camera shake, I don't quite see how downsizing the file will cure it. I may be wrong on this.. so if I am enlighten me.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

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.

Can you explain to me why diffraction and camera shake will not be issues? I'm afraid Michael, Thom Hogan disagrees with you strongly on this statement.

Better than the D3S at High ISO's? When you downsize these files??

Can you perhaps explain what you mean by that aswell?? If an image is blurred through camera shake, I don't quite see how downsizing the file will cure it. I may be wrong on this.. so if I am enlighten me.

When you downsize pictures, you can't see the blur caused by camera shake. Noise are noise - they are random, if you downsize a super noisy neutral grey shot to a 1x1 picture, the pixel will become neutral grey. Which means, they more you downsize, the less the noise, or just less visible (which is the same as low ISO shots, noise are there, just invisible.)

 

[greybeard]

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.

Can you explain to me why diffraction and camera shake will not be issues? I'm afraid Michael, Thom Hogan disagrees with you strongly on this statement.

Better than the D3S at High ISO's? When you downsize these files??

Can you perhaps explain what you mean by that aswell?? If an image is blurred through camera shake, I don't quite see how downsizing the file will cure it. I may be wrong on this.. so if I am enlighten me.

When you downsize pictures, you can't see the blur caused by camera shake. Noise are noise - they are random, if you downsize a super noisy neutral grey shot to a 1x1 picture, the pixel will become neutral grey. Which means, they more you downsize, the less the noise, or just less visible (which is the same as low ISO shots, noise are there, just invisible.)

pardon my ignorance but how does one "down size" a picture?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Can you explain to me why diffraction and camera shake will not be issues? I'm afraid Michael, Thom Hogan disagrees with you strongly on this statement.

Better than the D3S at High ISO's? When you downsize these files??

Can you perhaps explain what you mean by that aswell?? If an image is blurred through camera shake, I don't quite see how downsizing the file will cure it. I may be wrong on this.. so if I am enlighten me.

When you downsize pictures, you can't see the blur caused by camera shake. Noise are noise - they are random, if you downsize a super noisy neutral grey shot to a 1x1 picture, the pixel will become neutral grey. Which means, they more you downsize, the less the noise, or just less visible (which is the same as low ISO shots, noise are there, just invisible.)

pardon my ignorance but how does one "down size" a picture?

By decreasing the resolution.

 

[greybeard]

When you downsize pictures, you can't see the blur caused by camera shake. Noise are noise - they are random, if you downsize a super noisy neutral grey shot to a 1x1 picture, the pixel will become neutral grey. Which means, they more you downsize, the less the noise, or just less visible (which is the same as low ISO shots, noise are there, just invisible.)

pardon my ignorance but how does one "down size" a picture?

By decreasing the resolution.

Oh, I see, so you trade visible noise for pixelation.

 

[argieramos]

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.

That is why there is D4 and D800 which targets different martket. One with average FF IQ, but superb in low light performance, and one with average low light performance, but has great resolving power. As for that 24mp that you are talking about, Sony is developing a new 24mp sensor for the purpose of being good in low light, But Nikon decided to use something else for their low light camera (D4).

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.

Nikon d7000 and Pentax K-5 Sony sensors uses the same sensor core. The surroundings outer layer and processor of Nikon and Pentax that what makes the minute difference.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

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.

That is why there is D4 and D800 which targets different martket. One with average FF IQ, but superb in low light performance, and one with average low light performance, but has great resolving power. As for that 24mp that you are talking about, Sony is developing a new 24mp sensor for the purpose of being good in low light, But Nikon decided to use something else for their low light camera (D4).

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.

Nikon d7000 and Pentax K-5 Sony sensors uses the same sensor core. The surroundings outer layer and processor of Nikon and Pentax that what makes the minute difference.

Ah really? Sony are developing a 24MP full frame sensor?? I had no idea, here's to hoping this is the one the D800 gets!

You have actually educated me a bit here Argie, I thought it was sensor development that Nikon and Pentax carried out, the noise performance differences lie in the processing power then. I guess this explains why the 7D has better High ISO performance than the 60D which uses the same sensor, more processing power.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

pardon my ignorance but how does one "down size" a picture?

By decreasing the resolution.

Oh, I see, so you trade visible noise for pixelation.

You get pixelation by increasing resolution, when you're decreasing resolution there won't be pixelation unless you're 'smart' enough to use nearest neighbor.

 

[skieur]

That is only an opinion... and impossible to substantiate. Especially since the D800 is not even out yet, and we have no idea what it's capabilities will be.

No it isn't. Full time phase detection autofocus is not possible in the D800 unless they copy the Sony A99 technology which is not very likely.

skieur

Sorry, is this thread about Sony??? Or are you trolling for a reason Skieur???

Hey, if you can troll, then so can I.:lmao:

skieur

 

[Derrel]

Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.

We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.

We need to step back just a bit and look at the final "camera" performance, not the sensor specifications!!!! The A900 and D3x comparisons showed this conclusively. Same with the Canon 7D versus the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000. I have a feeling that, just maybe, the "36 megapixel" specification is indeed true. But----and this is the biggie---what Nikon does with that data is going to be the result of NIKON engineering, not Sony engineering. Nikon might do what they did with the older D1-series cameras--those were called "2.7 megapixel" cameras, but Nikon revealed years later they were using a 10-million photosite sensor, and were in effect "binning" the data...using basically three data points to create one data point. This is a good way to reduce noise. It's probably more cost-effective to do that that other approaches. I think with a 36 MP pixel count, Nikon's engineering could figure out a way to apply Noise Reduction, as needed, to produce very good, usable files, EVEN AT HIGH ISO values...

This ain't 1999, or even 2006, any longer...the old idea that too many MP automatically lead to "objectionable noise"...well, that idea has been made one heck of a lot less valid with the advances in noise reduction through better electronics. A camera is not just a sensor--the camera part of the equation is critical. Nikon, and Pentax, are now using Sony sensors that can capture an image with the exposure set wayyyyyyy too brief (as in say, proper for ISO 50,000), and then the sensor exposed with an exposure properly set for ISO 200, and then the resulting BLACK raw file can be opened up, and a quite decent image made out of the data. I have seen the demonstrations of this from the Pentax K-5...ISO 50,000 at gain setting of 200 in-camera, then the file rescued....the results were what I would describe as "miraculous".

I have not seen anything even comparable with any other sensors...so...whatever the new Sony sensors bring, and whatever the electronics, demosaic routines, and image processing Nikon adds to the equation, I really do think the new "D800" will make good images. If it has a higher number than the 700, the core capabilities will be higher and better; that is the way Nikon iterates products. An updated product gets a letter added....an entirely new level of core capabilities gets an entirely new model number. Sorry for the length of the post, but just had to lay out my thoughts.

 

[argieramos]

Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.

We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.

We need to step back just a bit and look at the final "camera" performance, not the sensor specifications!!!! The A900 and D3x comparisons showed this conclusively. Same with the Canon 7D versus the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000. I have a feeling that, just maybe, the "36 megapixel" specification is indeed true. But----and this is the biggie---what Nikon does with that data is going to be the result of NIKON engineering, not Sony engineering. Nikon might do what they did with the older D1-series cameras--those were called "2.7 megapixel" cameras, but Nikon revealed years later they were using a 10-million photosite sensor, and were in effect "binning" the data...using basically three data points to create one data point. This is a good way to reduce noise. It's probably more cost-effective to do that that other approaches. I think with a 36 MP pixel count, Nikon's engineering could figure out a way to apply Noise Reduction, as needed, to produce very good, usable files, EVEN AT HIGH ISO values...

This ain't 1999, or even 2006, any longer...the old idea that too many MP automatically lead to "objectionable noise"...well, that idea has been made one heck of a lot less valid with the advances in noise reduction through better electronics. A camera is not just a sensor--the camera part of the equation is critical. Nikon, and Pentax, are now using Sony sensors that can capture an image with the exposure set wayyyyyyy too brief (as in say, proper for ISO 50,000), and then the sensor exposed with an exposure properly set for ISO 200, and then the resulting BLACK raw file can be opened up, and a quite decent image made out of the data. I have seen the demonstrations of this from the Pentax K-5...ISO 50,000 at gain setting of 200 in-camera, then the file rescued....the results were what I would describe as "miraculous".

I have not seen anything even comparable with any other sensors...so...whatever the new Sony sensors bring, and whatever the electronics, demosaic routines, and image processing Nikon adds to the equation, I really do think the new "D800" will make good images. If it has a higher number than the 700, the core capabilities will be higher and better; that is the way Nikon iterates products. An updated product gets a letter added....an entirely new level of core capabilities gets an entirely new model number. Sorry for the length of the post, but just had to lay out my thoughts.

Uhmmm, what's up with this Derrel? What are you trying to prove?

 

[greybeard]

Sony already HAS MADE a 24.6 MP full-frame sensor: it was used in the Sony in the A850 and A900 bodies, and is currently still in the Nikon D3x. Interestingly, the noise and overall color response,dynamic range, saturation,and resolution of the SAME "sensel" (the light-sensitive part that SOny made and sold to Nikon for the D3x) was quite a bit different between the Sony cameras and the Nikon D3x. Nikon spent a ton of engineering, design, and manufacturing effort to improve the electronics and probably the entire filter array of the D3x--and the camera's $7995 price tag allowed them to do that. Sony, OTOH, sold the A900 at a really LOW price point, and the A850 even lower, at $1899 on the A850, and around $2200 or so (depending on region,time of lifespan,etc). The Sony A900's high-ISO performance and color responses were not the same as those of the D3x; the D3x did a lot better at higher ISO's, but the final cost of the D3x has made it a pretty rare beast.

We've gotta remember: Sony has already gained the lead over Canon on mid-level sensors and noise performance: the Canon 7D's sensor is well,well beneath the Sony sensor the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 are using. Canon cut down the MP count in its G10 from 14.7 to a 10 MP sensor in the G11; for Canon, the 18.2 MP sensor, 17.8 or so effective in the 7D has issues with color depth and dynamic range, and it seems that they need to TOTALLY RE-WORK the electronics...which is what Nikon learned going on five years ago now; the sensel, the light-sensitive part that they buy from Sony isn't a complete sensor until Nikon pairs it up with read electronic, Noise Reduction capability,Nikon's proprietary color matrix demosaic routines, and the AA filter array...the sensor is part of the equation---but one of the real KEYS people keep overlooking is how LOW READ NOISE electronics can take a fine, basic sensor, and then with the right camera-maker skills, the performance can be elevated to superb CAMERA performance.

We need to step back just a bit and look at the final "camera" performance, not the sensor specifications!!!! The A900 and D3x comparisons showed this conclusively. Same with the Canon 7D versus the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000. I have a feeling that, just maybe, the "36 megapixel" specification is indeed true. But----and this is the biggie---what Nikon does with that data is going to be the result of NIKON engineering, not Sony engineering. Nikon might do what they did with the older D1-series cameras--those were called "2.7 megapixel" cameras, but Nikon revealed years later they were using a 10-million photosite sensor, and were in effect "binning" the data...using basically three data points to create one data point. This is a good way to reduce noise. It's probably more cost-effective to do that that other approaches. I think with a 36 MP pixel count, Nikon's engineering could figure out a way to apply Noise Reduction, as needed, to produce very good, usable files, EVEN AT HIGH ISO values...

This ain't 1999, or even 2006, any longer...the old idea that too many MP automatically lead to "objectionable noise"...well, that idea has been made one heck of a lot less valid with the advances in noise reduction through better electronics. A camera is not just a sensor--the camera part of the equation is critical. Nikon, and Pentax, are now using Sony sensors that can capture an image with the exposure set wayyyyyyy too brief (as in say, proper for ISO 50,000), and then the sensor exposed with an exposure properly set for ISO 200, and then the resulting BLACK raw file can be opened up, and a quite decent image made out of the data. I have seen the demonstrations of this from the Pentax K-5...ISO 50,000 at gain setting of 200 in-camera, then the file rescued....the results were what I would describe as "miraculous".

I have not seen anything even comparable with any other sensors...so...whatever the new Sony sensors bring, and whatever the electronics, demosaic routines, and image processing Nikon adds to the equation, I really do think the new "D800" will make good images. If it has a higher number than the 700, the core capabilities will be higher and better; that is the way Nikon iterates products. An updated product gets a letter added....an entirely new level of core capabilities gets an entirely new model number. Sorry for the length of the post, but just had to lay out my thoughts.

What I get from this is that Sony really has it going on when it comes to developing sensors and Nikon really has it going on with implementing Sony's sensors. Maybe Sony should just stick to making sensors..........LOL

 

[Trever1t]

Derrel's very detailed post simply put says don't judge a camera (system) by it's sensor lone, that it's only a part of the equation. 2 brands utilizing the same sensor will potentially have 2 totally different capabilities. Was it that hard to understand?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

And Derrel mentioned pixel binning - which is very similar to downsizing the pixels in post, both gets better high ISO capabilities when more data are combined.

 

[cgipson1]

I still consider the D800 a possibility. I do have a D4 on order.. but if the D800 does demonstrate good high ISO capability with the increase in MP, I might consider saving $3k to be worthwhile! It will be interesting to see what it is capable of.