36 Megapixel (7360 x 4912) Nikon D800 Pictured

Status
Not open for further replies.

outlw6669

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2006
179
0
18,660
14
Really, they should be focusing more on a larger dynamic range and better high ISO performance than more raw MP.

Even for the majority of pro photographers, 10MP is more than enough (10MP allows you to print a standard A4 sheet picture at 300 dpi).
Take a cue from Cannon's latest pro body and stick to 18MP (A3 print size at 300dpi) focusing on better IQ instead.
Anyone who pro who wants to print poster size or larger will be shooting with a large format body anyways...

And joytech, your 1100D actually has really good pixel level quality, better than my 60D even.
Just slap some good glass on it and it will rock!
 

vittau

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2010
69
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]srgess[/nom]36megapixel that is overkill, imagine the RAW image size ![/citation]
Considering 14-bits RAW, that's 60.3MB.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Bullshit, I work for Nikon and I don't have any information about any new DSLR.

Moreover:
1. any new FX camera will allow at least ISO 12800 (equal to D3S) or more likely 25600 (Canon 1D X)
2. 36mpx sensor is very unlikely, Nikon has always preferred image quality rather than resolution
3. Face-recognition is a feature for people taking snapshots and family portraits with $200 Coolpix, not for professionals who spend $3900 for one camera body. The professional cameras don't even have full auto mode.
4. $3900 is a price between D700 and D3 so for a flagship model it would be too cheap and for D700 successor too expensive.
 

Dame1701

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2007
4
0
18,510
0
I'm not at all convinced by these claims of 36MP that would take the camera well beyond the top Nikon resolution of the D3x (currently sitting at circa 24MP).

Nikon have a history of releasing new sensors in the top line cameras first and this would go against that. I would think it's more likely we'll see the D3x style sensor in the D800, perhaps one that has been improved to performs better at high ISO (the D3x as good as it is does not perform as well at low light as the D3s or indeed the D3).

I still think it's more likely we'll see a new top of the line camera first perhaps a D4 or new D3 before a D800 but we'll see......
 

nukemaster

Distinguished
Moderator
[citation][nom]nbraybrook[/nom]here comes the noise! barf! 5dmkII ftw!!![/citation]

+1. I mean what is the use of ISO 6400(hell imagine 12800) to begin with. Unless this is the best sensor EVER made, it is going to look like someone finger painted the image.

IF they make a new camera, its time to get better low light performance with less noise. Hell even the coolpix S8100 seems to have better low light performance(backside illuminated sensor maybe?) then my D90. It does not have as much clarity, but for a quick low light without having a powerful flash, it is pretty good(It auto focus is the worst ever tho...It is good to see a point and shoot that rarely selects an iso over 200-300, this helps keep image noise down.).

When I can, my D90 is kept at the lowest ISO setting just to keep the image looking better.
 

loomis86

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2009
233
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]outlw6669[/nom]Really, they should be focusing more on a larger dynamic range and better high ISO performance than more raw MP.Even for the majority of pro photographers, 10MP is more than enough (10MP allows you to print a standard A4 sheet picture at 300 dpi).Take a cue from Cannon's latest pro body and stick to 18MP (A3 print size at 300dpi) focusing on better IQ instead.Anyone who pro who wants to print poster size or larger will be shooting with a large format body anyways...And joytech, your 1100D actually has really good pixel level quality, better than my 60D even.Just slap some good glass on it and it will rock![/citation]

nonsense

If you take a pic, then crop it down to a tenth of the original pic or less, then blow it up...you will need every bit of those megapixels.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@nukemaster - huh? what? In the first paragraph you question the value of high ISO settings - in the second you suggest they focus on low light performance with less noise. The two are synonymous! If you want to capture an image in low light without adding light (i.e. flash) then either you use a larger aperture, use a higher ISO sensitivity or increase exposure time (slow shutter speed). Increasing aperture is a lens function - it's independent of the camera body. That leaves shutter speed and ISO. If your S8100 is able to produce an image in low light at ISO 200-300 then it's probably of low clarity due to the extremely long exposure time. Put it on a tripod. Perhap image stabilization is helping you out. That's also a lens function in Nikon DSLRs so not something a new body will help with.

All that being said, I found this article by following a link from Tom's Hardware under the heading "Latest News" and it lead to a second-hand version of an unfounded conjecture, originally posted on a site that actually contains the word "rumours" in its URL. Latest News? Really? Is the "news" that someone posted a rumour on a rumours site?
 

Niva

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
141
0
18,630
0
That jump in resolution seems a bit unrealistic... where is Nikon getting that sensor from?

And to the people saying the high pixel count is not needed you're wrong. In the pro field more is always better. Of course other things matter too, and of those more is better as well. It blows my mind how far DSLRs have come. The ISO seems a bit low on this camera though if the above report is true.
 

jednx01

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2008
139
0
18,640
1
I just hope they aren't releasing a successor for the d7000 any time super soon. I just bought one and if they announce that they have a new 20+ megapixel camera for the same price as the d7000, I'm gonna be irritated. Of course, I'm still loving this camera! I definitely wouldn't be surprised if they really are releasing a successor to the d700. The d7000 has a 16.2 mp sensor while the d700 only has a 12 mp one. I'd be pretty surprised if they have a 36 mp sensor up their sleeve. The file size of that thing in RAW would be absolutely nuts...
 

bikerman7502002

Distinguished
Sep 10, 2009
8
0
18,510
0
I have respect for Tomshardware, but please don't post anything based on Nikonrumors. I followed this site for a year or so, and I haven't seen even one rumor/speculation post end up correct. The site also has no direct connection to Nikon, or even links to their marketing department, so like all their other previous rumors, I doubt that this random website would be the first to have a picture of a camera that hasn't even been announced yet. I don't expect your sources to be academic every time, but quoting a rumor site (including their made up specs, made up announcement and release dates, and even the made up price) is just bad. There is nothing to back up any of this "information."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Well otacon72, thank you for the education in photography, but what people are saying is that 18MP is more than enough for pretty much anyone except fashion and landscape photographers, and that if they had to choose between resolution and image quality, they'd pick IQ. Also, pro sports photogs, who've forgotten more about photography than you'll ever know, would definitely rather have lower resolution and higher fps, so it's not all about pixels. And that's YOUR photography lesson for the day.
 

hetneo

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2011
128
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]+1. I mean what is the use of ISO 6400(hell imagine 12800) to begin with. Unless this is the best sensor EVER made, it is going to look like someone finger painted the image.IF they make a new camera, its time to get better low light performance with less noise. Hell even the coolpix S8100 seems to have better low light performance(backside illuminated sensor maybe?) then my D90. It does not have as much clarity, but for a quick low light without having a powerful flash, it is pretty good(It auto focus is the worst ever tho...It is good to see a point and shoot that rarely selects an iso over 200-300, this helps keep image noise down.).When I can, my D90 is kept at the lowest ISO setting just to keep the image looking better.[/citation]
High ISO values? Only for extremely long expositions of night sky.
 

livebriand

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
282
0
18,930
0
Most people who are buying an SLR care about image quality, not specs. These high MP counts mean nothing most of the time; zoom into an image at 100% and it'll be grainy anyway.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]Niva[/nom]That jump in resolution seems a bit unrealistic... where is Nikon getting that sensor from? And to the people saying the high pixel count is not needed you're wrong. In the pro field more is always better. Of course other things matter too, and of those more is better as well. It blows my mind how far DSLRs have come. The ISO seems a bit low on this camera though if the above report is true.[/citation]

back when film was still used as the norm, we looked at a pro photographer who used a disposable camera to take some really amazing shots, crap we never thought was possible outside of a slr. for almost every application, the photographer matters far more than the camera.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]For anyone who says 36megapixels is overkill you don't know photography. The more pixels the better. RAW pictures is precisely why there's 2 memory slots[/citation]

clarity of picture > size of picture.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Digital Cameras 1
K Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 1
Mason Methot Digital Cameras 10
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 0
G Digital Cameras 7
T Digital Cameras 2
roaddoc326 Digital Cameras 1
T Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 3
Marcus Yam Digital Cameras 42
G Digital Cameras 3
G Digital Cameras 13
T Digital Cameras 6

ASK THE COMMUNITY