How important are megapixels?

[gregbradley]

I've been researching DSLRs for a while now and I see a lot of criticism of the megapixel trend in DSLR manufacturers where more megapixels is regarded as not necessarily a good thing.

I'm interested in a thread on this. My experience with astro CCD cameras would indicate more megapixels is usually a good thing (within reason but I see the KAI1600 chip is not that popular and that is essentially a 16mp STL11 sized chip). I also don't see a lot of people racing to get a new 29mp KAI29050 camera (29mp STL11 sized sensor).
Certainly matching pixel size to seeing and optics is a good thing.
I don't know that matching pixel size to terrestial type photography is as important. There is no seeing to get in the road and normally scenes are fairly well lit.

It seems it is usually an argument of low noise, high ISO performance verus resolution (where small pixel size gives "better resolution").
Some posters act as if you are an idiot if you want large numbers of megapixels.

Normal CCD theory has you wanting signal to rise above the noise floor. DSLR engineers seem to be more advanced than Astro CCD makers in reducing noise with firmware, filters and upgrading their chips with their built in circuitry.

That is another difference between astro and terrestial. Terrestial uses CMOS technology usually and astro uses CCD usually. Each has its advantages. CMOS has the advantage for DSLRs because the amplifiers and circuitry is on the sensor itself which takes up space leaving less room for the pixel to collect light but makes it all very compact and cheaper.

Given this extra degree of freedom of on-sensor circuitry, filters, firmware smoothing it seems DSLR engineers routinely improve noise performance of small pixels to the point where it seems you can have the best of both worlds within a certain range of performance ie; large number of pixels and low noise performance. There must be an optimum number of pixels for full frame sensor with ideal low noise and high ISO performance. What do you think that may be? It hard to say for sure as engineers keep improving the existing but they must hit a wall at some point.

How long before Nikon/Canon put out a medium format DSLR? It must be getting close to that being the next step up for them. The Nikon D800 is already being seen as an alternative now to medium format digital cameras.

Comments?

Greg.

[Octane]

Someone's been reading DP Review. :)

For some reason, I can't see Canon breaking into the medium format market. Pentax has tried, but, I don't know how well the 645D is going for them.

Mamiya/Leaf-Aptus, Sinar, Phase One, and Hasselblad already own the medium format market.

Let Canon/Nikon concentrate on the 35mm market. It is what they do well, after all.

If anyone, I'd expect Sony to get their fingers into the medium format pie.

H

[Octane]

http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/

Warning, that link may, or may not, contain swears.

H

[gregbradley]

Ah OK, no I wasn't reading DP review. That link is offensive.

I wanted a sensible discussion about this not the ramblings of a drunk.

Greg.

[Marke]

The two things for me in regard to mp in a DSLR are how big do you want to print , I never print smaller than A3 . Having the extra pixels also means when chasing wildlife, distant subjects or macro I can crop 1/2 the image blow it up and still print big . The more pixels the easier it is.

[gregbradley]

Good point.

I suppose you want as many pixels are you can before noise starts to reduce image quality in shadows and dim areas.

Although I must admit I took some 40D shots with my TEC110 (wildlife) and also a 5D Mk ii. The 5D images were not as good as I expected them to be. The 40D images were not far behind at all. Hardly conclusive as it was only several images though.

Sometimes a crop sensor is better in that it gives that extra zoom factor
but if you can use a full frame and it will shoot also in smaller format then you have the best of both.

Have you experienced much an improvement in images from jumping up a lot in mp?

Greg.

[Marke]

I have gone from 6mp - 12mp APS and that was a big imprevement in spacial resolution . Now have 12mp full frame and while I can shoot much
easier in low light with much better image quality I have noticed a drop
in image resolution not to mention lens reach . My 400mm has gone from an effective 600mm back to 400mm again without the resolution to blow it back up. This is why I have been waiting for something like the D800 so I can get a bit more out of my long lens and macro. I still use my 12mp APS for macro as it still gives better fine detail . My next printer will be an A2 and even now I can do panorama where the more resolution the better .

[CDKPhil]

How long is a piece of string?
Computer technology is increasing exponentially. When will it stop?
I think as far as CCD's go we are in the early stages of development. Look how far they have come in the last ten years or so. What will they be like in the next ten years?
You only need to compare a CCD with the human eye. The resolution and the exposure latitude of the eye is amazing. I am not sure of the resolution of the eye or what its theoretical mega pixel range would be but I sure it is very high. Granted you can not do a long exposure with our eyes but imagine if you could. Maybe this is were the technology is going something that will replicate the eye.
A system where you could control each individual pixel rather than one blanket exposure.
I think there will be a shift in the way CCD's are created more towards the biological. Same with computers, instead of a binary code which is on or off, why not go to an analog system with various levels of on and off?

I think more pixels are better, the sharper, the more information that is captured the more pleasing it is to the eye. I can imagine that one day you will be able to look at a computer screen it will have a photo of a landscape and you will not be able to tell the difference between the real thing. It would appear as if you were looking through a window.

As long as the consumer demands higher res it will be produced.

Cheers
Phil

[Marke]

The main drawback with going more and smaller pixels (apart from noise)
is that it starts showing up flaws in your lens . If you aren't using the top
pro lens then its a bit of a waste but even now , getting over 30+ mp you will start to see CA that you didnt think existed before. Lets hope lens tech keeps pace with the sensors.

[CDKPhil]

That is a good point Mark
So for the improvement of ccd's to continue optics will need to evolve just as fast, or what would be the point?
Are there any new and exciting developments in lens technology?

cheers
Phil

[Marke]

Phil apart from nano coatings and better designs , not a lot of change .
We may see more exotic and expensive glass like fluorite used I guess.
I do wonder how long the 35mm standard will be used untill larger formats
start appearing . They have to keep coming up with selling points some how or other.

[acropolite]

As I understand it, diffraction limiting is the one factor that will ultimately limit sensor size increases. For the EOS 5DII, the aperture above which softening occurs due to diffraction limiting (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm) is F11. There's a trade off between pixel size and the loss of resolution at small apertures, the laws of physics govern that, ultimately the only way around is bigger sensors, i.e. medium format.

[skysurfer]

Nice discussion. I rarely use many megapixels. The 10MP of the 40d is enough for me. Mostly I shoot 2.5MP (I never primt them) and the full 10MP (raw) for astrophotos.
But another limitation is far more evident: dynamic range. Cameras and displays do usually not go beyond 8 bits while our eyes can distingcy 12-14 bits. Simple example: looking into a bright red light looks RED but taking a photo of it (even in the best possible way in RAW) the center is white with a red halo around it. Reason: on a sensor all three RGB pixels are saturated while in our eyes only the red pixels are fully saturated.

[Phil Hart]

This is something I've done a lot of reading about and testing of various cameras. As I understand it, DSLRs a few years ago (say ~ 3-5 years) got to the point where they are operating near theoretical limits. there is very little noise originating in-camera that can be reduced much further (apart from smoothing algorithms which must sacrifice detail).

thermal noise is clearly an issue in longer exposures. but for my primary focus of night landscapes with say 30 second exposures, shot noise totally dominates. read noise, thermal noise and other in-camera sources are negligible.

i tested the original 5D (13MP) verse my 5DmkII (21MP). the original 5D had a few more hot pixels which are easily removed, but otherwise it's performance in low light with short exposures was better than the mkII. many people will find that counter-intuitive but it is purely a statistical function of using bigger pixels to gather the light.

for my type of night photography, the resolution gain is of no benefit.. noise swamps the detail and the lens is working wide open or close to it so it can't deliver the detail anyway.

for long exposure imaging through scopes etc there are a whole different set of criteria and you match the sensor to the optics based on what you want to achieve. but for me.. pixel size rules.

[gregbradley]

Interesting replies. By the way Phil what do you think of the time lapse feature of the HD video of the new Nikon D800? Its in-camera time lapse but its HD quality (you may be shooting at beyond HD quality).

For low light scenarios for sure I can see the value of larger pixels. It would depend on what your main use of the camera will be. Perhaps its like telescopes - no one camera is best for all uses. The DSLR models do seem to split not only in price but for features best suited for certain applications.

Small pixels usually means smaller wells, more likely to be noisy (although my FLI ML8300 has 5.4 micron pixels - smaller than most DSLRs and it is not noisy at all). I am not sure what effect smaller wells has on daytime photography.

Also is 14 bit or 16 bit camera processing more important to the resulting image more than some of these factors?

I see 5D mark ii and D800 and perhaps others are 14 bit with D800 also processing at 16 bit (not sure what that means if the A/D converter is running at 14 bit but processing at 16bit - not quite the same as A/D running at 16 bit is it?).

But DSLR engineers seem to find little things to enhance the performance of the sensor like better transmission of the Bayer matrix filters, better microlenses, better image processors for less noise.

I did not know of the F ratio limitation for resolution for pixels. Interesting. How is that worked out?

Also what about these Foveon sensors. They don't have Bayer matrixes and no filters at all and all pixels are in the one spot not 2 x 2 grid as in Bayer. Perhaps they have a bright future?

Greg.

[avandonk]

I did not know of the F ratio limitation for resolution for pixels. Interesting. How is that worked out?

It is called the circle of confusion. It is just down to f ratio and independant of all other variables. It is called diffraction.


Bert

[Octane]

As long as Foveon is in Sigma's hands, it will go nowhere (as far as 35mm goes). You might want to see what Hasselblad (medium format) have done with their 200 megapixel system.

While boasting impressive technology, the cameras are next to useless for astrophotography as they're not designed for high ISO usage. ISO-1600 (if it is even possible) on the particular brand of medium format system you buy, would be so noisy. As a result, a lot of them are crippled at ISO-400, sometimes at ISO-800.

Bert is correct, re: CoC. The CoC value changes depending on the output/size of the print you wish to enjoy. thereby changing the f-/ratio you /should/ theoretically shoot at.

Personally, I use f/16 for maximum depth of field in my landscape work. It's tack sharp, and, I print 30x20s, and the rare 36x24.

I'm not entirely sure how far I can push my medium format system, though. Needs more investigation.

Apologies for the FCW link. It was intended in humour.

H

[avandonk]

Diffraction
Diffraction limits the ultimate detail an imaging system can deliver. This is a fundamental limit due to the wave nature of light.
The trend in digital cameras is to increase the pixel count, and the easiest way to do this is to decrease pixel size. However, practical limits have already been reached! The diffraction spot size in the focal plane is a function of f/ratio and is independent of focal length. The diffraction spot diameter is:
Diffraction spot diameter = 2 * 1.22 w * f / D = 2.44 * w * f_ratio,
where w = wavelength, f = focal length, D = aperture diameter, and f_ratio is the f/ratio of the optical system. The diffraction spot size is given in the table below for green light of 0.53 microns (5300 angstroms) in wavelength:
F/ratioDiffraction
Spot Size
(microns)2 2.6 2.8 3.6 4 5.2 5.6 7.2 8 10.3 11 14.2 16 20.7 19 24.6 22 28.5 32 41.4 45 58.2 64 82.8 A simple way to remember the diffraction size in the above table is to multiply the f/ratio by 1.3 to get the spot diameter in microns.


From Clarkvision

here

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/scandetail/index.html#modulation



Bert

[gregbradley]

That's a great reference. I also found a site that has calculators as wel as a nice discussion of this effect:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm


So using that, this new Nikon D800 with 36.3mp and just slightly larger than 35mm sized sensor would need to be shot at F9 or less and for a telescope probably not more than F8-F11.

So if these cameras get any smaller pixels then we will be limited to imaging lower F ratios below F8 and they would be only useful on fast telescopes or lenses F stops that may not suit the image you want to take.

So Nikon taking their new camera to 36.3mp is probably pretty close to the ceiling where you start to lose flexibility in imaging and diffraction softening of images starts to become an issue. 45mp is probably a workable maximum number of pixels in a 35mm sized sensor.

So that only leaves making the sensors larger if the megapixel race is to continue.

It also puts another perspective on why these F1.2 prime lenses area valuable thing.

Thanks Bert and H. H- I misunderstood your link, I took it as a Nikon bash. I'm neither for or against Nikon or Canon or anyone else just merely interested in the cameras that will get me the best results.

I also see Pentax has a medium format digital camera - the 645 that is bringing the price lower (still very high at around $11,000).

Yes Sigma cameras don't get a good review - its like great sensor, camera acceptable type rating. But the sensor design seems to have the advantage of our LRGB type imaging sharpness. But high ISO noise performance seems backward. One advantage though of the Sigma is you can remove the UV/IR filter easily and replace it easily which could make it very very good for astrophotography - poorish high ISO performance notwithstanding.

Greg.

[Marke]

This is probably why Nikon added the D800e for use at higher f ratios
in order to boost image sharpness .

[gregbradley]

Yes no doubt that is why.

Also to have a go at the Medium Format market.

The Leica M9 also does not have an AA filter and it is something like 16-18mp.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

I was talking to a friend of mine this morning who works at the National Gallery of Australia. They use Sinars and Hasselblads for a lot of their imaging work. He was saying that the movements you could use on the Sinar were a lot less using a digital back than you could use with a film back. I wonder if this is caused by the shape and depth of a pixel? Does a pixel need the light to be straight on to expose properly? If the light is coming in from an obscure angle which you will get if you are using a camera with movements, will this make the pixel less efficient? A good example would be using the camera to do a Scheimpflug. (pronounced shime-flug)


Cheers
phil

[Octane]

Never thought about that aspect before, re: movements, Phil. Very interesting.

You would assume, then, that the metering /should/ take care of correct exposure?

H

[CDKPhil]

The exposure would be correct with proper metering. But the angles the lens and the film plain are on, seem to cause vignetting at a far less angle than film. Could this be due to inferior lens quality? Or like I said before the shape and size of the pixel?
With film, the silver halide is getting exposed by light, the halide is sensitive to light on all surfaces. So it would not matter what angle the light was hitting the halide.
My understanding of a pixel is that you would have a micro lens on top then a colour filter and the sensor would be at the bottom of a depression.
All be it at a microscopic level but light that was traveling at right angles to this would fail to expose the sensor correctly. As if the sensor was in shadow?
So if you had smaller pixels the angle that the light was striking the surface would have to be more perpendicular to the sensor, than what it would be with larger pixels, and what it would be for silver halides?

This is just my take on this, I am probably way off.

Sorry Greg this is a little off the main topic.

cheers
Phil

[avandonk]

To add further confusion to all of this you can actually get far better resolution than the Airy limit or Dawe limit. The planetary imagers all work at about f/40 where the Airy disk diameter is about 50 microns! Yet they achieve the resolution of their sensor!

The answer is simple. The Airy disk has quite a sharp peak in intensity and they are actually imaging just the tiny peak that is above the noise. For a circular aperture it is in the form of a Bessel Function. All these tiny peaks are the data that leads to contrast in the planetary image.

See here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk


All these black and white arguments need to be taken in the light of (excuse the pun) the signal to noise of the entire imaging system.

So for bright stars the resolution is far worse than the Airy limit as the bright star recorded image gets bigger with increasing star brightness as more of the weak maxima of the Bessel Function get recorded generally to saturation.

Dim stars and contrast in nebulae on the other hand actually can do as well as the sensor resolution.

Note these diffraction limits are for perfect optics. Most real imaging systems introduce what is called a point spread function. This can be reduced by Richardson Lucy Enhancement.

Remember there are only two rules in our Universe.

1. There is no FREE lunch.
2. If something seems to be to good to be true. It is NOT.

Bert

[Bassnut]

1. There is no FREE lunch.
2. If something seems to be to good to be true. It is NOT.

Beg to differ on both counts.

If the weak maxima of the Bessel Function is recorded on bright stars without saturation, then star selection and curving in PS to show just the sharp peak in intensity, or just size reduced if saturated, IS a free lunch.

What do you mean by NOT. Not true or not good?.

None of us present photos of the "truth", but they can be very "good". The truth is not always the defining feature of good.

[avandonk]

I was talking about the myth of more megapixels is somehow better.

All of human endeavours have to be taken in balance.

A free lunch is the attempt to maximise one attribute against all others. It inevitably leads to failure.


Why are all the bright stars taken with CCD's saturated?

Bert

[mplanet62]

The basic physics of the sensor are relatively simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device#Basics_of_operation
The smaller an element of matrix is, the weaker signal it produces. To make it useful, the signal must be amplified. The stronger amplification is, the more heat is produced, and the lesser noise to signal ratio becomes. That brings extra noise and lowers the brightness diapason (latitude?)captured by the camera.
I saw strange things when an old 3Mp Fuji with just 100ISO produced excellent night images (when taking long exposure shots from a tripod). Much newer 8Mp Panasonic could not beat that - esp.if image was developed in some editor.
Another drawback of high Mp cameras is that the final image if taken in RAW is huge. Try to stack hundreds of them!
The positives are there, too - better have one star registered by two pixels than two stars registered by one pixel. Electronics quality improved greatly. It's less noisy and energy-hungry, which allows for longer exposures.
It's matter of camera quality and optics/matrix balance, really. Hard to give universal formula for success here. The only reliable way to find is to try.

[gregbradley]

That may be more true for astrophotography but less true for daytime DSLR.

It seems engineers always find some new way to tweak performance like optimise the low pass filter, improve the Bayer matrix filters transmission, make the pathways from the chip to the A/D converter more optimum,
improve the A/D, improve the amplifiers, improve the coverage of the microlenses etc etc.

Also you can always use faster lenses to improve ISO performance on any camera just like you can with astrophotography using wide field fast scopes. Smaller pixels then thrive in that sort of scenario. Given good seeing you are now taking the scope closer to its theoretical resolution whereas large pixels on widefield scopes with good seeing is not getting close enough to ideal.

I see this with my Microline 8300 with 5.4 micron pixels - the smallest in the Kodak range. This is well suited to refractors and shorter focal length yet does poorly at 3 metres focal length due to seeing messing it up.

So for astrophotography pixel size is a clearer argument and pixel size is matched to seeing and focal length whereas there does not seem to be a formula like that for DSLR terrestial imaging. Seeing seems irrelevant but lens fastness seems very relevant.

My conclusion is if you go with a camera with super high resolution 4.85 microns or so then you need fast lenses more than lower resolution cameras otherwise you will waste some of that resolution that is available.

So perhaps more (smaller) pixels are good for most imaging given lenses that match and larger pixels are better for lower noise, low light situations or for slower lenses.

So you pay for the extra pixels and the higher cost of the faster lenses or you can use cheaper slower lenses and in low light but at lower resolution.

Greg.

[mplanet62]

That's right. I never felt uncomfortable with more MP in broad daylight. Night shooting,especially astrophoto-different business. I find optical resolution more limiting than electronic one. And,as I shoot mostly in RAW, image management becomes more difficult as the size of file grows. Everyone finds best compromise for themselves.

[gregbradley]

I think this is the case. Like telescopes no one camera is ideal and they end up specialising. So you get cameras ideal for daytime landscapes and portraits with fairly high megapixel counts and others with lower megapixels with larger pixels that are better for higher frames per second for action/sports photography and low light imaging.

I think we'll see both Canon and Nikon branching out to meet the 2 camps in their market for this. I see these 2 camps in the various internet forums that discuss DSLRs. Those that think large numbers of megapixels are for idiots and want high ISO low light performance and fast frames per second more than any other characteristic and those who want large numbers of megapixels for maximum sharpness and detail.

Its the skill of the camera makers to try to capture as much of both characteristics and defeat these seemingly opposing goals. They both do a reasonable job of this.

Rumours are 2 types of new Canon full frame perhaps a 45mp 5DX and a 22mp 5D Mark iii to suit both these areas of the market. Nikon may do a D400 to for a new model low light full frame camera.

To be seen of course. I will hold off til the last second to see if in fact Canon announces a 5D ? in the next 6 weeks. A 45mp 5DX with an upgraded autofocus and upgraded video would be hard to refuse. I expect Canon may be working late hours trying to get a bigger sensor in that new 5D than they were planning. Nikon USA stopped taking preorders for the D800 as they were swamped. They are set to cleanup unless a hot 5D comes out to match/better it.


Greg

[Peter Ward]

I investigated this very question some years ago, and in fact gave a presentation at CWAS on a related topic, CMOS vs CCD.

The short answer is: more pixels means you can cover more sky with a single exposure with a Nyquist limit in mind. You should not confuse that with a high dynamic range, as you simply can't get enough photons into tiny pixels to acheive a 16 bit dynamic range.

Also CMOS chips are intrinsically noisier and have less QE than CCD's due their read-up design and gate structures.....

But the (possibly) scary thing is their associated electronics are cheap...as you can have a "camera on a chip" with CMOS, which you can't do with CCD.

In our "bean counter" driven economy, megapixel CCD's might become very expensive..or simply go the way of the dinosaurs due to insufficient demand......

[gregbradley]

I read an article recently also about CMOS versus CCD just to understand the differences (see link below).

Per this article the costs of CMOS can be higher than CCD.

http://www.teledynedalsa.com/corp/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.aspx

But if the megamanufacturers have already gone down that road then the choice was made some time ago and they are locked in.

I am sure the main cost is in the lithography equipment and surrounding machinery. They need to sell a gazillion to get their R and D costs back no doubt.

Hasselblad uses KAF40000 I believe or was it KAF39000? One of those and they stitch them together to get 80mp or so.
These KAF39000 on up have pathetic QE as well so perhaps CMOS versus CCD may be a less compelling argument in the larger beyond
39mp sizes. KAF39000C is 20% QE. I don't know what 5D Mark ii or Nikon D800 QE is but I would be surprised if it is any worse than that.

For a DSLR though perhaps CMOS makes more sense as all the circuitry is far more compact.

Greg.

[Peter Ward]

Greg,

I'm bemused by your linking to an article that (yep, read it a while ago) basically says, if you want a:
high dynamic range,
high fill factor,
low noise,
highly uniform (pixel to pixel) output,
uniform shuttering,
plus tailored ABG sensor and read-up electroncs.... use a CCD! :thumbsup:

Don't get me wrong, megapixel CMOS are great when you have buckets signal (read: daylight) but if you are getting just a few photons per second (read : NB or dim-dark fuzzies)..... then all of the above (plus some seriously large, fast and usually expensve optics) can pay dividens.

Hope that clears the water a bit ! :)

[gregbradley]

We don't disagree here. I started this thread more about DSLRs for daytime imaging rather than astro. Mainly in response to the often heavy postings on other parts of the net that large megapixel DSLRs are no good and that somehow you are an idiot if you want a high megapixel DSLR. So that really was what I wanted to discuss not CMOS versus CCD for astrowork which is clearly CCD dominated at this point in time. The benefits or problems associated with high megapixel DSLRs.

Although I am curious as to whether a KAI29050 with its 35mm sized sensor could be a good match for faster optics. Someone has to try one out. 5.5 micron pixels and similar performance to KAI11002. Could be a good match for an AP RHA!

Greg.

[Peter Ward]

Could be!

[DavidTrap]

Guess who actually held a D800E and D4 today?

Very nice. Pre-Production models, so you couldn't take any files away unfortunately.

Have an email address of a Nikon tech to ask questions about effects of the antialiasing filter on chip sensitivity across the spectrum - was a bit beyond the knowlede of the sales reps!

DT

[gregbradley]

Whoa!

I'd love that email address. I have a D800E preordered. I was wondering about moire with the video. I am not worried about the stills. You can always reshoot with digital with a slight change of focal length if you are using a zoom.

I got some nice Nikon lenses today as well.

Greg.

[DavidTrap]

Apparently moire is a big problem with video on the D800E.

Couldn't test it as they didn't have cards in the camera, so you couldn't record anything.

DT

[gregbradley]

Hmmm, Perhaps I should change my order to the D800 then. You can always get the low pass filter swapped out at MaxMax to make it the same as the D800E or perhaps even better later on after you've been using it for a while. But you can't add back in the original D800 filter later on if you don't like it. I think Nikon should have put more examples out regarding the 800E as I feel I am making a decision with a lack of data to come to the correct decision. The D800E still has an antialiasing filter it just has one layer cancelling out the blur from the first. A bit odd. The suggestion on the article I read is its being done that way as it is cheaper for Nikon that way. It would be better to have a both sides, antireflection coated optical flat glass to retain autofocus accuracy. It would up QE a bit and would perhap be even sharper. It may even make it more sensitive for astrowork.

D800 is cheaper and arriving sooner. Also you can always do extra sharpening in Photoshop with various tools if its needs a bit more sharpening. I definitely want decent video even though it would primarily be for stils.

I think I'll change my order tomorrow morning before its too late.

Rumour mill is now 2 5D's, one a 5D Mark iii and one a 5DX. One a 22mp 6.9fps, 61 point autofocus and the other is a 45 mp studio type camera with the same pixel size as the Canon G1. Hence this thread to see how far can you do with large numbers of pixels go in a certain sized chip? There must be an optimum, but perhaps that depends on the surrounding electronics, filters, image processor, noise control, lenses.

Greg.

[DavidTrap]

Greg - it was all sales speak tonight, but the D800 is going to be "unbelievably sharp", and the D800E "just a little bit more unbelievably sharp".

The owner of the camera store (which is one of the pro dealers for Nikon) said they have lots of pre-orders for the D800, but not as many as they'd expected for the D800E.

I think we might be trying to use our knowledge and experience with dedicated astro CCDs and apply that to a DSLR, which is a completely different beast.

DT

[gregbradley]

I just saw a thread on DPreview where someone used tonal contrast and mild sharpening to the D800 snowy forest image that made it very very close to the D800E version.

I read conflicting reports about the effect of no AA filter on video.

I think I'll just go D800 and later if D800E users show the no AA filter is worth it I can always get the camera modified by MaxMax but as you point out it wouldn't be worth it. By then a 60mp medium format sensor in a DSLR body will be out and the D800 will be relegated to history!

The Leica M9 guy was saying though that Moire is a rare occurrence with his M9. About 1% of images. So it could be a lot of fuss about nothing but I feel Nikon has left a vaccuum of info on the subject making it too hard to evaluate clearly. The D800 is the safer bet.

What lenses are you using/getting for it?

Nikon rep I saw today said the new 85mm F1.8 with nano crystal coating is amazing and cheap at $650. Great for portraits. I'm geting one of those as well. I am thinking the 50mm F1.4 AF-S could be useful. 70-200mm F2.8 may be on the shopping list in the future but its a huge lens. I am not sure how often I would use something like that.

Greg.

[Adelastro1]

Lucky you! Please post details if you get a reply from the tech! Would be very interesting.

I emailed Nikon Sydney and got a reply from the Nikon Professional Services National manager but didn't give too much details. Here's what he said:

"Regarding the low light performance of the camera from the testing that I have been able to do the low light ability is similar to the D3 and D700 cameras while having the higher mega pixel count.
For the images that you are capturing I would think that the D800e variant would be best suited as the additional fine detail and sharpness would be beneficial.

I do not have example images of astro photography from the D800 yet if I receive some before the launch I will forward them on."


I wait patiently for some astrophoto examples but won't hold my breath! But the signs are good if what he says is true. Now for what the tech thinks....!

[gregbradley]

My conclusion regarding the extra megapixels and low light was to use fast lenses when deciding what type of lens to use. I know they cost more but fast F ratio lenses generally speaking have nice characteristics that you would want anyway. Also for widefield astro work fast f ratio lenses become pretty important regardless of the camera used.

With regards the 800E my main concern now would be how it performs in video, if moire is an issue in video. One post on DP review indicated it would not as the image is so heavily downsampled to arrive at 1080p. Another post conflicted this so I don't know what to believe. So I am going for the D800 as sharpening and tonal contrast will arrive at much the same sharpness and lens choice, accuracy of focus are possibly more important as factors in the final sharpness of the image. Mind you, your images are mostly landscape? In which case you have nothing to lose.

Greg.

[Octane]

Question 1: how many of you actually print images? (And, I don't mean 6x4s or 7x5s); and,
Question 2: how many of you will upload full resolution (that is, not downsampled) images to the web for people to pixel peep?

What's the point of the E, if the answers to the above are in the negative? Wouldn't the normal version suffice with careful sharpening of the raw data using the supplied software?

The E sounds like it's a studio photographer's tool. Even then, studio images are airbrushed. What woman wants to see pores within skin pores?

H

[gregbradley]

You are right of course. But I think the E is more aiming at the medium format market where no low pass filter is usual. It gets that extra sharpness. Also for landscape imagers who want that extra zing.

Its like refractors. Why get an AP or TEC or Tak etc when there are other cheaper great scopes. Its that last little bit.

Its funny how you want that last little bit even though as you say it probably won't make hardly any difference. The sample 800 photos are amazingly detailed.

Greg.

[Octane]

I understand. :)

Printing big is joyful. :)

H

[Marke]

There is a little catch to going bigger in sensors in the future that I think
most manufactures will avoid as long as possible . It means you have to bring out a whole set of new lens that can cover it and possibly a new lens mount as well . Not something that they will want to do any time soon I would guess.

[DavidTrap]

Well if you want something bigger, there's always Medium Format!

DT

[Marke]

Yep there is always medium true but where does it leave the current DSLR format and I dont think there is a huge selection of medium format lens available for either N or C ?

[gregbradley]

Yes I agree. To cram more pixels in they are going to have to do larger sensors. I wonder at what size they would need to do larger bodies and larger lenses. What are the corrected circle sizes of the better FX lenses?

Greg.

[Marke]

I have all FX lens 14-24 24-70 70-200 80-400 and all the macros including the 200mm so was lucky there when I got the D700 but I doubt they would focus on a bigger sensor unless it was a small size increase. They do still work on a DX body so you have backward compatability.
In theory I guess they could increase the CCD - lens distance but I am sure that has inherent problems too . Not sure what the circle size is and I am guessing it may vary slightly between lens . The market for full frame is still pretty young so they will probably stick with them for some time yet . Who knows D5 may see a semi-medium format with a few new lens to suit ?

[gregbradley]

[QUOTE=Marke;820883]I have all FX lens 14-24 24-70 70-200 80-400 and all the macros including the 200mm

I am in the process of procuring Nikon lenses. How do you find the 70-200? It looks fantastic but its also quite large and heavy. Do you find yourself not using it because of that?

I have 14-24, 24-70, 50mm F1.8 for now. I am planning to get the new 85mm F2.8 with the D800.

What are your favourites?

Greg.

[Marke]

I have had the 70-200 for a few years and love it and use it when ever I can . I use it for close-up with a Cannon 500d diopter on it. I dont think it big at all , try carrying the 200-400 for awhile ! I usually keep a 1.4tc handy when using it . The 80-400 is pretty big and I spend a lot of time with that on the camera as well . Get the 70-200 and you will not regret it :)

[DavidTrap]

What are your thoughts on the teleconveters Mark.

I was thinking about the 1.7x. (However, I'll probably just end up cropping a lot with 36MP at my disposal!)

Agree the 70-200 is very nice.

DT

[Marke]

David I find the 1.4x really good and have no hesitation using it , in fact use it a lot on both 70-200, 80-400 . From my understanding the 1.7x is better quality but I dont want to loose that extra stop of light . Maybe if I didnt have a 1.4 already then I may have gone with the 1.7 with fast glass at least. 70-200 is so sharp its very hard to pick any diff with or with out TC imho.

[DavidTrap]

Thanks Mark,

That's what I've heard about the 1.7 vs 1.4. I'll see how I go in due course with the 70-200 on a full frame sensor.

DT

[Marke]

I think you will like it :)

[gregbradley]

OK so 70-200 is a good lens. I'll have to get it to complete the trifecta.

I use a TEC110 flourite triplet 613mm as a telephoto as well as it also relatively light. I did a bird shot at home with a modest Canon 40D and it got published in an Italian Magazine. So I would use that before a long telephoto.

I got a Novoflex adapter today so I can use these fabulous Nikon lenses
on an EOS body ( I have a 40D and modified 20D I use for infrared). A very cool accessory ( I got it from Mainline Photographic in Crows Nest Sydney- Scott).

So I do a shoot out between Canon 50mm F1.8 and Nikon F1.8 on the weekend.

Also test the 14-24 and 24-70 more extensively.

Thanks for the input.

Greg.

[Marke]

Like to see what you come up with Greg , I can tell you one thing the
14-24 is probably the best wide angle lens ever made and the 24-70 not far behind . What I like about the 14-24 is the close focus , I use it more for close ups than anything else.

[gregbradley]

Been playing around with the 24-70 F2.8 ED and am totally impressed so far. Man this thing has some sharpness and lovely colour.

Greg.

[Marke]

Well the 14-24 is even better :)

[gregbradley]

What primes would you recommend?

I am thinking an 85mm. The new F2.8 is supposed to be good and its "cheap" at $650.

But I think an F1.4 would be nice for the Bokeh.

Greg.

[Marke]

Greg only primes I have are macros and a 24mm 2.8 havent needed primes
personally at least not for what I take .

[gregbradley]

Thanks Mark. If the zooms are getting good results then there isn't a lot of incentive to get a prime.

Nikon does not seem to have many fast primes anyway unless I am looking at the wrong lists.

85mm and 50mm would be a workhorse. A macro would be nice or a zoom that also does macro. The 24-70 gets really close anyway.

There is a Nikon D800 manual available for download from Nikon now and here is a link to various galleries shot with D800:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/d800/

There is a lot of mention in the manual about reducing motion blur.

That makes sense as why use so high a resolution camera and then lose that sharpness with sloppy technique.

There's also a good review of the Sony Nex7 which is 24.3mp APS -C sensor in a mirrorless body! Gee whiz, cameras are suddenly making a leap forward.

Also this rumour about the 5D mark iii. Supposed to be announced on Feb 28. That's only 10 days.

http://www.slashgear.com/canon-5d-mark-iiix-leaked-details-rundown-14213443/

The rumour is consistent with various leaks for some time now. 22mp was mentioned ages ago.


Greg.

[Marke]

Greg the primes are good because they are compact there is little else in it now with zooms being so good . Looks like some good results coming from the 800 I was wondering about high iso quality . Have a look for a cannon 500D diopter , put that on your lens and you will get a good macro substitute without carrying another lens .
http://www.canon-reviews.com/reviews/canon-500d-close-up-lens

[gregbradley]

Thanks Mark.

D800 high ISO performance per a few reviews is supposed to be similar to the D700. Yet to be proven in the field.

Greg.

[DavidTrap]

Greg,

There are a reasonable range of fast primes:

85 f1.4
85 f1.8
50 f1.4
50 f1.8
35 f1.4
35 f1.8
24 f1.4

Plus 180, 200, 300, 600 etc.

What is missing?

DT

[gregbradley]

I suppose so. It seems like a large jump from 85 to 180 though.

Perhaps its a band not needed that much.

Greg.

[Octane]

135mm!

135mm is stellar for environmental portraits.

For example: http://users.tpg.com.au/octane2/vr.html

H

[DavidTrap]

There's the 135mm F2 defocus control - described as the "world's greatest portrait lens".

DT