Seems like Nikon is playing the megapixel game along with Sony. Strange as they used to be the conservative MP company. As I have stated before, I am not a big fan of increased MP past 16mp on aps-c sized cameras. You can mask noise but you can't hide the results of sharpness loss due to diffraction. I guess they will keep cramming them in there.

[nikonrumors.com]

Nikon will soon announce the D3200 DSLR camera which will replace the current D3100 ($549). The expected specs are:

24 MP sensor
11 AF points
4 fps
ISO range: 100-6400, with hi-ISO of 12800
Improved video functionality
The Nikon D3200 will have some kind of a Wi-Fi connection that is supposed to offer few very interesting new features
Announcement in April, 2012


Read more on NikonRumors.com: [nikonrumors.com]

---

Isn't 20-25 MP the point where an APS-C sensor has roughly the same amount of data/information that a 35mm film negative has?


Check out these scans of 4X5 Kodachromes.


[pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com]


Or these100 year old b&w...

[www.shorpy.com]

Or spend days searching the Library of Congress...

[memory.loc.gov]

Quote
pRICE cUBE
Seems like Nikon is playing the megapixel game along with Sony. Strange as they used to be the conservative MP company. As I have stated before, I am not a big fan of increased MP past 16mp on aps-c sized cameras. You can mask noise but you can't hide the results of sharpness loss due to diffraction. I guess they will keep cramming them in there.

You didn't have to be clairvoyant to predict this. In fact I did predict it. Well, I predicted that the D400 would have 24MP. Since, Nikon typically uses the best available Sony sensor across its entire range of DX cameras it makes sense that the next Nikon DX release would have 24MP. For better or worst, Nikon is relying on Sony for its sensors. I don't know to what degree there is co-development, or whether Nikon just takes what Sony gives it, but it is the nature of the beast. Whatever DX sensor is Sony's latest/greatest, you can be sure that Nikon will employ it in its next generation DX cameras.

This symbiotic relationship exists in the FX market as well. The D800 sensor has Sony Exmor written all over it. The dynamic range performance is the big give away (look at the DXOMark measurements to see the pattern). Exmor is the sensor technology that allows photographers to extract unprecedented levels of detail from deep shadows. The D4 sensor doesn't appear to be an Exmor-based sensor; however, I suspect that at minimum Sony provided some input into the D4 sensor design.

What's interesting--at least to me--is that Sony let Nikon use the 36MP Exmor sensor in the D800 first. I'm not even sure that there is even a rumor of a Sony full-frame camera using this sensor. It makes me wonder whether Sony is giving up the FF market (there just isn't as much potential profit for Sony in that segment as there is in DX), or whether there is an agreement between the two giant camera makers that gives Sony priority in the DX market and Nikon priority in the FX market.

Oh, back to the 24MP sensor in the D3200. It is almost certainly the same sensor as the one in the NEX-7. That camera's IQ is excellent, but it's not a huge improvement over the 16MP NEX-5n's IQ. Unless Sony and/or Nikon have added some "secret sauce" to the NEX-7 sensor, the NEX-7 IQ is about what we should expect from the D3200 and other DX cameras that Nikon is rumored to be releasing soon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2012 05:37AM by Billybob.

The general public has bought into the more is better idea when it comes to MP.. If the price is inline with the Rebel, etc.. many D3200's will be sold simply because it has a bigger number.

Don't let the truth get in the way.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Quote
Ombligo
The general public has bought into the more is better idea when it comes to MP.. If the price is inline with the Rebel, etc.. many D3200's will be sold simply because it has a bigger number.

Don't let the truth get in the way.

Just like with the megahertz race. Pentiums kept pumping up the megahertz and IBM/Motorola/Apple couldn't keep up, so the perception was that Macs were slow. People bought into the megahertz myth. You'd think that people would learn from past events and do some research on their own. It's really not that hard to find information these days.

What I really want is more dynamic range. I hate the clip offs on the high end (more than the low end). Less noise is my second wish. Megapixels comes last now...especially since I don't have any lenses which could resolve the images any better with these high pixel sensors.

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.

Quote
Sam3

Quote
Ombligo
The general public has bought into the more is better idea when it comes to MP.. If the price is inline with the Rebel, etc.. many D3200's will be sold simply because it has a bigger number.

Don't let the truth get in the way.

Just like with the megahertz race. Pentiums kept pumping up the megahertz and IBM/Motorola/Apple couldn't keep up, so the perception was that Macs were slow. People bought into the megahertz myth. You'd think that people would learn from past events and do some research on their own. It's really not that hard to find information these days.

True, and now it's easier than ever to get information, but the people who fall for the Mhz or MP BS will never inform themselves even if it's handed to them. "The salesman said......."

Quote
wowzer
What I really want is more dynamic range. I hate the clip offs on the high end (more than the low end). Less noise is my second wish. Megapixels comes last now...especially since I don't have any lenses which could resolve the images any better with these high pixel sensors.

I think diminishing returns have clearly set in. However, the 24MP Exmor sensor does resolve more detail than earlier versions without significantly increasing noise. Of course we can ask whether the sensor would be even better if they kept it at 16MP or 18MP, but we'll never know.

Moreover Exmor sensors actually do increase dynamic range. However, you have to adjust your shooting by exposing to the left (expose for highlights). Then, in post,raise shadows to taste.

I know it's an extra couple of steps, but it doesn't bother me, and my D5100 is my preferred camera for high contrast/high Dr shooting.

Quote
M>B>
Or spend days searching the Library of Congress...

[memory.loc.gov]

I've done that. Incredible.

Quote
Billybob

Quote
wowzer
What I really want is more dynamic range. I hate the clip offs on the high end (more than the low end). Less noise is my second wish. Megapixels comes last now...especially since I don't have any lenses which could resolve the images any better with these high pixel sensors.

I think diminishing returns have clearly set in. However, the 24MP Exmor sensor does resolve more detail than earlier versions without significantly increasing noise. Of course we can ask whether the sensor would be even better if they kept it at 16MP or 18MP, but we'll never know.

Moreover Exmor sensors actually do increase dynamic range. However, you have to adjust your shooting by exposing to the left (expose for highlights). Then, in post,raise shadows to taste.

I know it's an extra couple of steps, but it doesn't bother me, and my D5100 is my preferred camera for high contrast/high Dr shooting.

Although I have not kept up with the latest tech in cameras, I can imagine a time when the in-camera processing allows for increased HDR without any real heavy lifting. At least, one can hope.

I'm not a gig fan of low key middle gray b&w photographs. High key photos where the shadows and highlights are blown out a little are more satisfying to me. HDR images seem gimmicky to me...

Quote
freeradical
I'm not a gig fan of low key middle gray b&w photographs. High key photos where the shadows and highlights are blown out a little are more satisfying to me. HDR images seem gimmicky to me...

when I worked in a professional darkroom, we called it "The Hand of God" printing technique.

Quote
freeradical
I'm not a gig fan of low key middle gray b&w photographs. High key photos where the shadows and highlights are blown out a little are more satisfying to me. HDR images seem gimmicky to me...

Do note that increased dynamic range shooting is not synonymous with what is commonly knows as HDR shooting. I'm not a big fan of HDR shooting. At best, images often look surreal. At worst they look cartoonish and unnatural. The processing of using multiple images to compress the dynamic range of a shot is knows as "tone-mapping," and is very different from what I was referring to.

What I was referring to was the process of bringing out detail in the shadows of a high contrast image. In such situations, if you shoot to get a sky in focus, often the rest of the image is too dark. Pushing the shadows allows for proper exposure.

For example, here is an image that I tonemapped three separate exposures to produce this HDR shot. I like it, but it has been criticized for being overcooked.


This is a more restrained example of tone-mapping. I used three exposures for this shot as well. I could not bring out the green foliage on the right without blowing out the sky.


This final example is from a single exposure. I exposed it for the sky and was able to bring out the detail in the foliage in post.

To be completely honest, these shots were all taken with Canon equipment, so pushing shadows is possible using Canon equipment. However, I would like to have been able to produce the middle shot with a single exposure like I did with the third shot.

What really got my attention on the 4x5 chromes was that, being slides, there was no PP done. You click the shutter and that's what you get, not even any manipulation from printing. These guys knew their stuff. No auto anything.

I personally love the subtle greys that you get only with silver prints from medium or large-format slow films. There's a softness in the gradations of greys while still getting sharp details. Highlights sometimes have a pearl-like quality, like the shirts of the rowing team on [www.shorpy.com] , there is some blowout there.

Billybob, where were those taken. Looks like a beautiful place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2012 12:31PM by lost in space.

Billybob, I wish I were with you when you shot those. So beautiful.

Quote
lost in space

Billybob, where were those taken. Looks like a beautiful place.

I took these shots on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. The first was taken in Princeville looking towards "Bali Hai," the cliff made famous in South Pacific. I took the other two in Haena State Park near the breathtaking Na'Pali Coast. It is truly one of the most beautiful places I have ever been.

Quote
vision63
Billybob, I wish I were with you when you shot those. So beautiful.

I wouldn't have minded, but my wife might have objected. It was our 30th anniversary, and it was sometimes difficult getting away to shoot.

Billybob, I agree that your first photo is a little overcooked, although not by much. I'd be very pleased with the 2nd & 3rd.

---

I wonder what this move portends for Nikon's entry-level DSLR. This would seem to move the 3000/3100/3200 out of that piece of the market. Will there be a 2xxx series with fewer MPs, w/o video, etc.?

Quote
lost in space
I wonder what this move portends for Nikon's entry-level DSLR. This would seem to move the 3000/3100/3200 out of that piece of the market. Will there be a 2xxx series with fewer MPs, w/o video, etc.?

It has been rumored the 24mp will be on the D300s replacement too.

---

I don't understand why 24 Mp is considered "cramming" on an APS-C sensor.

This amounts to a pixel density of about 65 Kp per square mm.

On a 10 Mp point and shoot camera with a (relatively large) 1/1.7" sensor, the pixel density is about 233 Kp per square mm. Why isn't this considered a problem?

Quote
freeradical
I don't understand why 24 Mp is considered "cramming" on an APS-C sensor.

This amounts to a pixel density of about 65 Kp per square mm.

On a 10 Mp point and shoot camera with a (relatively large) 1/1.7" sensor, the pixel density is about 233 Kp per square mm. Why isn't this considered a problem?

Manufacturers have pulled back and some models have regressed on megapixel count. Even they recognize what is going on on the smaller sensors.

---

Quote
freeradical
I don't understand why 24 Mp is considered "cramming" on an APS-C sensor.

This amounts to a pixel density of about 65 Kp per square mm.

On a 10 Mp point and shoot camera with a (relatively large) 1/1.7" sensor, the pixel density is about 233 Kp per square mm. Why isn't this considered a problem?

Different products for different audiences. Despite claims to the contrary, shots from those "high-end" P&S cameras don't approach DLSR quality. They make decent snapshots--and good photographers can perform miracles with crappy equipment--, but they do not compete with larger sensor/lower pixel-density cameras in IQ. The IQ from these cameras in anything but the best light suffer from high noise (often hidden by aggressive noise reduction), lower dynamic range, and over sharpening.

Many photography consumers have become more discriminating, which is why mirrorless cameras like M4/3, the Nikon 1, NEX and the compact Canon G1X are starting to gain traction. With the exception of the Nikon 1 (which still has a sensor that is significantly larger than traditional P&S sensors), these other compact cameras all have sensors that are much larger than those in P&S cameras with lower pixel densities.