The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Will Nikon launch a 52MP D4X?

V

Vivek

Guest

Let's take it easy, it's only speculation about a sensor.

50+ Mp has no place in 35mm format, in my opinion.
What it takes is a new 33 x 44 mm sensor (like the Pentax 645D) in an S2 form factor body, a new mount and a new lens lineup.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon or Nikon or Sony entered Medium Format as the logical next flagship step in a couple of years.

Cramming more millions of pixels into a 35mm sensor would be silly in my humble opinion, there are already too many of them for my taste, they simply get too small.
So I think the logical answer to the question is that it will more likely be a new Medium Format camera, or something in between 35mm and genuine MF.

I would even think there's room for such a sensor in a D4-like body, after all it's rather big.
I hope to see it happen someday.

I disagree with that Steen.

I overlook the D800 for the 41MP Nokia pureview. It is way cheaper, tiny, light weight and comes with a lens and other goodies. ;)
 

ghoonk

New member
Sensor performance is only part of the equation, not the entire equation in itself.

I see the point in comparing 35mm vs MFD. In the same way that a D3x today would probably outperform a Phase H10 back, or improve the overall potential to catch a better shot, it does make sense. But to claim that 35mm has reached or surpassed MFD at this point in time is like looking at a 16MP camera phone and suggesting that it would outperform the Nikon D700 is a lithe far-fetched.

The D800 does perform admirably, as does the D4, I'm sure, and the same can be said for the upcoming 1Dx and the latest 5D MkIII, and it does provide photographers with a system for faster shooting (through improved AF, cleaner files past ISO1600, TTL, smaller bodies, improved weather resistance, etc) of faster moving targets (e.g. sports, photojournalism, etc) where MFD isn't ideal for.

Right now, I see a 36MP/54MP system as a viable replacement for a D3x or my D700, not my H4D, something that would allow me to get maximum IQ out of a smaller system, for days/events where the H4D is not required.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
You might want to compare gazelles to zebras too.
This is moving to the Nikon forum.
-bob
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I remember the days, when Leica said that 18MP would be enough for 35-DSLR (some 12-15 years ago).

I remember the time when HB claimed that 31MP are more than enough for MFD (some 5 years ago).

I remember the days when I (we) had discussions that there are these certain limits in number of MPs for a certain sensor size.

I remember the days when Canon (and others) claimed that Nikon would never bring a FF DSLR.

See my point? Could continue like that .....

Matter of fact is that today we have a FF DSLR with 36+ MP which sensor wise easily outperforms a Leica S2 or a HB 39 or what else MF camera you name. Be careful, I said sensor wise, not system wise, as lenses are still not up to these limits.

What would you think and imagine to happen in the next 5-10 years given the past 10-15 years evolution? For me pretty much everything is possible!
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
You might want to compare gazelles to zebras too.
This is moving to the Nikon forum.
-bob
BTW I do disagree with that move! We are comparing MFD and DSLR territories, nothing else.

Is it to protect MFD guys from getting a heart attack? (I am a MFD guy myself and need no protection!)

Peter
 

ghoonk

New member
I remember the days, when Leica said that 18MP would be enough for 35-DSLR (some 12-15 years ago).

I remember the time when HB claimed that 31MP are more than enough for MFD (some 5 years ago).

I remember the days when I (we) had discussions that there are these certain limits in number of MPs for a certain sensor size.

I remember the days when Canon (and others) claimed that Nikon would never bring a FF DSLR.

See my point? Could continue like that .....

Matter of fact is that today we have a FF DSLR with 36+ MP which sensor wise easily outperforms a Leica S2 or a HB 39 or what else MF camera you name. Be careful, I said sensor wise, not system wise, as lenses are still not up to these limits.

What would you think and imagine to happen in the next 5-10 years given the past 10-15 years evolution? For me pretty much everything is possible!
Of course! And that's based on the assumption that developments in MFD don't continue.

However, keeping in mind that demands from clients haven't increased that much, I would have to agree that a D800 or a D4 would meet most client demands from most clients these days.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Of course! And that's based on the assumption that developments in MFD don't continue.

However, keeping in mind that demands from clients haven't increased that much, I would have to agree that a D800 or a D4 would meet most client demands from most clients these days.
I am actually pretty sure that development in MFD will continue. Basically, if it does not continue it will start to disappear. There is a clear need it continues hence.

WRT client requests for higher resolution - would say that with 40MP most clients should actually be satisfied - I know that I will hear a storm of countering voices right now - but to be honest we were already able to get stunning prints of 2 x 1.2 m from 10MP, so now we are in the 30-40MP range with DSLRs which would allow 8 x 4.8 m if I am right? Who can print that large? Who does print that large?

But you know, evolution will never stop because there are folks like me saying that they do not need more than 40MP.

So there is real hope (or should I say fear) for seeing MFD with 100 - 160 MP in the next years.
 

ghoonk

New member
IMHO, digital cameras are fast approaching the same place where CPU performance numbers are today. There will reach a point where there's enough resolution (not unlike how the Ghz wars went several years ago) to print to a certain practical size. We're already at a point where dynamic range is *almost* comparable, and Nikon and Canon being as hungry as they are, with markets as large as they are, are pushing each other to be better and better, perhaps faster than Phase and Hasselblad are pushing each other to greater levels.

There will come a point, and soon enough, where DSLRs can deliver enough resolution, capture enough dynamic range and colors for the majority of clients we deal with today.

Let's really ask ourselves - who is the client ultimately, and what do they want? I'm not the client, and neither is the agency. Most magazines today, barring the really top-end guys, are satisfied with what the last (by which I refer to the D3s/D3x/D700, as a Nikon shooter. I know too little about Canon's range to suggest what the previous range was - 5Dm2 and?) and current generation (5DM3, 1Dx, D4, D800/e) DSLRs deliver.

The market is going to get more competitive - clients don't care if I shoot with a 35/FF or an MFD - either they get an image that they can use they way they want, or they don't. That's the reality for many of us.

To say that the D800 has 'BEATEN' MFD is highly debatable for the reasons we've seen enough of, from a technical point of view. At the end of the day, for working professionals, the camera is just a tool to get a job done for a client. Either it gets the job done, or it doesn't, it's that simple. And if 35/FF systems have come to a point where a client can't tell the difference and MFD shooters lose the advantage and earnings, then that says more about the state of digital 35mm systems than anything else.
 

kinok1

Member
I rarely chime in on such discussions...but now having shot with the D800 on two different shoots, I can say that 36mp might be too much. There is a certain reality to dealing with these files, and my clients are not very excited about the infrastructure necessary to deal with file sizes as big as these. I'll hold off judgement on the camera until I've had more time to put it through its paces...but seriously 36mp might be too much for most professional applications.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I remember the days, when Leica said that 18MP would be enough for 35-DSLR (some 12-15 years ago).

As usual, they were right. It is enough for a CMOS 35mm DSLR ... like the FF Canon 1DX :thumbs:

I remember the time when HB claimed that 31MP are more than enough for MFD (some 5 years ago).

To my knowledge, they never said such a thing. What Hasselblad said at the time was that 100 meg (give or take) was the "practical" theoretical limit for single shot 645 format MFD. However, I think your statement is pretty accurate ... for most, 31/40 meg MFD is more than enough. :thumbup:

I remember the days when I (we) had discussions that there are these certain limits in number of MPs for a certain sensor size.

That theory of limits is being proved accurate daily with "Emperor's New Cloths" pics that aren't as pleasing to the eye as MFD, 2 camera's ago were.

I remember the days when Canon (and others) claimed that Nikon would never bring a FF DSLR.

Don't recall anyone from a company ever saying such a thing, especially Canon. Nikon owners may have publicly whined about it in hope ... and it was Sony that saved their a$$

See my point? Could continue like that .....

Actually so could I. Depends on how much Kool-Aid you've consumed :facesmack:

Matter of fact is that today we have a FF DSLR with 36+ MP which sensor wise easily outperforms a Leica S2 or a HB 39 or what else MF camera you name. Be careful, I said sensor wise, not system wise, as lenses are still not up to these limits.

Based on that, then what good is the sensor? Hit the ball, drag the lenses. At least Leica had the good sense to make lenses better than the sensor ... so you don't have to buy all the lens over later :rolleyes:

What would you think and imagine to happen in the next 5-10 years given the past 10-15 years evolution? For me pretty much everything is possible!

Speculation? In 5 years, Sony could leapfrog the whole market ... then in the following years, competitively knock out Nikon by NOT making sensors for them any more, then go after Canon ... the only one big enough to do battle with Sony for world domination :)

Bye, Bye Nikon.:cry:
:watch: Hyperbole meets hyperbole. :watch:

-Marc
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
BTW I do disagree with that move! We are comparing MFD and DSLR territories, nothing else.

Is it to protect MFD guys from getting a heart attack? (I am a MFD guy myself and need no protection!)

Peter
No, The OP was a speculation on Nikon's possible release of a 52MP D4X
-bob
 

vieri

Well-known member
...

And you really don't have a clue about the camera industry. Alpas and Arca Swiss cameras are simply a block of machined metal and yet they are some of the most expensive cameras today. They have no autofocus or sweep panorama. They don't even have a sensor. I suppose you think they are over-priced junk because they are more expensive than a Nikon/Canon DSLR.

...
Shasin, while I hold no beef and have no grudge towards any camera in particular, I have to say that while Alpas & Arcas are wonderful machines (worth their price, that's a different discussion involving numbers such as production runs and such), I am sure that if we'd take a poll I might not turn out to be the only one thinking that the Phase DF is a very overpriced camera with quite a few junk-y characteristics :D
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I'm not out to trash an industry, but I do thinks its fair to have an open discussion about the technology versus price ratios. Being told that I don't have a clue about cameras is lacking knowledge and rather discourteous. My comments while direct, are respectful, with a touch of sarcasm. Most importantly, they're my opinion, no grudge, just real world experience with medium format digital cameras.
 

b&w

New member
I remember the days, when Leica said that 18MP would be enough for 35-DSLR (some 12-15 years ago).

I remember the time when HB claimed that 31MP are more than enough for MFD (some 5 years ago).

I remember the days when I (we) had discussions that there are these certain limits in number of MPs for a certain sensor size.

I remember the days when Canon (and others) claimed that Nikon would never bring a FF DSLR.

See my point? Could continue like that .....

so right!

The best one IMO is from Thomas J. Watson, CEO if IBM, and his 1943 statement, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"

ähm, I have six... :D
 

dick

New member
...Alpas and Arca Swiss cameras are simply a block of machined metal and yet they are some of the most expensive cameras today. They have no autofocus or sweep panorama. They don't even have a sensor.
You need a system to take a picture, and I think all the MF(D) innovations in the last decade or two have been in the lenses and sensors... (unfortunately some of these gizmos cannot be used e.g. on Hasselblads, without the interface on the camera or reflex finders, making use on view cameras less than ideal)

¿Alpha and Arca cameras are just (system) adaptors that allow you to connect focusable lenses to digital backs?
 

dick

New member
...There is a certain reality to dealing with these files, and my clients are not very excited about the infrastructure necessary to deal with file sizes as big as these. ...but seriously 36mp might be too much for most professional applications.
Pixel count is not everything - res also counts... and you can post-process a large file (produced with Bayer interpolation and through a frosted glass window) crop it, down sample it and then give the DSLR-file client an adequate, small file.

...or you can look for clients that appreciate MFD quality and have the kit to handle large files.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I rarely chime in on such discussions...but now having shot with the D800 on two different shoots, I can say that 36mp might be too much. There is a certain reality to dealing with these files, and my clients are not very excited about the infrastructure necessary to deal with file sizes as big as these. I'll hold off judgement on the camera until I've had more time to put it through its paces...but seriously 36mp might be too much for most professional applications.
"Professional applications" is a catch-all ... it greatly depends on the applications. I definitely think it is too much for wedding, event, and some candid portrait work ... and many Nikon wedding shooters are exploring ways to limit file size by shooting 12 bit and some other alternatives. Definitely over-kill for most editorial work, street photography and most documentary applications.

Whether the files can hold up under the torture inflicted by multiple client use, or how they fare for easier heavy retouching remains to be seen.

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm not out to trash an industry, but I do thinks its fair to have an open discussion about the technology versus price ratios. Being told that I don't have a clue about cameras is lacking knowledge and rather discourteous. My comments while direct, are respectful, with a touch of sarcasm. Most importantly, they're my opinion, no grudge, just real world experience with medium format digital cameras.
However, your real world experiences are not everyones. You can find issues regarding every product made, voiced by those that experienced those issues. What you do not hear much are the vast majority with little to no issues with MFD ... like me.

Price to performance ratio disparity is nothing new. Every little incremental improvement in IQ is disproportionately costly ... be it lenses (Leica S Optics verses anything else: -), or lighting: (PCB verses Profoto or Broncolor), etc. etc. ... more so as the speciality factor increases, and production numbers go down.

These debates are epidemic on the internet ... mostly sarcasm tainted that position the user of the more expensive tools as something of a fool because that user does not accept "almost as good".

If someone gauges something to be better subjectively or not, it doesn't matter ... they want better, and pay for it. If one doesn't not see the difference, or doesn't value it even if they do, then they don't pay for it.

BTW, I'm personally not immune to making some judgement like this myself ... I dumped a Nikon system with a D3/D3X for a Sony A900 using the same sensor ... because the format was the same and offered little to no difference for the way and why I use 35mm DSLRs.

For the way and why I use MFD, no 35mm DSLR is a substitute without compromises I am unwilling to make.

-Marc
 
Top