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!

Fat Pixel Nikons

bensonga

Well-known member
Re: Fat Pixel Nikons Definition

Love the quality of those images, Jorgen.

The D700 somehow escaped me because I could not afford it and it was a time when photography was impossible. At least I can enjoy going back over the reviews and billions of images made with a D700 and the other related cameras.

The pixel size is 8.45 microns. Hmmm. The accepted definition of a Fat Pixel Digital Back onvthe MF forum is 9 microns. :cool:

So let's start right there. 9 microns (effective).

Or should we be more exact and use 8.45?

Either way, it would be nice to compile a list of all the Nikon digital cameras with a pixel size of 9 microns (or 8.45) and greater. Anyone looking for a quiet weekend project?:):):)
I've always felt that cameras like the D700 and Canon 5D with pixel sizes very close to that magic 9 micron size were close enough to qualify as fat pixels.

Here are a few more of my D700 shots. I love shooting with macro lenses. The first one with the 105mm Micro-Nikkor and the next two with the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar. The photos were taken at different times/days, but in the same year and general location.

Gary





 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Re: Fat Pixel Nikons Definition

I've always felt that cameras like the D700 and Canon 5D with pixel sizes very close to that magic 9 micron size were close enough to qualify as fat pixels.

Here are a few more of my D700 shots. I love shooting with macro lenses. The first one with the 105mm Micro-Nikkor and the next two with the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar. The photos were taken at different times/days, but in the same year and general location.

Gary





Gary, which of those two lenses do you like best?:) They both render quite well!
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Hi Dave. I really don't have a strong preference for one vs the other, which is why I've kept both lenses. I thought I would see a bigger difference when I bought the Zeiss lens, but I haven't. My experience with Micro-Nikkors going all the way back to the non-AI 55mm has always been good.

Gary
 

bensonga

Well-known member
As I mentioned above, I think the 12mp, FF, 8.46 micron D700 and D3 qualify as "Fat Pixel" Nikons.

I recently picked up a D3 and D4. Here's one of my first shots taken with the D3.

A sure sign of "tourist season" in Anchorage is the increasing number of Alaska Railroad trains heading north to Denali National Park.

Gary

D3, Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens, ISO 200, 1/500th at f8
 

neils

New member
A D3 is for sure a Fat Pixel camera. I bought mine new the day it was released and it was my main camera till 12/2018 when I got another Fat Pixel camera, the D4S. Both cameras may have a low pixel count but the images are excellent and have a look all their own. I also used to own a D2h and a D2HS. The HS for sure had a different look with the LBCAST sensor. The D4 and the Dx are the same sensor no?

Neil
 

bensonga

Well-known member
The D4 and the Dx are the same sensor no?
Neil
I believe the D4 and Df have the same 16mp sensor. I will be picking up a used Df from my local camera shop tomorrow. However, with a pixel pitch/size of 7.28 microns, I don’t think the D4/Df sensor is generally considered to fall into the “fat pixel” category.

12mp is probably the limit for a fat pixel FF35 sensor re pixel size and that is pushing the boundary a little.

Gary
 
Top