Digital BW, The Print

What's a bit sad is that I feel Nikon have been forced, for marketing
reasons, to up the MP.
Most people I know, including myself, would have been happy with a 25MP
version of D800(E). If we could have had with bit faster frame rate and bit
better noise as well with the smaller MP, that would have been a bonus.

I am going to upgrade from my D3x, not for MP, but for noise /dynamic range
handling and some of the new features like live view shooting with mirror
lock. Also the ability to mount a small prime and have a smaller package
for certain situations.

I don't think most shooters are going to get anything from going 35MP
resolution wise, for all the reasons already stated.

BTW if you are getting a D800(E) and want to try and exploit the resolution
then I think you will either need the Zeiss lenses or something more exotic
- such as these http://hartblei.de/en/srz-set.htm I got a set of these at
a bargain price during the recession. They are zeiss glass and just
awesome. The resolution and micro contrast is  stunning. Shows what Nikon
could do if they tried a bit harder. Really they are studio lenses - shame
they are not weather sealed.

Mike





On 11 March 2012 14:26, mrjimbo <mrjimbo@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Good points CD..
> What is good about this thread is that everybody has their thinking cap
> on.. and many seem a bit nervous about a jump of this size..
> So a few thoughts of my own..
>
> Getting a camera with 36 MP doesn't make sense if you don't use it ALL.
> If this had a smaller sensor I wouldn't touch this camera with a 10 foot
> pole.. I'm honestly nervous about the ability of a lens to resolve this
> level of information..
> I have used medium format cameras with this level of capture ..but their
> typically not CMOS sensors.. and a much larger sensor..
> I have a feeling that 36MP will put new meaning to the sweet spot in a
> lens.
> I just noticed it does in camera HDR ..I thought that was interesting.
> The way I use the shutter ...new meaning to file storage will have to be a
> real focus..
> Sitting back.... I really don't need that level of capture for much of
> what I do.. I sure hope this works out in the studio or I'm gonna be
> pissed..
> Maybe not the best choice for doing Pano's.. unless you have a Cray.. :-)
>
> jimbo
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cdtobie
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other
> issues
>
> >>> I am struggling with this issue also. I have pre-ordered the 36MP
> Nikon but am re-considering the need. Generally speaking it is a straight
> line function of 3 to translate the MP number to PSD size. So 36 goes to
> 108Mb 8 bit and 216Mb 16 bit.
>
> >I haven't examined all of the specs of this camera, but perhaps it's
> possible to capture in smaller RAW modes and using the full RAW size when
> needed.
>
> That misses one of the point:; putting in more pixels, then throwing away
> some of them loses the dynamic range that not increasing the pixel count,
> and using all the light that hits the sensor allows.
>
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Imaging Color Solutions
> Datacolor inc.
> cdtobie@...
> www.datacolor.com
>
> On Mar 10, 2012, at 12:05 PM, "Don" <donsbryant@...> wrote:
>
> > > I am struggling with this issue also. I have pre-ordered the 36MP
> Nikon but am re-considering the need. Generally speaking it is a straight
> line function of 3 to translate the MP number to PSD size. So 36 goes to
> 108Mb 8 bit and 216Mb 16 bit.
> > >
> >
> > I haven't examined all of the specs of this camera, but perhaps it's
> possible to capture in smaller RAW modes and using the full RAW size when
> needed.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]