Digital BW, The Print

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mel 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 4:59 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  In striving for perfection this issue has again come to the surface and placed itself on my current agenda.

  My current SLR is an "old" Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n ay 13.5Mp. I have used this camera for many years mainly for studio work and to a lesser extent in the field. Reluctant to carry this monster when out and about and the consequent limited portfolio, I acquired a Nikon Coolpix P7000, 10Mp. I now use this exclusively, shooting RAW, editing in Photoshop CS and converting to B&W in Picture Window Pro. I re-size in PhotoZoom Pro 4 to A3, my size of choice and print using QTR on Epson Enhanced Matte and 7 day shop Matt paper. The prints from this combination are to me absolutely amazing.

  With the rapid advancement in camera technology and the raising of the bar with regard to the Mp issue (now at 24-35Mp) and more particularly, in my opinion, the "anti shake" technology, although the P7000 does have this latter innovation, I have been toying with the idea of upgrading to a higher Mp camera.

  Having studied the reviews of all the relevant cameras on offer, size being important, I have concluded that the Sony NEX-7, with the 18-200 lens would fulfil all my criteria, including the all important "anti shake" with its Optical Steady Shot (in the lens). The EVF with shooting information in the viewfinder and 100% image is far superior to the OVF of the P7000.

  I would appreciate members views on the above and whether the 10 to 24Mp upgrade is justified in view of my A3 B&W print size of choice 



  

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

>
> Mel,
> Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
> So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
> 
> jimbo
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Mel 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 4:59 AM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues
> 
> 
>     
>   In striving for perfection this issue has again come to the surface and placed itself on my current agenda.
> 
>   My current SLR is an "old" Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n ay 13.5Mp. I have used this camera for many years mainly for studio work and to a lesser extent in the field. Reluctant to carry this monster when out and about and the consequent limited portfolio, I acquired a Nikon Coolpix P7000, 10Mp. I now use this exclusively, shooting RAW, editing in Photoshop CS and converting to B&W in Picture Window Pro. I re-size in PhotoZoom Pro 4 to A3, my size of choice and print using QTR on Epson Enhanced Matte and 7 day shop Matt paper. The prints from this combination are to me absolutely amazing.
> 
>   With the rapid advancement in camera technology and the raising of the bar with regard to the Mp issue (now at 24-35Mp) and more particularly, in my opinion, the "anti shake" technology, although the P7000 does have this latter innovation, I have been toying with the idea of upgrading to a higher Mp camera.
> 
>   Having studied the reviews of all the relevant cameras on offer, size being important, I have concluded that the Sony NEX-7, with the 18-200 lens would fulfil all my criteria, including the all important "anti shake" with its Optical Steady Shot (in the lens). The EVF with shooting information in the viewfinder and 100% image is far superior to the OVF of the P7000.
> 
>   I would appreciate members views on the above and whether the 10 to 24Mp upgrade is justified in view of my A3 B&W print size of choice 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> I have a friend who has a point and shoot Canon with this feature with very severe shaky hands due to his age. His hand is moving like you were trying to shake a lighted match out. I am amazed on how sharp the images are, showing no movement at all, even with slower shutter speeds and shooting with one hand.
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Mel wrote:
> 
> > OpticalSteady Shot (vibration reduction), although very important for hand held shots.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> Mel,
> Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
> So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
> 
> jimbo
>

>
> Jimbo,
>    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.  If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin.  I will need a new PC to process files of that size.  And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical.  I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault.  I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways.  It does allow all the cropping I need though.  I always work on a tripod.  I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it?  What do you see in it for you?  What is the other Nikon you have on order?
> 
> BertGF
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
> >
> > Mel,
> > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
> > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
> > 
> > jimbo
> >
>

>
> Jimbo,
>    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.  If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin.  I will need a new PC to process files of that size.  And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical.  I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault.  I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways.  It does allow all the cropping I need though.  I always work on a tripod.  I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it?  What do you see in it for you?  What is the other Nikon you have on order?
> 
> BertGF
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
> >
> > Mel,
> > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
> > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
> > 
> > jimbo
> >
>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: richardeskin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:12 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  I haven't pre-ordered yet, but was waiting for the next round of new Nikons. D4 is just too expensive to justify. D800 seemed attractive at first, but now I too am having second thoughts and starting to think about the D7000 as an interim, and waiting for the next round from Nikon. I just don't print large enough to justify 36 mp. Perhaps more importantly, I think that low noise is more important to my images than tremendous resolution since it is unlikely I will routinely print larger than 16 x 20. Trying to follow this closely and waiting for actual reviews of image quality.

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bert" <bertgf@...> wrote:
  >
  > Jimbo,
  > 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. If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin. I will need a new PC to process files of that size. And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical. I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault. I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways. It does allow all the cropping I need though. I always work on a tripod. I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it? What do you see in it for you? What is the other Nikon you have on order?
  > 
  > BertGF
  > 
  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
  > >
  > > Mel,
  > > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
  > > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
  > > 
  > > jimbo
  > >
  >



  

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

>
> Jimbo,
>    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.  If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin.  I will need a new PC to process files of that size.  And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical.  I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault.  I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways.  It does allow all the cropping I need though.  I always work on a tripod.  I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it?  What do you see in it for you?  What is the other Nikon you have on order?
> 
> BertGF
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
> >
> > Mel,
> > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
> > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
> > 
> > jimbo
> >
>

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.

>
> >>> 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.
>

>
> 
> 
> >    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.
> 
> Don Bryant
>

  ----- 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]

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:27 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues
 
  
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
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.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@... <mailto:cdtobie%40datacolor.com> 
www.datacolor.com

On Mar 10, 2012, at 12:05 PM, "Don" <donsbryant@...
<mailto:donsbryant%40gmail.com> > 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]

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: E.Neilsen 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:15 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  Maybe these newer bigger MP cameras will be a standard rental item. And
  perhaps, while you own the slightly less robust version in the same camera
  line. 

  Eric Neilsen
  Eric Neilsen Photography
  4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
  Dallas, TX 75226

  www.ericneilsenphotography.com
  skype me with ejprinter
  Let's Talk Photography

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:27 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


  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
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.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@... <mailto:cdtobie%40datacolor.com> 
  www.datacolor.com

  On Mar 10, 2012, at 12:05 PM, "Don" <donsbryant@...
  <mailto:donsbryant%40gmail.com> > 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]



  

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

>
> You might want to consider the D700 ..that a budget version of the D3.. I have one and am very very happy with it. 
> 
> jimbo
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: richardeskin 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:12 AM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues
> 
> 
>     
>   I haven't pre-ordered yet, but was waiting for the next round of new Nikons. D4 is just too expensive to justify. D800 seemed attractive at first, but now I too am having second thoughts and starting to think about the D7000 as an interim, and waiting for the next round from Nikon. I just don't print large enough to justify 36 mp. Perhaps more importantly, I think that low noise is more important to my images than tremendous resolution since it is unlikely I will routinely print larger than 16 x 20. Trying to follow this closely and waiting for actual reviews of image quality.
> 
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bert" <bertgf@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Jimbo,
>   > 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. If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin. I will need a new PC to process files of that size. And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical. I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault. I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways. It does allow all the cropping I need though. I always work on a tripod. I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it? What do you see in it for you? What is the other Nikon you have on order?
>   > 
>   > BertGF
>   > 
>   > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Mel,
>   > > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
>   > > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
>   > > 
>   > > jimbo
>   > >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bert 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:17 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  All of the comments about the megapixel issue are appreciated. I am going to contact a friend of mine who owns a D700 and has a D800 on order. I will test out my workflow and cropping style with his D700.

  So Jimbo what is compelling you to go to a D800 if you have a D700 that you are happy with?

  I have a D200 and have been happy/productive with it. Lately I have decided I wanted to be able to crop images to a ratio of .8 instead of the default .66 of 35mm. That takes off 20% of the image file size so I assumed I had to compensate. Therefor I decided i would get the next upgrade to the D700 so I would have the latest. But the 36MP stunned me. I feel I do not need it. I do print up to 40 by 60" even from the D200. I have used a technique for 15 years before it even had the name that it is now called focus stacking. Once blended and stacked I cannot go back to the RAW files. Perhaps the blending of the multiple exposures into one layer allowed me to print such enlargements; who knows? Anyway my current thought is to avoid anything higher than 24MP.

  BertGF

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...> wrote:
  >
  > You might want to consider the D700 ..that a budget version of the D3.. I have one and am very very happy with it. 
  > 
  > jimbo
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: richardeskin 
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:12 AM
  > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > I haven't pre-ordered yet, but was waiting for the next round of new Nikons. D4 is just too expensive to justify. D800 seemed attractive at first, but now I too am having second thoughts and starting to think about the D7000 as an interim, and waiting for the next round from Nikon. I just don't print large enough to justify 36 mp. Perhaps more importantly, I think that low noise is more important to my images than tremendous resolution since it is unlikely I will routinely print larger than 16 x 20. Trying to follow this closely and waiting for actual reviews of image quality.
  > 
  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bert" <bertgf@> wrote:
  > >
  > > Jimbo,
  > > 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. If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin. I will need a new PC to process files of that size. And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical. I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault. I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways. It does allow all the cropping I need though. I always work on a tripod. I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it? What do you see in it for you? What is the other Nikon you have on order?
  > > 
  > > BertGF
  > > 
  > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
  > > >
  > > > Mel,
  > > > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
  > > > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
  > > > 
  > > > jimbo
  > > >
  > >
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

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

>
> You might want to consider the D700 ..that a budget version of the D3.. I have one and am very very happy with it. 
> 
> jimbo
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: richardeskin 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:12 AM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues
> 
> 
>     
>   I haven't pre-ordered yet, but was waiting for the next round of new Nikons. D4 is just too expensive to justify. D800 seemed attractive at first, but now I too am having second thoughts and starting to think about the D7000 as an interim, and waiting for the next round from Nikon. I just don't print large enough to justify 36 mp. Perhaps more importantly, I think that low noise is more important to my images than tremendous resolution since it is unlikely I will routinely print larger than 16 x 20. Trying to follow this closely and waiting for actual reviews of image quality.
> 
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bert" <bertgf@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Jimbo,
>   > 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. If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin. I will need a new PC to process files of that size. And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical. I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault. I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways. It does allow all the cropping I need though. I always work on a tripod. I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it? What do you see in it for you? What is the other Nikon you have on order?
>   > 
>   > BertGF
>   > 
>   > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Mel,
>   > > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
>   > > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
>   > > 
>   > > jimbo
>   > >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: richardeskin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:34 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  Thank you for a response. I had considered that. If I can get one (B & H was out of stock, but I know there are other options), it would be about $2200 for the D700, vs $1200 for the D7000. D7000 has newer sensor technology and video, which would be fun to start playing with, in addition to about 25% more MP. At about 16 MP seems to be a sweet spot, good resolution without huge files. 

  The D700 has near professional body quality seals, a full format sensor, and as you implied, very low noise.

  What I really wanted was the equivalent of a D700 with video, about 18-20 MP, and the latest full format sensor tech and processor.

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...> wrote:
  >
  > You might want to consider the D700 ..that a budget version of the D3.. I have one and am very very happy with it. 
  > 
  > jimbo
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: richardeskin 
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:12 AM
  > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > I haven't pre-ordered yet, but was waiting for the next round of new Nikons. D4 is just too expensive to justify. D800 seemed attractive at first, but now I too am having second thoughts and starting to think about the D7000 as an interim, and waiting for the next round from Nikon. I just don't print large enough to justify 36 mp. Perhaps more importantly, I think that low noise is more important to my images than tremendous resolution since it is unlikely I will routinely print larger than 16 x 20. Trying to follow this closely and waiting for actual reviews of image quality.
  > 
  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bert" <bertgf@> wrote:
  > >
  > > Jimbo,
  > > 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. If I think of additional layers in that file my head begins to spin. I will need a new PC to process files of that size. And the storage requirements, they will be astronomical. I maintain 3 copies of every file; the third is in a bank vault. I have the Nikon D5100 with 16MP and I am not happy with it in some ways. It does allow all the cropping I need though. I always work on a tripod. I wonder what other features the Nikon D800 has that would compel me to keep it? What do you see in it for you? What is the other Nikon you have on order?
  > > 
  > > BertGF
  > > 
  > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
  > > >
  > > > Mel,
  > > > Well that is certainly one of the more interesting new camera's.. They are pretty impressive.. I'm sure that you'd be quite happy with it.. Plus have some fun.. A few things to think about.. These new sensors that are coming out with the higher MP rating will require us to make a greater effort to hold them still , I'm patiently waiting for two Nikon bodies.. and have already been going over pre release test files and prints from them.. One is a 36MP and the other 16MP.. So far the 16 MP is by far the better image.. Their is notably more noise in the 36 MP image and the captured tonality is much better in the smaller MP camera. So I'll be using the 36 in the studio locked down on a foba stand.. Both of these are FX chips.. The 36 is a Sony sensor and it wouldn't surprise me if the version that's in the Nex-7 is a downsized version of it.. So I don't know if your planning to hand hold or use a tripod.. I suggest that if your really after primo imagery you'll still need to lock that baby down which may or may not work for your shooting style..
  > > > So constructively given the image size you targeting you might be able to get by with less MP.. then 24.. say sweet 16 or 18 and that will give you more shooting freedom while taking care of your A3 size goal. I would see if you can get your hands on some files.. The hard part with that is you need something to compare it to unless you know what your looking for.. The other side of it is that these new guys are certainly better then our old tanks.... Anyway all I'm trying to say is that lots of MP isn't always the answer..... but it sure is nice .. 
  > > > 
  > > > jimbo
  > > >
  > >
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

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

----- Original Message -----
<snip> 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.

>
> Bert,
> First Bert the D700 is a heck of a camera.. and that is no kidding.. In a word I'm tough on my equipment.. When shooting the Miles City Rodeo last year in 5 " of mud and rain for several days.. It just couldn't take it.. I trashed it.. Sent it in to Nikon and they resurrected it... Because of what I do I usually have 4 bodies working in any given year.. One happens to be the D700.. much more cost effective then the D3s.. but just not as sturdy.. 
> So moving on.. I have both a D4 and a D800 coming .. The D800 is going to be a test for me.. primarily I'll use it a studio camera and am looking forward to the added MP and I'm assuming I can harness them to my expectations..If I can't it'll be gone.. The other side of it is I have discovered Video..I shoot a lot of wildlife and that is a big deal for me and has been for a long time.. Video out of these inexpensive boxes is getting accepted for national Television and so on..  So I see this as a natural transition for me.. As far as avoiding anything higher then 24MP.. well maybe not a bad idea.. might be smart to sit back and see. That's usually what I do...this time I'm jumping in.. but that's more about the video to be honest.. the rest well, we'll see.
> 
> jimbo
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Bert 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:17 AM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues
> 
> 
>     
>   All of the comments about the megapixel issue are appreciated. I am going to contact a friend of mine who owns a D700 and has a D800 on order. I will test out my workflow and cropping style with his D700.
> 
>   So Jimbo what is compelling you to go to a D800 if you have a D700 that you are happy with?
> 
>   I have a D200 and have been happy/productive with it. Lately I have decided I wanted to be able to crop images to a ratio of .8 instead of the default .66 of 35mm. That takes off 20% of the image file size so I assumed I had to compensate. Therefor I decided i would get the next upgrade to the D700 so I would have the latest. But the 36MP stunned me. I feel I do not need it. I do print up to 40 by 60" even from the D200. I have used a technique for 15 years before it even had the name that it is now called focus stacking. Once blended and stacked I cannot go back to the RAW files. Perhaps the blending of the multiple exposures into one layer allowed me to print such enlargements; who knows? Anyway my current thought is to avoid anything higher than 24MP.
> 
>   BertGF

On 3/11/2012 8:42 PM, Michael King wrote:
> 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

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Seth Rossman 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:29 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  Long ago (D1H-D2 era) Nikon did make some lenses "tweaked" for DIT, but 
  it backfired on them. Not the X stuff. They didn't work well on the 
  film cameras.

  I think they got away from it since they didn't want to get into that 
  two lines of lenses (ala Canon) thing.

  Prime lenses (digital) on the professional side have been there for a 
  while in the 300/2.8 and up side for a while. Below that, the majority 
  of professionals use zoom lenses most of the time. (Note the word 
  majority!) They play to the market.

  The MP game has been the prime factor in the amateur market, most of 
  whom don't know PPI from DPI, for all manufacturers. It's unfortunate. 
  Amateurs buy megapixels; pros buy features.

  Long ago, when I had a Coolpix has a "car camera," it had features not 
  available in my current $5000 body. I had a talk with someone high up 
  in Nikon support. I said, "I think you guys are putting new things in 
  the amateur cameras to test them out before you add them to the pro 
  stuff. They are beta testers" He just looked at me, then he smiled.

  Look back and check it out. Coolpix, N90, D200, D300, etc. The N90 
  became a pro second and third body on the pro side. So did the others 
  on the digital side. This doesn't apply to lenses.

  I totally agree with you about Zeiss!! I don't think Nikon, Canon or 
  any other manufacturer will ever stay up with them--or Schneider.

  Seth

  On 3/11/2012 8:42 PM, Michael King wrote:
  > 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


  

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

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Petegorsky 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 7:41 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  I have been shooting with a D700 for the last few years, and also use 
  a Hasselblad H3D 39. One thing that seems to be missing from this 
  discussion is the issue of pixel size, not pixel count. My Canon s100 
  point and shoot has nominally the same number of megapixels as the 
  D700, but since the Canon's sensor is so small, those pixels are 
  tiny. You wouldn't want to compare the files in any serious way.

  In my experience, the size and quality of the pixels has as much (if 
  not more) to do with the ultimate quality of the digital image. The 
  Hasselblad's pixels are 6.7 microns across; the D800's are 4.7 or 4.8 
  microns. I'm not sure that the D800 sensor will match the image 
  quality of the Hasselblad's, despite what will be a similar megapixel 
  count. That's why I'm waiting to be able to compare image files 
  before I order anything.

  I've loved the D700 - especially in low light and mixed-light 
  situations. I've dragged it places where I wouldn't dream of taking 
  the Hasselblad. But I would also love to have more pixels, since I 
  often make more prints. If I do get a chance to make the same picture 
  with both cameras, I'll be happy to share my thoughts!

  Stephen Petegorsky

  Since I have long been considering the purchase of a Hasselblad, I am
  now very tempted by the D800, which I would complement with a Harrtblei
  40mm to provide for studio and architectural needs.

  Last but not least, the video capabilities of this camera are a major
  asset to me, since it would allow me to do at last some
  cinematographic-quality filming. The big problem with amateur and
  semi-pro video cameras is the very small size of the sensor, because
  this implies short focal lenses. You can hardly play with the separation
  of planes, having constantly too much depth of field. The 24x36mm sensor
  size of the D800 on the other hand is perfect. And you can use all those
  wonderful lenses... And they all have a manual focusing ring, which is
  the only way to do some watchable filming.

  Just mes 2 centimes

  Louis

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



  

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

On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:54 AM, "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...> wrote:

> 
> So we might get a smaller, cheaper D4 in a years time.

  From: Bob Frost 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  From: "C D Tobie
  > Yes, but by going for the high rez design, the other resolutions are 
  > compromised in the sensitivity they could have had; they can still profit 
  > from the pixel averaging in terms of color, but the dynamic range, 
  > sensitivity, and low noise that could have been gained by larger sensors 
  > is pretty much lost; a bit of noise reduction may be gained in 
  > downsampling, but the other advantages are simply lost. Thats part of the 
  > compromise, the same way that the compromise of making it a color camera 
  > loses detail that could have been gained for B&W if it were a B&W-only 
  > camera.

  I agree, but the camera that has all that is the D4. It would have been very 
  silly of Nikon to duplicate the D4 in a smaller body at half the price, and 
  bring it out at the same time as the D4!

  The D700 that duplicated the D3 in a smaller body at half the price was 
  brought out a year AFTER the D3, so it did not reduce the initial sales of 
  the D3.

  So we might get a smaller, cheaper D4 in a years time.

  Bob Frost




  

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

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Frost 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues


    
  > The D700 may seem like a dupe of the D3 but it's really not

  I replaced my D3 with a D700 and never missed anything.

  Bob Frost



  

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

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ben
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:18 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The megapixel issue - "again" and other issues

 

  

<SNIP>
I still get the best quality by scanning B&W negatives. I just don't want to
have my hands in those chemicals, or breathing those fumes anymore. Wet
mounting negatives takes too much time, and has its breathing problems also.

Ben





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

On 13/03/2012 21:12, Bob Frost wrote:
> From: "mrjimbo
>> Try working with it for a few days in the rain..
>> Good camera no doubt but it's not a D3..
> Ah! Strange thought it may seem, I've never felt any urge to go out taking
> photographs in the rain.  ;)
>
> Bob Frost
>
>
>