[Big Dave]

I think that the whole argument is off the mark. What really determines performance is pixel pitch, ie. pixel size. A 36mp FF has the same pixel pitch as a 16mp asp-c. So performance should be comparable. Shouldn't the DR be the same on a 36mp FF as a 16mp asp-c, both using Xmor sensors? So a D800 is just a K5 with more real-estate. Choose 36mp for more DR and 24mp for better high ISO. Just something to think about.

[Winder]

I think that the whole argument is off the mark. What really determines performance is pixel pitch, ie. pixel size. A 36mp FF has the same pixel pitch as a 16mp asp-c. So performance should be comparable. Shouldn't the DR be the same on a 36mp FF as a 16mp asp-c, both using Xmor sensors? So a D800 is just a K5 with more real-estate. Choose 36mp for more DR and 24mp for better high ISO. Just something to think about.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise - DxOMark

It't not that simple. The manufactures optimize sensors differently. If you look at the Nikon D4 you see that the K-3 has better DR at base ISO, but that is only because Nikon know that its target customer is shooting high ISO and Nikon has optimized the sensor to give much better high ISO. Canon has done the same thing with the 5DII. Wedding photographers and photojournalists need higher ISO and these cameras are designed for it.

Yes, the 16MP Sony and the 36MP Sony sensors are based on the same technology, but the final output is what will make the difference.

To compare surface area:
A3+ is 158,907mm^2
D800E sensor size is 864mm^2
K-5IIs sensor size is 370mm^2

To print at A3+ the image from a D800E has to be enlarged 183 times.
To print at A3+ the image from a K-5IIs has to be enlarged 430 times.

Both sensors will capture the same noise and flaws, but the smaller sensor will have to be enlarged more which exaggerates the noise and flaws. So even if the have the same S/N ratio and DR, the smaller sensor will produce a lower quality image. At base ISO it not an issue and both are more than enough for most needs, but from about 800 ISO and up, with the current technology, FF has a visible advantage.

I think one of the reasons film packs are so popular right now is that there are so many APS-C shooters doing weddings and they need to mask the noise. The de-saturated, low contrast film grain look is being used to mask the noise of cheaper equipment and it has become popular. Like many things in pop-culture these things become "styles".

[jogiba]

I think that the whole argument is off the mark. What really determines performance is pixel pitch, ie. pixel size. A 36mp FF has the same pixel pitch as a 16mp asp-c. So performance should be comparable. Shouldn't the DR be the same on a 36mp FF as a 16mp asp-c, both using Xmor sensors? So a D800 is just a K5 with more real-estate. Choose 36mp for more DR and 24mp for better high ISO. Just something to think about.

So my 6mp APS-C Pentax *ist DS2 should have better DR than my 24mp and 36mp full frame cameras.

[Big Dave]

So my 6mp APS-C Pentax *ist DS2 should have better DR than my 24mp and 36mp full frame cameras.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Your 1st Ds2 has a rather course pixel pitch, which is opposite from what I said. There also a few years of improved technology.

---------- Post added 07-27-14 at 07:34 PM ----------

Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise - DxOMark

It't not that simple. The manufactures optimize sensors differently. If you look at the Nikon D4 you see that the K-3 has better DR at base ISO, but that is only because Nikon know that its target customer is shooting high ISO and Nikon has optimized the sensor to give much better high ISO. Canon has done the same thing with the 5DII. Wedding photographers and photojournalists need higher ISO and these cameras are designed for it.

Yes, the 16MP Sony and the 36MP Sony sensors are based on the same technology, but the final output is what will make the difference.

To compare surface area:
A3+ is 158,907mm^2
D800E sensor size is 864mm^2
K-5IIs sensor size is 370mm^2

To print at A3+ the image from a D800E has to be enlarged 183 times.
To print at A3+ the image from a K-5IIs has to be enlarged 430 times.

Both sensors will capture the same noise and flaws, but the smaller sensor will have to be enlarged more which exaggerates the noise and flaws. So even if the have the same S/N ratio and DR, the smaller sensor will produce a lower quality image. At base ISO it not an issue and both are more than enough for most needs, but from about 800 ISO and up, with the current technology, FF has a visible advantage.

I think one of the reasons film packs are so popular right now is that there are so many APS-C shooters doing weddings and they need to mask the noise. The de-saturated, low contrast film grain look is being used to mask the noise of cheaper equipment and it has become popular. Like many things in pop-culture these things become "styles".

I guess that I should have used a Nikon D7000 to compare to a D800, so we would be closer to the target market. I also forgot to say, all other things being equal.

[Winder]

The new 36MP sensor in the D810 is looking pretty nice, but I hoping for 54 Mega pickles.

[bossa]

The new 36MP sensor in the D810 is looking pretty nice, but I hoping for 54 Mega pickles.

The D810 is definitely a nicer camera than the D800. The D800/E suffered from really bad Amp Glow, which is all but all but gone from the D810 until the highest ISO's.

The other "improvements" are worth the upgrade if you do low light and manual focusing a lot IMO as the rear screen is actually usable now for manual focus. The "smear" you get from the mirror and shutter on the D800 is gone on the D810 as well - I find the D800E is actually worse on a tripod than hand held, possibly due to my hand absorbing vibrations more than a tripod. You definitely have to use delay and MUP on a D800/E when used on a tripod.

They redesigned the shutter and mirror mechanism for the D810 and also offer the electronic 1st curtain shutter to minimize vibrations in Live view. The long delay caused when the RAW file is written to card in Live view is also gone due to the faster chips used.

I'm also wondering when a 54mp sensor will be put into an DSLR.What would Nikon call this camera? D810x or D4x? or just a new camera altogether.. D900.

But as to the question at hand; I don't have a 24MP camera so I can't say which is "better" for me.

[Oldhand]

The D810 is definitely a nicer camera than the D800. The D800/E suffered from really bad Amp Glow, which is all but all but gone from the D810 until the highest ISO's.

The other "improvements" are worth the upgrade if you do low light and manual focusing a lot IMO as the rear screen is actually usable now for manual focus. The "smear" you get from the mirror and shutter on the D800 is gone on the D810 as well - I find the D800E is actually worse on a tripod than hand held, possibly due to my hand absorbing vibrations more than a tripod. You definitely have to use delay and MUP on a D800/E when used on a tripod.

They redesigned the shutter and mirror mechanism for the D810 and also offer the electronic 1st curtain shutter to minimize vibrations in Live view. The long delay caused when the RAW file is written to card in Live view is also gone due to the faster chips used.

I'm also wondering when a 54mp sensor will be put into an DSLR.What would Nikon call this camera? D810x or D4x? or just a new camera altogether.. D900.

But as to the question at hand; I don't have a 24MP camera so I can't say which is "better" for me.

What people forget in this race to higher megapixels is the limiting factors of how much can your computer handle.
Big megapixels in RAW files means huge files for post processing.
Unless you are intending to print A2 or A3 prints from these files, then the real estate is wasted.
Try opening Photoshop with several images in layers and you will see your computer crawl.
For most photographers, the best choice IMHO is for a lower Mp count but higher sensitivity.
I think that the Sony A7S got it right.
For Pentaxians, the medium format 645 is available for those that want to travel the mega print road.
For the rest of us there are plenty of outstanding APS-C Pentax cameras that will fill the bill.
I still use and love my K-10D.
OH

[ChristianRock]

For Pentaxians, the medium format 645 is available for those that want to travel the mega print road.
For the rest of us there are plenty of outstanding APS-C Pentax cameras that will fill the bill.
I still use and love my K-10D.
OH

The guy from Luminous Landscape, when he was reviewing the 645Z, was amazed at the level of detail of the pictures, and then realized he had been shooting in the 20Mp setting (nevermind that the reviewer shoots mostly with micro four thirds and thought the 645Z is too much of a camera for anyone to have....).
The D810 can also do 20Mp and 9Mp. It says there's a smaller format for RAW as well (the specs in Nikon's site don't say what resolution) that is 12-bit uncompressed only.

[Winder]

What people forget in this race to higher megapixels is the limiting factors of how much can your computer handle.
Big megapixels in RAW files means huge files for post processing.

Computer memory and processing power is dirt cheap.

Unless you are intending to print A2 or A3 prints from these files, then the real estate is wasted.

Every copy of my portfolio is printed at A3+. That is what I consider small and the minimum size I shoot for.

For most photographers, the best choice IMHO is for a lower Mp count but higher sensitivity.
I think that the Sony A7S got it right.

For most photographers the iPhone is all they need.

For Pentaxians, the medium format 645 is available for those that want to travel the mega print road.

When my Contax 645 dies I will go with a mirrorless MF if that is available. For MF work I don't need 8fps and C-AF tracking. I don't think it will be long before we see a mirrorless MF body the size of a K-3.

[bossa]

When my Contax 645 dies I will go with a mirrorless MF if that is available. For MF work I don't need 8fps and C-AF tracking. I don't think it will be long before we see a mirrorless MF body the size of a K-3.

A D810 is quite small, with no grip attached, and would be quite an acceptable size for a MF MILC. It's not unreasonable to expect that a MF MILC could appear within a year using the sony 50MP sensor and it will probably be in a D800 sized body - Sony being the prime candidate to produce it.

But I also expect a 54MP FF to show up in a Nikon body within 12 months as well - possibly as early as Photokina 2014 - even though this is probably less likely.

But these are just gut intuitions and we'll just have to wait and see what turns up - reality has a habit of being more interesting after all.

[Poit]

But I also expect a 54MP FF to show up in a Nikon body within 12 months as well - possibly as early as Photokina 2014 - even though this is probably less likely.

But these are just gut intuitions and we'll just have to wait and see what turns up - reality has a habit of being more interesting after all.

As fate would have it, latest rumours are Nikon is going to release a 24MP FF that sits between the D610 and the D810 at Photokina 2014.

So, it would appear that Nikon sees the sense in a 'happy middle ground' camera, rather than stupidly high MP. Given they also released the Df around the same time that rumours of a digital LX were swirling about, I'm beginning to wonder if Nikon's product development team hang out here!!!!

Interesting indeed.....

---------- Post added 08-11-14 at 04:44 PM ----------

What people forget in this race to higher megapixels is the limiting factors of how much can your computer handle.
Big megapixels in RAW files means huge files for post processing.
Unless you are intending to print A2 or A3 prints from these files, then the real estate is wasted.
Try opening Photoshop with several images in layers and you will see your computer crawl.
For most photographers, the best choice IMHO is for a lower Mp count but higher sensitivity.
I think that the Sony A7S got it right.
For Pentaxians, the medium format 645 is available for those that want to travel the mega print road.
For the rest of us there are plenty of outstanding APS-C Pentax cameras that will fill the bill.
I still use and love my K-10D.
OH

I agree, and I still firmly believe that 24MP is the best option for a first FF body, as it will appeal to the broadest range of users (highest potential sales). 36 or 54MP is just no good for higher frame-rates, which excludes a considerable body of potential new customers.

More sales = good news for all of us, and more toys in the long run (despite what some people's selfish interests demand right now).

[kadajawi]

I voted 24, but I want 12 MP FF. That Sony doesn't have good low light performance, it has good no light performance!

[Poit]

Like I said, 24MP is the happy middle ground, and best for appealing to the largest number of users (I'm talking about NEW Pentax customers here, not the jaded selfish bunch around here).

[bossa]

As fate would have it, latest rumours are Nikon is going to release a 24MP FF that sits between the D610 and the D810 at Photokina 2014.

So, it would appear that Nikon sees the sense in a 'happy middle ground' camera, rather than stupidly high MP. Given they also released the Df around the same time that rumours of a digital LX were swirling about, I'm beginning to wonder if Nikon's product development team hang out here!!!!

Interesting indeed.....

---------- Post added 08-11-14 at 04:44 PM ----------



I agree, and I still firmly believe that 24MP is the best option for a first FF body, as it will appeal to the broadest range of users (highest potential sales). 36 or 54MP is just no good for higher frame-rates, which excludes a considerable body of potential new customers.

More sales = good news for all of us, and more toys in the long run (despite what some people's selfish interests demand right now).

The rumours I've read assume that this new Nikon is a 12MP camera that uses the latest Sony A7s 12MP sensor. Many people hope that it's a D700 replacement with the D810 AF.

[Winder]

The rumours I've read assume that this new Nikon is a 12MP camera that uses the latest Sony A7s 12MP sensor. Many people hope that it's a D700 replacement with the D810 AF.

That would piss off he Df buyers who ended up with the rather average D610 AF. Nikon will cripple the camera in some way.