10-04-2011, 05:05 AM
[quote name='edge' timestamp='1317696561' post='12050']
The MP count makes sense. 36MP on a full-frame sensor has roughly the same pixel pitch as the 16MP APS-C sensor found in the D7000. It's probably cheaper for Nikon to use the same sensor design and just cut the wafers larger.
[/quote]
Agreed that the megapixel count is not ridiculous or breathtakingly ahead of the cutting edge. For example, a "full frame 35mm" sensor would have to be about 54 megapixels to equal the pixel density of the latest Sony A77 and Nex 7's (not yet in production) 24 megapixel APS-C smaller sensors.
At 36 megapixels, with perfect 35mm lenses (of which Nikon makes several), we'll be talking a seriously light weight, compact challenger to the Pentax 645, and even lapping at the shores of Phase I back quality territory. A 36 megapixel image downsized 50% to 9 megapixels should give gorgeously smooth, sharp 13x19 inch enlargements, which is as big as anyone's ever paid me for.
The MP count makes sense. 36MP on a full-frame sensor has roughly the same pixel pitch as the 16MP APS-C sensor found in the D7000. It's probably cheaper for Nikon to use the same sensor design and just cut the wafers larger.
[/quote]
Agreed that the megapixel count is not ridiculous or breathtakingly ahead of the cutting edge. For example, a "full frame 35mm" sensor would have to be about 54 megapixels to equal the pixel density of the latest Sony A77 and Nex 7's (not yet in production) 24 megapixel APS-C smaller sensors.
At 36 megapixels, with perfect 35mm lenses (of which Nikon makes several), we'll be talking a seriously light weight, compact challenger to the Pentax 645, and even lapping at the shores of Phase I back quality territory. A 36 megapixel image downsized 50% to 9 megapixels should give gorgeously smooth, sharp 13x19 inch enlargements, which is as big as anyone's ever paid me for.