[Klaus]

36mp ... makes you wonder whether the radioactivity in Japan has mental impacts ...

On the other hand - from a pixel density perspective this is still less than on the NEX7/A77.



http://nikonrumors.com/2011/11/19/ladies...more-26484

[Brightcolours]

I do not see what is so bad about 36mp. Only downside will be the file sizes who get bigger and bigger.



I think this means that Canon and Nikon are going the same route: The 1D X having a lower MP count than the 5D mk III, the D4 having a lower mp count than the D800. One robust fast professional model with great low light ability, one geared more towards studio/landscape and semi-pro.



Makes more sense than the D700/D3 doing the same thing?

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1321872656' post='13093']

I do not see what is so bad about 36mp. Only downside will be the file sizes who get bigger and bigger.



I think this means that Canon and Nikon are going the same route: The 1D X having a lower MP count than the 5D mk III, the D4 having a lower mp count than the D800. One robust fast professional model with great low light ability, one geared more towards studio/landscape and semi-pro.



Makes more sense than the D700/D3 doing the same thing?

[/quote]



Frankly, tonality, pixel-level sharpness and DR are my #1 Priorities.

If this means 6mp that would be Ok for me. You can, of course, argue that I could get just that by downsizing but what is the point of extra processing steps.



Your mileage may vary, of course.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1321873045' post='13095']

Frankly, tonality, pixel-level sharpness and DR are my #1 Priorities.

If this means 6mp that would be Ok for me. You can, of course, argue that I could get just that by downsizing but what is the point of extra processing steps.



Your mileage may vary, of course.

[/quote]

Pixel level sharpness makes no sense, in the sense that only image level sharpness matters. So if a 12mp camera has better pixel level sharpness, but lesser image level sharpness than a 36mp camera.... the 36mp camera is better.



You do not need to downsize, it is all about printing at the same size. Pixel sharpness is only about pixel peeping, only makes sense when you compare similar resolutions really.



DR, well, I have said this before. I always end up with limiting the DR I get out of my camera. In other words, instead of lowering contrast I enhance contrast. Only when I make a big mistake with an exposure I can't repeat, a bigger DR has a value.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1321873909' post='13096']

Pixel level sharpness makes no sense, in the sense that only image level sharpness matters. So if a 12mp camera has better pixel level sharpness, but lesser image level sharpness than a 36mp camera.... the 36mp camera is better.



You do not need to downsize, it is all about printing at the same size. Pixel sharpness is only about pixel peeping, only makes sense when you compare similar resolutions really.



DR, well, I have said this before. I always end up with limiting the DR I get out of my camera. In other words, instead of lowering contrast I enhance contrast. Only when I make a big mistake with an exposure I can't repeat, a bigger DR has a value.

[/quote]



Your view, not mine. :-)

[popo]

I think we all have agreed to disagree on these points before? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I just want a full frame of similar pixel density to crop sensors, so I can use it as an un-zoom extension... a 36MP FF sensor would crop to ~14MP Canon APS-C which would be adequate.

[Studor13]

It all depends on how you look at things. Sometimes I think 18MP is plenty because for I do now it's more than what I need. But I was thinking about wide panoramas, say 50cmx150cm and I think 36MP will be just great.



One other factor going for it is that psychologically 36 is a heck of a big number for an FX camera. I gotta admit that if I had a choice of between 24 and 36, I'd go for 36 as long as ISO 3200 was usable. As I understand it ISO 6400 is going to be usable, so why not?

[Guest]

[quote name='Studor13' timestamp='1321879953' post='13109']

I gotta admit that if I had a choice of between 24 and 36, I'd go for 36 as long as ISO 3200 was usable. As I understand it ISO 6400 is going to be usable, so why not?[/quote]



I suppose the 36 MP FX D800 will have similar performance to the 16 MP DX D7000/D5100 since they have the same pixel density.



Will Canon release a 46 MP 5D3 since it'll have the same pixel density as the 18 MP 7D/60D/600D? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Since the D7000 has nearly 14 stops of dynamic range, one can expect the same from the D800. This is nearly two stops better than the 12 MP D300s. On the other hand, the ancient 12 MP 5D has much worse performance than the 21 MP 5D2. So, I won't worry too much about the image quality from these new high pixel density cameras: they should be able to achieve better performance than their low pixel density counterparts.

[anyscreenamewilldo]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1321873909' post='13096']

....DR, well, I have said this before. I always end up with limiting the DR I get out of my camera....

[/quote]

...well, what you don't have you can't lose, so if you've got it flaunt it....just ask any beautiful young thing



.... not being personal, strictly pictures, of course

[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1321872656' post='13093']

I think this means that Canon and Nikon are going the same route: The 1D X having a lower MP count than the 5D mk III, the D4 having a lower mp count than the D800. One robust fast professional model with great low light ability, one geared more towards studio/landscape and semi-pro.

[/quote]



My impression, too. I guess it's a consequence of the customer feedback Canon got, either directly or indirectly: hardly anone doing studio work went for a 1Ds III, all I know chose the 5D II instead.



-- Markus