• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Leaked Nikon D800 Pictures & Specs

yea that fact alone (36mp) really makes me think this is fake

simply because its insane, howwver if true what the F will the D4 have
 
Sorry, but I don't buy it being that high of a res. I'd say its somewhere in the 16-20MP, maybe even as much as 24MP.
 
D7000 @ 16.2 MP and 370 square mm sensor size - pixel density is about 0.0438 MP/mm.

D800 @ 36 MP and 864 square mm sensor size - pixel density is about 0.0417 MP/mm.

I can see Nikon using the new Sony 36MP sensor on the D800.

JR
 
I accept Sony dslr cameras as Minolta, just that camera has on logo - "sony". AS much I know, Sony got into dslr camera business after they bought Minolta. And Minolta meant a lot in photo equipment, pretty big name.
 
mchammer187 said:
I don't think Nikon has ever used a sony sensor for any of its Full Frame cameras. I'm talking Sony designed not sony manufactured.
Click to expand...

They use Sony sensors with Nikon CFAs on top. That's one of the big reasons Nikon has such better ISO performance while Sony has such higher metamerism (color response and accuracy). Sony uses nearly 100% opaque color filters, while Nikons are closer to 60%, letting in more photons even if they're not 100% color matched. They also have better AA setups that hold more detail.

36MP is on the low side TBH. Clearly they can make very successful 24MP APS-C sensors. I was hoping for ~50MP, but I understand the issues with filesize, lens resolution, and framerates.
 
What's the need for megapixel count on camera sensor? Anyone does wallsize photo prints?


I'm a photo hobbyist and pretty new to DSLR and I've tried to print some photos on large format. Largest I've tried, 20' x 30' - @ AdoramaPix, on Kodak Endura Metallic paper:

P1010127_0.jpg


this photo doesn't tell very much about of actual print. Who saw it , like it.
Photo was taken with 10 MP Olympus E-520, ZD 14-54 lense.
What I did wrong, I think, I did uprezed instead of upsize photo, It became 54MP(9000x6000), 25Mb file. But print looks pretty good.
Frame I bought @ Utrecht Arts, mat cut myself.

Same photo on dpreview challenge:

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=478835
 
Gintaras said:
What's the need for megapixel count on camera sensor? Anyone does wallsize photo prints?


I'm a photo hobbyist and pretty new to DSLR and I've tried to print some photos on large format. Largest I've tried, 20' x 30' - @ AdoramaPix, on Kodak Endura Metallic paper:

P1010127_0.jpg


this photo doesn't tell very much about of actual print. Who saw it , like it.
Photo was taken with 10 MP Olympus E-520, ZD 14-54 lense.
What I did wrong, I think, I did uprezed instead of upsize photo, It became 54MP(9000x6000), 25Mb file. But print looks pretty good.
Frame I bought @ Utrecht Arts, mat cut myself.

Same photo on dpreview challenge:

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=478835
Click to expand...


Because film is still higher res. You never wish you could see more detail on some part of a photo? 10 years ago we had 10 megapixel cameras. Now cameras are still around 10 megapixels. My superzoom is only 9mp. For all the talk about megapixel wars, we haven't advanced very much. This is 2011. We should have 50 megapixel sensors with no noise and awesome colors.
 
Anubis said:
yea that fact alone (36mp) really makes me think this is fake
Click to expand...

Why? This is about the same pixel density as the D7000 and that has a better sensor per surface area than anything else in the SLR world...

As for 36mp - yes please! You can always shoot mRaw or smaller jpg, you can never add detail later.
 
But even on an FX sensor, that`s going to kill your low light performance. More recent suggestions...er...suggest that it`s going to be 18MP, which is more than adequate. Additionally, as Nikon themselves have said in the past, they are not that concerned about pixel count. That said, I don`t think they`d up and triple their current density in a single generation.

The Canon 1Ds is only 21MP. No need to leap frog it by that much.

If you want a 50MP plus body, get a Hasselblad.

I`ve got 18x60ish prints that are more than clear and crisp on a 12MP sensor.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the attitude "X is enough megapixels for my prints, who needs more resolution?!"

Well I'm sure JPEG is fine for your prints yet you capture in RAW don't you? Why? Because more information is better. You only get to take the picture once so capture as much as you can. I don't understand why digital cameras have been stagnating for so many years and still aren't at the resolution of film.

Hell, cameras are still guessing the value of each output pixel, an "18 megapixel" camera is really only 6 megapixels.
 
Last edited:
Throckmorton said:
I don't understand the attitude "X is enough megapixels for my prints, who needs more resolution?!"

Well I'm sure JPEG is fine for your prints yet you capture in RAW don't you? Why? Because more information is better. You only get to take the picture once so capture as much as you can. I don't understand why digital cameras have been stagnating for so many years and still aren't at the resolution of film.

Hell, cameras are still guessing the value of each output pixel, an "18 megapixel" camera is really only 6 megapixels.
Click to expand...

What are you complaining about?
What camera do you have now? What size prints have you made so far? What's your purpose for photography? How much detailed photo would be good for you?

Digital cameras have not been stagnating, in fact, digital SLR are "upgraded"(mostly for monetary reasons) at pace that film cameras never have.
 
Gintaras said:
What are you complaining about?
What camera do you have now? What size prints have you made so far? What's your purpose for photography? How much detailed photo would be good for you?

Digital cameras have not been stagnating, in fact, digital SLR are "upgraded"(mostly for monetary reasons) at pace that film cameras never have.
Click to expand...

I have a Sony HX1 superzoom. I don't print my pictures, I only post them on the internet, mostly 960x720.

The fact is, 35mm film captures an order of magnitude more data than a typical DSLR. Resolution hasn't really increased for almost a decade.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
 
I wish i had the cash for a D800, specs aside, it's gonna be a great upgrade to D700 users, i dont think we're talking an incremental upgrade over the D700.
 
Throckmorton said:
I have a Sony HX1 superzoom. I don't print my pictures, I only post them on the internet, mostly 960x720.

The fact is, 35mm film captures an order of magnitude more data than a typical DSLR. Resolution hasn't really increased for almost a decade.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm
Click to expand...

He gives MTF for Velvia, an ISO 50 film. Slower than just about any DSLR (my 5D can go to down to 50, but many do not). The faster the film, the bigger the grains (and the lesser the effective resolution). If Canon/Nikon/etc. wanted to make a sensor that only worked at ISO 50, I bet they would be able to go to much greater pixel densities.* Instead, they have pushed for higher ISO (since low-light was always a limitation for film photography), and now you can buy a DSLR for $500 that outperforms any ISO 1600 film ever made.

Digital cameras are proving more useful than film cameras for all but a few photographers. A good part of this has to do with the cost of film and development, but digital photography would not have caught on quite as much as it has if the quality were as severely lacking as you imply. Those who desire more resolution for landscape shots and the like find it almost trivial to take multiple photos and stitch them together into an arbitrarily large digital image.

*Each pixel site is essentially a photon bucket. The more photons that hit each bucket, the better the signal/noise ratio for each pixel. Chip makers have resisted going too fast in the megapixel race because, once you hit certain pixel densities, the number of photons hitting each pixel is tiny, especially at higher ISO's, which is where a lot of basic amateur photography happens (indoors or other poor lighting). If the sensor were limited to ISO 50, it could only be used in daylight or other well-lit conditions, where the number of available photons per bucket is not an issue, even with pretty tiny pixels. I'm pretty confident that they could develop a 35mm sized, ISO 50 only sensor with 100mp. With film, when shooting snapshots indoors, you used ISO 400 (the highest commonly available) and used the flash because, well, you simply had to. Nowadays with every P&S going to ISO 1600, flash isn't always a necessity indoors, which results in more natural-looking photos (but the pixel size limitation and signal/noise ratio becomes very important). So IMHO the advances at high ISO make digicams more useful to more people than pure resolution advances would.
 
Throckmorton said:
I have a Sony HX1 superzoom. I don't print my pictures, I only post them on the internet, mostly 960x720.

The fact is, 35mm film captures an order of magnitude more data than a typical DSLR. Resolution hasn't really increased for almost a decade.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

If I was you, I would not say thing you say, just not to look ridiculous.

"Bad dancer usually complains about his balls - his balls won't let him dance good"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top