24.81 Megapixel 35mm Sensor

[CurtEgerer]

The big drawback to DSLR's is the 1.5X magnification factor to the focal length due to the small image sensors. This new Sony sensor solves that problem! This may render all existing DSLRs obsolete.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200801/08-010E/index.html

[kstar]

Originally Posted by CurtEgerer

The big drawback to DSLR's is the 1.5X magnification factor to the focal length due to the small image sensors. This new Sony sensor solves that problem! This may render all existing DSLRs obsolete.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200801/08-010E/index.html

Except the ones that already have full frame sensors.

Best,

Kurt

[masraum]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Except the ones that already have full frame sensors.

Best,

Kurt

You beat me to it. Canon already has several full frame (not 1.5 or 1.6 crop) sensors. (other makers also have them, but Canon is the one that I'm familiar with)

Canon's big boy is a full 24x36 sensor that's 21.9 megapixels.

[CurtEgerer]

Being a Nikon guy looking for a new DSLR body, I wasn't aware of this! What model Canon's have the 35mm sensor?

[kstar]

Nikon D3 will get you that full frame sensor, too.

It's getting excellent reviews.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

[Mo_Gearhead]

Ok guys, someone give me the Cliff Notes version (short, sweet, understandable to the laymen) on digital cameras.

24 Mega-pixel cameras?

I once read that the human eye cannot distinguish much past 3-5 mega-pixels
on a magazine page size ( 8 x 11) photograph. Is that just B.S.?

Unless you are blowing up photos to the size of billboards, why does one need all that 'power'?

[CurtEgerer]

My trusty 4-5 year old Fuji S1 has seen better days, so I've started searching around to see what's out there. That D3 is more than I would ever need. Must have Nikon mount for my existing lenses. It must be built like a tank because it will get severely abused - that leaves out the pro-sumer D60, D70, whatevers. I'm thinking used/NOS Nikon D1x or D2h. The D1's 5.5MP is more than I normally shoot for business purposes and the all-metal body is as rugged as anything out there. $500 on eBay is a nice discount off the $5,500 MSRP too D2h's seem to be going for $750-$1000. Much better high-speed capability, but that's not a priority for me.

Here's an interesting take on the sensor size dilemma. Count me as one who assumed bigger is better. Maybe not ....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml

EDIT: yeah, I'm with you on the uber megapixel cameras. I rarely shoot above 5 MP for business and these are for purposes of evidence in lawsuits. In fact, I'm usually complimented on how unbelievably clear the photos are.

[RKC]

I have a D200 that I love. The D300 seems to fit most of what you want.

[masraum]

Canon EOS 5D - about $2000-2500
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III - about $8000

[masraum]

Originally Posted by CurtEgerer

My trusty 4-5 year old Fuji S1 has seen better days, so I've started searching around to see what's out there. That D3 is more than I would ever need. Must have Nikon mount for my existing lenses. It must be built like a tank because it will get severely abused - that leaves out the pro-sumer D60, D70, whatevers. I'm thinking used/NOS Nikon D1x or D2h. The D1's 5.5MP is more than I normally shoot for business purposes and the all-metal body is as rugged as anything out there. $500 on eBay is a nice discount off the $5,500 MSRP too D2h's seem to be going for $750-$1000. Much better high-speed capability, but that's not a priority for me.

Here's an interesting take on the sensor size dilemma. Count me as one who assumed bigger is better. Maybe not ....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml

EDIT: yeah, I'm with you on the uber megapixel cameras. I rarely shoot above 5 MP for business and these are for purposes of evidence in lawsuits. In fact, I'm usually complimented on how unbelievably clear the photos are.

I'm not a Nikon guy, but the D200/300 should fit your bill, shouldn't it.

[nostatic]

the issue is chasing film. With a relatively cheap 4x5 camera and a scanner you can get about 100mp effective resolution. Yes, film is that good.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/4x5.htm

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/

[HardDrive]

Is it really important to have a camera that will allow you to blow up your family photos to the size of a billboard at 300dpi......?

I vote no.

I think the megapixel arms race is pretty much over in the consumer market. I'm sure it will continue in the SLR market for sometime. I REALLY wish they would focus more on improving low light sensitivity.

[masraum]

megapixels and sensor size, there are pros and cons of each and it depends upon lots of stuff.

If you have a 10mp 1.6 sensor and a 16mp full frame camera, you actually have fewer pixels per area which means lower pixel density/resolution.

If you have a 1.6 sized sensor, then your lenses don't work like the focal length suggests because the images are cropped. You don't actually get more magnification, you just get less picture. IE, a 50mm on Digital Rebel XT has a similar FOV as an 85mm would on a film or full frame camera.

Recently, there was a long thread debating the pros/cons on a Canon forum that I check.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by nostatic

the issue is chasing film. With a relatively cheap 4x5 camera and a scanner you can get about 100mp effective resolution. Yes, film is that good.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/4x5.htm

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/

paying for film and developing, waiting for developing, etc....

Digital, instant gratification. Because you can shoot 1000 pictures of your foot for free while changing every setting in the camera, you can learn a lot. To do the same with a film camera would be time consuming and expensive.

Hell, I can get a great 35mm film camera and tons of lenses and accessories really cheaply, actually, I have 2 35mm film cameras, but having a digital is much better. I take a lot more pictures than I used to because I know it's free if I blow 100 shots on nothing or having forgotten to change the ISO or whatever.

[nostatic]

Hey, I don't shoot 4x5. I'd love to, but can't afford it from a time/money/hassle standpoint. It is just that part of the mp race is chasing the film look. The lionshare for the consumer side is marketing though.

Just look at Burtynsky's work. You can't do that with digital. Period.

As for me, I'd settle for wider usable ISO. I'd like ISO 50 and *usable* 400+. NR algorithms can do really nasty things. The Venus III engine on my Leica is pretty ugly at 800.

That being said I've pondered upgrading my D70 (5mp). I print at 8x10 and I can see some artifacts at that size. I'm thinking that 10mp should be sufficient for up to 13x19.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Is it really important to have a camera that will allow you to blow up your family photos to the size of a billboard at 300dpi......?

I vote no.

I think the megapixel arms race is pretty much over in the consumer market. I'm sure it will continue in the SLR market for sometime. I REALLY wish they would focus more on improving low light sensitivity.

No, it's not. but there's a big difference between a 1.6 crop sensor that's 21 or 24 mp and a full frame sensor that's 21 or 24mp.

24x36=864mm^2

22.2*14.8=329mm^2

So, my 8mp camera in a 329sqare mm sensor means that in each sq mm of my sensor I have 24 pixels

the fullframe canon that has 21mp in 864 square mm also has 24 pixels per mm.

so, they actually have the same resolution. If the full frame had fewer mp, it would actually have a lower resolution than my <$1000 camera

[CurtEgerer]

The D300 is very nice, but that's its problem - I'm having a hard time justifying $2000 or so when an, arguably, 'better' camera (D1x or D2h) is available for a fraction of that amount. The D1x almost becomes disposable at that price point. Plus, I'd need to buy the vertical grip for the D300 for another $300.

Here's a shot from this morning's little fun fest (with my point-and-shoot) .... -15 wind chill, 50MPH winds, pitch-black basement with 2 feet of water/ice, soot everywhere. I don't want to be thinking about having to protect my fancy camera in these conditions.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Hey, I don't shoot 4x5. I'd love to, but can't afford it from a time/money/hassle standpoint. It is just that part of the mp race is chasing the film look. The lionshare for the consumer side is marketing though.

Just look at Burtynsky's work. You can't do that with digital. Period.

As for me, I'd settle for wider usable ISO. I'd like ISO 50 and *usable* 400+. NR algorithms can do really nasty things. The Venus III engine on my Leica is pretty ugly at 800.

That being said I've pondered upgrading my D70 (5mp). I print at 8x10 and I can see some artifacts at that size. I'm thinking that 10mp should be sufficient for up to 13x19.

I agree, the mp race is all about impressing the average consumer with the "more is better" mentality. I'd like to say that we may stabilize at around 10mp for a while now. In the last 2-4 years, they've made improvements to reduce high ISO noise. I'm sure they'll continue to improve in that arena.

It would be nice to have a wider dynamic range per shot too.

[CurtEgerer]

I'd like to hear from a Pro on the megapixel debate if there's one hanging around the board here - is there really a need for +20MP, excepting maybe fine art type stuff? I know a freelancer who has had 2-page photospreads in national magazines using a D70 ....

[kstar]

Curt:

Check out what Ken Rockwell says re megapixels:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

He has an interesting attitude at times, but I think he knows what he is talking about re photography.

Best,

Kurt