But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Jan 13, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    would still ask, why on Earth would anybody need 25MP on a cropframe sensor?
    The largest I am going to print is 13 x 19 and my puny 12MP D300s can
    handle that just fine.
    If anything my next move would be to FF for better high ISO/Low light
    performance. Pushing the D300s over ISO 1600 in low light is OK, but
    marginal.
    It will be interesting to see if Nikon can control high ISO/Low light
    noise for this densly packed sensor.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 13, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
    MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.


    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 13, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 13, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Of course not. But the Nikon and Sony ranges include some lenses that
    would be good enough, and a 25 MP APS-C DSLR would generate strong
    demand for those lenses.

    For that reason alone, dealers and distributors are likely to be
    supportive, as selling lenses is more profitable than selling DSLRs.
     
    Bruce, Jan 13, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    I'd still be very interested in the result of their efforts. I'd do
    it without an AA filter as well. Push the envelope if noise isn't a
    major consideration. A high res camera, 1/4 the price of the D3x for
    use primarily at 400 ISO and under.
    Problem is, if you wanted to do wide field work, it is likely you'll
    get better optical quality from a 24mm lens on a FF than an 18mm lens
    on an APS. Faster too.
     
    Rich, Jan 13, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Which (wide to normal) lenses in the APS series can handle that pixel
    count? They'd have to be better (higher resolution) than the FX
    lenses at the same pixel count.
     
    Rich, Jan 13, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Why are you asking only about DX lenses? There is nothing to stop
    people using FX lenses on a "25 MP D400".
     
    Bruce, Jan 13, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Rich Guest

    It's a waste of money. If they come out with a 25mp APS they should
    have lenses for it that can support it. There is no point in using
    more expensive, wasteful and larger FX lenses.
     
    Rich, Jan 13, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Damn!

    That's metrication for you. I never recognised 13" x 19" as A3+. To me
    A3+ is 329 x 483. Somehow, that sounds bigger.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 13, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an "A3+" designation.

    ISO Heresy. (There is no such thing in the ISO-216 system.)
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 13, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    John A. Guest

    Unless you're planning to get a FX body later. Who wants to buy all
    new lenses every time they upgrade bodies?

    Ok, maybe a lot of us would *want* to, but how many can afford to?

    Anyway, if they have developed sensor tech that allows decent
    performance at that pixel density, an APS sensor would be a logical,
    less expensive, step toward an FX sensor at that density. Lets them
    work some of the kinks out before applying it to pro gear.
     
    John A., Jan 13, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Don't be ridiculous. Lots of people own DX cameras and FX lenses.
    People buy lenses that they like and/or that suit them best, and that
    certainly doesn't exclude using FX lenses on a DX body. Other people
    have owned FX lenses since they used 35mm film SLRs. There is
    absolutely no reason not to use them.

    You really have some strange ideas about how people behave. Here's a
    clue: most people are not like you. Another clue: they do not share
    your strange little ideas.

    Understand that, and you might begin to make some sense.

    We can only hope.
     
    Bruce, Jan 13, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    Bowser, Jan 14, 2011
    #14
  15. Well, a diffraction limit at about f/6.3, roughly. We are talking
    really good lenses.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Jan 14, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Olympus did it. I'm sure Nikon can.
     
    RichA, Jan 14, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I find that on a per square meter basis it's the cheapest way to buy
    paper.

    It probably works that way in square inches, also.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 14, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Nikon already has. But if the D400 does get a 25 MP sensor, you can
    bet that Nikon will wish to exploit the demand for more and better DX
    lenses.

    Just as the superb Canon EOS 7D revitalised interest in Canon's APS-C
    offerings, a high-MP D400 would do the same for Nikon's. It would be
    disappointing if a D400 came with "only" the 16.2 MP of the D7000.
     
    Bruce, Jan 14, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    My US Epson printer driver calls it: 'Super B (13 x 19).'
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 15, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    That's interesting. The driver for my Epson Pro 3800 has no Super B
    but it does have a Super A 329 x 483.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 15, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.