But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

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

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:29:12 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.25mp.aps.c.sensor/

    >
    >I
    >>

    >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.


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

    >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.




    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 13, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.25mp.aps.c.sensor/
    >
    > But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?



    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
    #3
  4. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jan 13, 12:29 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    > >http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use....

    >
    > I
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    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
    #4
  5. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jan 13, 2:19 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use....

    >
    > > But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

    >
    > 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.  


    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
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Jan 13, 2:19 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use....

    >>
    >> > But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

    >>
    >> 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.  

    >
    >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.



    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
    #6
  7. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jan 13, 5:25 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >On Jan 13, 2:19 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.....

    >
    > >> > But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

    >
    > >> 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.  

    >
    > >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.

    >
    > Why are you asking only about DX lenses?  There is nothing to stop
    > people using FX lenses on a "25 MP D400".


    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
    #7
  8. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:35:59 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-01-12 23:07:55 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:29:12 -0800, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.25mp.aps.c.sensor/

    >
    >I
    >
    >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.

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

    >
    >A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.


    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.

    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>




    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 13, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:26:36 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >On Jan 13, 5:25 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >On Jan 13, 2:19 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use....

    >>
    >> >> > But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

    >>
    >> >> 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.  

    >>
    >> >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.

    >>
    >> Why are you asking only about DX lenses?  There is nothing to stop
    >> people using FX lenses on a "25 MP D400".

    >
    >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.


    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
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >On Jan 13, 5:25 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> >On Jan 13, 2:19 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use....

    >>
    >> >> > But can most Nikon and Sony lenses do it justice?

    >>
    >> >> 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.  

    >>
    >> >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.

    >>
    >> Why are you asking only about DX lenses?  There is nothing to stop
    >> people using FX lenses on a "25 MP D400".

    >
    >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.



    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
    #10
  11. Doug McDonald, Jan 14, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 13, 8:51 pm, Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    > On 1/13/2011 6:29 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >
    > > On 1/13/2011 12:14 AM, RichA wrote:
    > >>http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.....

    >
    > > Maybe. It's not that much more dense than the Canon 18M sensor, so if
    > > they can keep the noise under control, why not?

    >
    > Well, a diffraction limit at about f/6.3, roughly. We are talking
    > really good lenses.
    >
    > Doug McDonald


    Olympus did it. I'm sure Nikon can.
     
    RichA, Jan 14, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:59:40 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
    >>>> MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.
    >>>
    >>> A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    >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.)


    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
    #13
  14. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Jan 13, 8:51 pm, Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    >> On 1/13/2011 6:29 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >>
    >> > On 1/13/2011 12:14 AM, RichA wrote:
    >> >>http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use....

    >>
    >> > Maybe. It's not that much more dense than the Canon 18M sensor, so if
    >> > they can keep the noise under control, why not?

    >>
    >> Well, a diffraction limit at about f/6.3, roughly. We are talking
    >> really good lenses.
    >>
    >> Doug McDonald

    >
    >Olympus did it. I'm sure Nikon can.



    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
    #14
  15. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:19:38 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Alan Browne wrote:
    >> On 2011.01.13 17:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>> I'm currently printing A3+ (admittedly on matte paper) my ancient 12
    >>>>> MP D300 seems to be doing a magnificent job.
    >>>>
    >>>> A3+ Yup! That's 13 x 19. Works for me.
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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.)

    >
    >My US Epson printer driver calls it: 'Super B (13 x 19).'


    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
    #15
  16. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 1/13/2011 12:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.25mp.aps.c.sensor/
    >>

    >
    > I
    >>

    > 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.
    >



    I take small crops from my and blow them up.
    BTW not all of us stick to 13x19.


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Jan 19, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 1/19/2011 1:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-01-19 10:01:49 -0800, peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/13/2011 12:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.25mp.aps.c.sensor/
    >>>>

    >
    >
    > I
    >
    > 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> I take small crops from my and blow them up.
    >> BTW not all of us stick to 13x19.

    >
    > True, I print many more 5x7, 8x10, & 11x17. 13x19 is my extreme max for
    > home print size.
    > Sometimes that might be done with a crop from the original file and
    > resized. However the final quality of an up-sized print from a crop is
    > going to depend of quite a few different factors. You have to be quite
    > selective in choosing which crops are worthy of up-sizing, or are best
    > left at 4x6, or 5x7, and might even be pushing things at 8x10.
    >
    > That is when software such as Genuine Fractals becomes valuable.
    >


    I hope this doesn't start a holy war. Do you think GF produces a better
    image than CS5?
    I have not seen any difference in the results.



    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Jan 19, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 1/19/2011 5:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-01-19 13:01:01 -0800, peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/19/2011 1:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2011-01-19 10:01:49 -0800, peter <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/13/2011 12:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2011-01-12 21:14:35 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/01/10/nikon.and.sony.may.use.25mp.aps.c.sensor/
    >>>>>>

    >
    >
    >
    > I
    >
    > 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I take small crops from my and blow them up.
    >>>> BTW not all of us stick to 13x19.
    >>>
    >>> True, I print many more 5x7, 8x10, & 11x17. 13x19 is my extreme max for
    >>> home print size.
    >>> Sometimes that might be done with a crop from the original file and
    >>> resized. However the final quality of an up-sized print from a crop is
    >>> going to depend of quite a few different factors. You have to be quite
    >>> selective in choosing which crops are worthy of up-sizing, or are best
    >>> left at 4x6, or 5x7, and might even be pushing things at 8x10.
    >>>
    >>> That is when software such as Genuine Fractals becomes valuable.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I hope this doesn't start a holy war. Do you think GF produces a
    >> better image than CS5?
    >> I have not seen any difference in the results.

    >
    > I think GF, which is now Perfect Resize 7, has a better algorithm for
    > resizing enlargement of greater than 200% than CS5.
    > CS5 is just fine for most of us, but if I were to make a serious/severe
    > crop and wanted to have a "large" print GF/Perfect Resize is probably
    > the better way to go to get a decent result.
    >
    > As a stand alone app it is a bit pricy, it is much more appealing when
    > bundled in OnOne's Photo Suite of plug-ins.
    > < http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-resize/ >
    >


    thanks,

    I had tried it a few years ago, but saw no real advantage. I will give
    it a shot and see if it works better for me.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Jan 20, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 1/20/2011 4:45 PM, Paul Furman wrote:

    > I bought a couple rolls of 13" wide paper and have enjoyed doing some
    > prints in a longer format with 16:9 ratio like HD video. It sure is a
    > hassle cutting those sheets though and my Epson R1800 is the most
    > finicky thing about feeding paper - especially if it's curled! Argh.


    I know what you mean. The problem becomes worse as you get near the end
    of the roll.


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Jan 21, 2011
    #19
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    677
    DVD Verdict
    Apr 12, 2006
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    686
    DVD Verdict
    May 5, 2006
  3. Tim Howard
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    399
    Tim Howard
    Jan 22, 2006
  4. Bruce Lewis

    photos from D.C. Rally for Peace and Justice

    Bruce Lewis, Jan 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    308
    George Kerby
    Jan 30, 2007
  5. Max
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,038
    Frank ess
    Sep 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page