Until the technology improves where by resolution gain is improved without exposure penalties we are left with the current Nikon 12 MP FX and DX CMOS sensors which provides arguably the best results with the least penalties. Of course a medium format sized sensor will yield more detail, given it's used properly but at what cost & as a means to what end?Ĭurrent technology dictates that too many pixels on a given sensor spoils the broth via noise etc. I have some great Nikkor glass but unless I can keep the whole camera/ lens combo absolutely still whilst the mirror/shutter actuates then the resolution of either the lens or sensor is limited by the support offered. You ask a lot of technical questions of current bodies, most of which I'd care to answer by saying unless you are going to expect truly massive prints from your camera then pixel count, pixel size, sensor size and type and resolvable detail from avail. The above factored by a general consideration of would it be better to have an FX and a DX. Go for a D300S as going beyond 12mp will not be an improvement on DX.Īwait a DX format camera greater than 12 mp.Īwait a D700 replacement/refresh greater than 12 mp (but how big before I am no better off than my current DX) It seems my decision is around and element of future proofing and image quality. I photograph mainly wildlife and archaeology (buildings and close ups), some landscape. Is it that only the central portion of the lens is leveraged (I understand why this would be an advantage) If so, does that mean the wide open F value of a non DX-lens is changed when used on a DX format body? Probably driven by stock agencies and publishers upping their minimum acceptable image MP size as there first line of defence to being swamped.ĭ) I did not fully understand the point/explanation made about a DX sensor leveraging the sweetspot of a non-DX lens. When will photoreceptor size cause us all to demand a bigger sensor again so we can get more MP at todays FX photoreceptor size. This lead to the following questions in my mind.Ī) Is there any point in waiting for DX to go beyond 12MP, or infact could such a step in terms of photoreceptor size be a backward step (thinking of Mr Rockwells essay and comments in a book I also have).ī) At what MP size will FX format have photoreceptors the same size as DX now and hence offer no advantage of todays DX (allowing for the reduced challenge on the optical part of the system), again thinking of Mr Rockwells piece and the book I have.Ĭ) Is a 35mm sensor optimal or is it just emotional/nostalgic or driven by a desire to leverage old glass. But what does concern me is the matter of mp v optical resolution. I cannot justify or afford a D3 or a D3X so I was waiting to see what was launched and given the D300S is still 12 mp I will hang on a bit longer and canvas some more opinion and input.įirstly I understand nearly all that I have read, due to educational background, in terms of why FX gives better detail, the cropping effect the demands on the optics and also the longer reach etc. I have a DX format SLR at the moment at 12 mp. I am in the market over the coming 12 months for a second camera body (also a couple of lenses, including one longer reach than my 18-200 (27-300) and the question arises FX or DX? I have read the various posts on this forum and also an article by Ken Rockwell, unfortunately I am still a little perplexed on which direction to head. Apologies for raising this old chestnut again.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |