Nikon DX at 32 megapixels?

[Abitconfused]

I want Nikon to build an incredibly bitchen DX body with a 32 megapixel sensor. Can you offer: Encouragement, Scorn, Pity, or all of the above? What does your crystal ball say?

[Shadowman]

If the Megapixel Wars ever spring up again, you'll get your wish.

[NorthernFocus]

Judging by the D500 announcement they seem to be headed the opposite direction with pixel count in favor of pixel quality. Historically if you look at what they've done, aside from the D800/810, the high pixel density sensors have gone into the "consumer" level cameras both DX and FX. So, will they come out with one? Maybe, but if so likely in a D3500/5500 type model.

[ionian]

It's strange - I have a d7100 like you, and every now and then (very rarely, admittedly) I wish it had something extra, like a bigger buffer, or shallower depth of field, but I have never found myself in a situation where I felt 24mpx was too low. What do you shoot (and what size do you print) that makes 32mpx necessary? And why 32mpx specifically?

The day I print one of my images at full size, even when cropped, will be a happy day.

[Abitconfused]

I like to crop into an image to extract multiple images. I also just like the resolving power of many pixels. I think approximately 32MP +/- is the next logical leap. Engendering limit for ASP-C is said to be 50MP. I like the lighter weight of DX as well. Plus I love science & engineering!

[ionian]

Fair enough Ed - if you like to crop, the more the better I guess. I just think that if I needed to step up in count I'd be better going full frame, where the pixels are larger and there is more room across the board. But I'm still very happy with 24mpx - it's a big step up from my entry level canon.

[xpatUSA]

I want Nikon to build an incredibly bitchen DX body with a 32 megapixel sensor. Can you offer: Encouragement, Scorn, Pity, or all of the above? What does your crystal ball say?

My handy-dandy calculator says that's a pixel pitch of about 3.5um which is a bit on the low side for my taste

Sorry, Ed.

[xpatUSA]

I like to crop into an image to extract multiple images. I also just like the resolving power of many pixels.

Have you thought about lenses? Mine aren't the best -which brings me to the following point:

If I shoot at high resolution with my Sigma, the image is of lower "quality" than if I shoot at low resolution (binned 2x2). In other words, shooting at higher resolution doesn't necessarily get you "better" images.

In this context, "quality" to me means acutance before conversion and processing. As usual, "better" means anything we want it to mean

I think approximately 32MP +/- is the next logical leap. Engendering limit for ASP-C is said to be 50MP.

Got a link to where it says that?

. . . . Plus I love science & engineering!

Me too

[Abitconfused]

An example of where a lot of cropping is needed...



Second...



Third using Content Aware Fill to remove sign...



Fourth image...some bad patching but enough to fool most eyes and it is done. Whatever it is anyway is done.



So I want more pixels so I can do more of this sort of amateurish stuff

[pnodrog]

Your example appears to be taken on the D810 (36 megapixels) and an 85mm lens. With a DX camera you would have already gained a 1.5x crop......

I do like the ability to crop a 36 megapixel image dramatically but I am old school and whenever possible like to more or less (mainly slightly less) fill the frame with the subject by choosing either the right focal length or view point.

Your final edit is a pretty good shot but certainly not the best approach for capturing it.

[Manfred M]

Ed - the first thing that comes to my mind when I see those heavy crops is that the photographer did not pre-visualize the shot particularly well and in order to "save" the shot. Had he / she moved in and taken the shot as cropped, they would have had a lot more material to work with.

When you crop, you not only throw out pixels, but you throw out lens resolution as well. While I understand the need for that, especially in street and some forms of wildlife photography, for landscape work, it tends to suggest a sub-standard workflow.

I'm not saying you should plan on keeping everything in the frame, and in fact I shoot to crop because I shoot for prints and the paper sizes never match the sensor height : width proportions (which means I tend to loose a bit off the sides in landscape orientation and a bit off the top and bottom in portrait orientation. I shot like that in the film days as well. If you are only shooting for posting on the web, you will be throwing most of your pixels away. The standard display runs around 2MP resolution and the 4K displays are running at 8MP. No one needs a 32MP DX sensor unless you are printing large images.

The other argument against a 32MP DX sensor is lens quality. In order to get the most out of a high resolution sensor like that, you are going to want to use the best lenses. The top end standard pro FX zoom lenses that Nikon sells are in the $2000 - $2500 range. The DX lenses are marketed to a different type of clientele and I suspect there is a limited client base for high end DX glass that would have to meet or exceed the quality these lenses can produce.

That being said, if Nikon matches the high end Canon 50MP sensor, I suspect they will roll out a 32MP DX camera, because they can. When this happens, if anyone's guess.

[Black Pearl]

I like to crop into an image to extract multiple images. I also just like the resolving power of many pixels. I think approximately 32MP +/- is the next logical leap. Engendering limit for ASP-C is said to be 50MP. I like the lighter weight of DX as well. Plus I love science & engineering!

A Nikon D810 weighs 880g and a D500 weighs 860g - not sure there is much advantage unless you feel 20 grams forms the straw that breaks the donkeys back.

[Abitconfused]

I have been thinking about getting the Nikon 24-70 but the price hurts. And the weight with FX body IS a lot for this old donkey.

[GrahamS]

You only need 6 mpx, remember?

[pnodrog]

You only need 6 mpx, remember?

?

[Manfred M]

You only need 6 mpx, remember?

If you are working with a standard 1920 x 1080 display only, 2MP is fine. Don't even think about cropping though.

[Brev00]

Enough is never enough. Having moved from my 12 mp D90 to my 24 mp D7100, I think the crop ability of 24 mp is amazing. So, if you get a 32 mp D7450, that will suffice but for only a while. I think the key to cropping is getting the highest quality possible in the original. The better the focus and the lower the noise, the more you will get out of your 24 mp files. Otherwise the gain in mp is counterproductive as the potential for noise also increases in a crowded dx sensor. It might be better to get a 24 mp full frame sensor such as the D610 so you can crop cleaner files.

[GrahamS]

It might be better to get a 24 mp full frame sensor such as the D610 so you can crop cleaner files.

That's what I did!

[xpatUSA]

You only need 6 mpx, remember?

Hmmm . . . think I'll print 8x10 at 360 ppi . . . oh oh . . .