new nikon digital

[BJL]

I have actually taken the same photo with both a 10D and a 1Ds and generated great looking 13x19 prints from both. BUT...the detail and sharpness of the 1Ds print is noticeably better, and it does not take a trained eye or magnifying glass to see it. It jumps off the page at you.

Joe,

   can you say at what distance from those 13x19" prints the differences between the 10D and 1Ds are noticable? From the often mentioned guidelines of 4lp/mm (and 200pixels/mm) at 10" to 15" range, I would expect visible differences at 10", none at 20", but I would be interested to collect some observations based on carefully made prints of subjects other than test patterns.

[BJL]

Thanks Joe,

   so in your experiment, differences are distinctly noticable up to "3000 10D pixels per viewing distance", and slightly at up to 4500.
Compared to the figure I have heard of about 1500 line pairs per viewing distance (or 3000 full three color scanner pixels) for the human eye, the 10D fits with the guideline of "three pixels per line pair" that Norm Koren has suggested.

Other threads here suggest that the 1Ds might give a little more "detail per pixel", and a similar discussion at DPReview and comments from Ron Reznick similarly suggest that the Nikon D1h (with the biggest photosites of any current DSLR) gives significantly more detail per pixel than the Nikon D100. In each case, the more expensive alternative seems to gain something not revealed by pixel counting alone: perhaps a better low pass (AA) filter, or lower inherent noise and hence less detail smoothed away by the camera's noise reduction processing.

[H Sexsmith]

Attention Dale Cotton and JWarthman:  Glad to see we all agree that the 6mp cameras will make prints of 8x10 inches and also much larger.  (20x 30 in. in my experience).  I scan 35mm Provia 100F with a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED as well as use a D100 and the D100 files are superior for use at sizes larger than what the camera makes than the scans from the Coolscan.  The D100 files at Iso 's above the minimum (200) are also much easier to use than scans of any film that I have tried at ISO's above the 100 level.  Would your experience have you agree with this also?
H Sexsmith (Carl)

[Ray]

I have actually taken the same photo with both a 10D and a 1Ds and generated great looking 13x19 prints from both. BUT...the detail and sharpness of the 1Ds print is noticeably better, and it does not take a trained eye or magnifying glass to see it. It jumps off the page at you.

Joe,
But did you take the same photo with the same lens - which means the same focal length if it was a zoom?

That's the comparison I'm interested in. Can you oblige?

[Ray]

but that would seem to be impossible since the 1Ds has a full frame CMOS.

Joe,
Not impossible at all. The size of the sensor has no bearing on the lens fitting, as you well know  .

The purpose of the exercise I'm suggesting is to determine which camera resolves the greater number of  lines per mm[/i]. It's already known that the 1Ds resolves more lines per frame. That's in the specs - about 4000 pixels for the 1Ds as opposed to 3000 for the 10D.

[Jeff Donald]

You can read all about Nikon's financial condition, and losses on their site.  While I'm not an MBA or CPA, I'm told that since Japanese companies don't follow standard accounting principles (at least US SAP's) their true condition is difficult to determine at best.

[Dale_Cotton]

Glen: the D2H is not a general-purpose dSLR; it was designed specifically to meet the needs of professional photojournalists and sports photographers. I assume it will meet their needs admirably. For them more than 4 megapixels would actually be a liability. They need ruggedness, autofocus, low light sensitivity, and above all the ability to take many pictures in succession. The D2H is the direct successor of the Nikon D1H and the direct competitor of the Canon 1D (not the Canon 1Ds).

Everyone will be asking why Nikon didn't release a high-megapixel 1Ds competitor. From what I've read Nikon has had profitability problems and is concentrating their R&D on those products which will put them back in the black - primarily low end compact digitals. A 10 mp or more D2 would be a nice showpiece but wouldn't sell in such volume as to affect the bottom line. Many people assume that the laws of economics dictate that Nikon and Canon must perpetually duke it out in the extreme pro camera arena, but the marketplace says otherwise. If I'm not mistaken, neither Nikon nor Canon are currently raking in the most profits and volume in the digital camera market. I believe that title goes to Sony ... and Sony doesn't even have a dSLR, let alone a pro dSLR.

There are several signs that the era of ever-increasing megapixels may be coming to a close. Norman Koren, who has an excellent technical grasp of digital, suggests that 4 or 5 megapixels is not only sufficient for consumers' needs in a compact camera but is about as many as can be squeezed out of the tiny imager form factor these cameras employ. Similarly, 6 megapixels is a sweet point for dSLRs both because of imager cost and because most 35mm SLR lenses demonstrate aberration problems and perhaps insufficient resolution to justify more megapixels. 6 megapixels is also more than enough for on-line presentation and printing up to 8x10, which is all the vast majority of photographers ever do.

Nothing precludes Nikon from eventually producing a 10 mp or greater dSLR, but it's quite possible that Fuji or Kodak will get there first - although not likely with a pro body.

[Jeff Donald]

Nikon is losing money and has been for years.  They are constantly being rumored for a takeover, HP being the latest White Knight.  Sony also lost huge the last quarter, almost 1 billion dollars.  Canon is the only one (of the three mentioned) that is turning a profit.  Canon is a much larger, more global company, than Nikon could ever hope to be.

[H Sexsmith]

Attention jwarthman:  Would you not say that 6mp is more than sufficient to make a 8x10 print when a 3.3 file from the D30 can make a "gorgeous 13x19 " print?

[Marshal]

From my experience, the D1X does an excellent job of printing pics up to 13X19, although I have either used Genuine Fractals' .STN or to enlarge them with. I keep the files at the default size of around 6.5X10" and 300 dpi until enlarging.  

I have printed 13X19s at ISOs ranging from 125 all the way up to 800, although at the latter ASA I used one of Fred Miranda's noise reduction actions to remove some of the noise or graininess. Even without the NR action, it wasn't bad. Surprisingly good for that speed and print size actually. The photo taken at 800 ISO was a nighttime balloon glow picture taken at a hot air balloon festival handheld with a 17-35mm ED at the 35mm setting.

[Marshal]

LOL! No doubt.

If Fuji can put that new high dynamic range CCD technology into an S3, even with the current APS size, it could be a real winner. I suspect Nikon is indeed working on a D100 replacement as Chasseur's website is suggesting and that a D200(?)and Fuji S3 will once again share a Nikon shell and F mount.

[BJL]

I don't see how Nikon could abandon "high resolution" DSLRs at this stage, as to do so would mean that the D1x is an end of the line product

I should have been more careful with the words "high resolution": given that Nikon already has a 6MP camera in the lower price range, I certainly do not expect them to stay forever at less than 6MP in their top priced professional model.

I meant only that Nikon might choose to go only as far as they can with DX format but not push on to 35mm format DSLR. That was coupled with the expectation that good quality pixels can get smaller than they are now probably at least down to the 5 micron minimum pixel pitch suggested by Norm Koren. His estimate does not take account of dynamic range expansion ideas like Fuji's SuperCCD SR [corrected] with "two sensors per pixel", so even less than 5 microns might be workable.

A 5 micron pixel pitch would take DX format to about 14MP (with somewhat lower effective ISO than a good 14MP 35mm format sensor.) If so, then we could exchange a few hundred opinions  about what size of prints can and cannot be done well with 14MP!

[Joe Hardesty]

However sharp these prints may 'appear' to be, I can only assume that the same shots taken with a 1Ds and different but equal quality lens, would appear even sharper.

Absolutely correct in my experience. I have actually taken the same photo with both a 10D and a 1Ds and generated great looking 13x19 prints from both. BUT...the detail and sharpness of the 1Ds print is noticeably better, and it does not take a trained eye or magnifying glass to see it. It jumps off the page at you.

[Joe Hardesty]

Ray,

It wa a few weeks ago, so I would have to go back and find the original files and check the EXIFs but doubt seriously that is was the same focal length.

It is still prettty early, so I don't know if the brain is engaged yet, but that would seem to be impossible since the 1Ds has a full frame CMOS.

[Joe Hardesty]

Hi BJL,

There is a distinct visible difference up to about 20" based on 3 different opinions. And more subtle differenes up to about 30".

[Jeff Donald]

nt