What about 36MP DSLRs?

[jeremypayne]

But you are stitching FF sensor captures. We want to find out how useful it will be to cram 36mp inside one single FF sensor.
I heven't read all posts. Sorry if I missing something here. 
Eduardo

Fair enough ... But the D7000 is essentially the cropped version of this mythical sensor so we do have a very good guide as to how this new camera might perform at the pixel level.

A 36mp version of that sensor is a very attractive concept.

[deejjjaaaa]

if one sees the camera as a whole as a black box.

actually one black box wrapped in another black box (that will be a raw converter).

[BernardLanguillier]

While I know photometria can be both a genuine and an accidental pain, I wouldn't dismiss categorically all that he is saying. The "pure raw" data is usually obtained from well characterized CCDs.  It's very hard to obtain "pure raw data" from a CMOS sensor, especially an active one like the current Sony. The content of Nikon RAW dslr files has always been post-processed to some extent, as all amateur astronomers using DSLRs for astrophotography know (http://astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm). In addition to that, the current Sony sensors perform per pixel calibration and, while it is not possible to dynamically change the fundamental collection of photons at a given sensels, it is quite possible to pre-charge the sensel depletion zone and change the linearity of its response (that's one example, not a claim that they do it, in its sensor briefs Sony mixes genuinely interesting information with pure marketing). Whether it is only done at the individual sensel level to handle non uniformity or it is also done at the global level to achieve some kind of in-sensor HDR equivalent is a tough question, deserving a deeper investigation than casual dismissal. Whether all of this matters a lot for most photographic applications is another question, maybe not as tough if one sees the camera as a whole as a black box.

Yes, we do of course know that camera firmware does process data coming out of sensors.

But that taken into account, the measurement of incident light vs raw data is still linear with a clear cut off at saturation.

So the fact remains that there is no highlight DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Back to the topic ... My dream kit for landscape would be:

- D800 with 36MP
- 16-35mm VR
- 50mm AFS
- 70-200mm VRII

As long as we talk rumors, I would replace the 70-200 f2.8 by the rumors 70-200 f4. 

I would also use a Zeiss ZF.2 50mm f2 planar instead of the Nikon as it is both superior optically and offers macro capability.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jeremypayne]

As long as we talk rumors, I would replace the 70-200 f2.8 by the rumors 70-200 f4. 

I would also use a Zeiss ZF.2 50mm f2 planar instead of the Nikon as it is both superior optically and offers macro capability.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hadn't heard about the f.4 ... if true, that means they are really listening!

Let's throw the 100mm ZF in while we are at it.

I also think there is place in bag for both the 50 ZF and the 50 AFS.  The utility of auto-focus is hard to replace, but there is also something very nice about composing and focusing manually via Live View.

Bernard - do you use any kind of hood or magnifier when you take the D3x in the field and use Live View?

[BernardLanguillier]

Hadn't heard about the f.4 ... if true, that means they are really listening!

Let's throw the 100mm ZF in while we are at it.

I also think there is place in bag for both the 50 ZF and the 50 AFS.  The utility of auto-focus is hard to replace, but there is also something very nice about composing and focusing manually via Live View.

Bernard - do you use any kind of hood or magnifier when you take the D3x in the field and use Live View?

Jeremy,

Yep, I use the 100 zf a lot and it is a great lens.

AF does for sure help at times, but the ease if manual focus with the Zeiss ZF series is just wonderful with live view.

I sold the D3x 2 months ago before it lost too much value, but never used a hood on it.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fotometria gr]

Yes, we do of course know that camera firmware does process data coming out of sensors.

But that taken into account, the measurement of incident light vs raw data is still linear with a clear cut off at saturation.

So the fact remains that there is no highlight DR.

Cheers,
Bernard

There isn't when processing the file Bernard, it can only be manipulated there if it exists, but since the linear Raw is a linearized S-slope, highlight DR exists when capturing, which of course is relevant to the OP. The size of the pixel does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights. That's why people talk about a camera being better in highlights than another camera when they refer to the matter. The difference in highlights between sensors in Highlight DR can, to a lesser extend, appear in JPEGs as well, its a sensor and in camera processor ability not a raw matter. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[BJL]

As long as we talk rumors, I would replace the 70-200 f2.8 by the rumors 70-200 f4.

As long as we are talking rumours:
1. The 3x zoom range limitation seems mostly to apply to bright constant f/2.8 designs; there are optically good f/4, f/2.8-4 and f/2.8-3.5 zoom lenses around with 4x and even 5x zoom range.
2. There is little modern need for a constant but not very fast minimum f-stop, now that the f-stop can be held constant through zooming on a variable minimum f-stop zoom lens so long as the desired aperture/focal length combination exists. So I see no advantage for constant f/4 over something like f/2.8-4. Not even in size, weight or cost, since that is dominated by the maximum aperture diameter needed at the long end.

So I offer an upgraded rumour of a 70-300 or 75-300, f/2.8-4.

At least, that is what I think Nikon (and Canon) should be offering us, instead of this bizarre drop from f/2.8 at the long end to f/5.6 at the long end as soon as the long end is beyond 200mm. (With the exception of one fantastically expensive 200-400/4)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

You could of course post a raw image showing a Stouffer Wedge (I prefer the 41 step variant going up D 4.1). The Stouffer wedge can be ordered from Stouffer directly, cost around 35-40€.

Here is what I have observed on the Stouffer Wedge:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/56-an-lr-view-of-the-stouffer-wedge?showall=1

By the way, I am the OP (Original Poster) and the OP (Original Posting) was not about DR but resolution.

Best regards
Erik

There isn't when processing the file Bernard, it can only be manipulated there if it exists, but since the linear Raw is a linearized S-slope, highlight DR exists when capturing, which of course is relevant to the OP. The size of the pixel does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights. That's why people talk about a camera being better in highlights than another camera when they refer to the matter. The difference in highlights between sensors in Highlight DR can, to a lesser extend, appear in JPEGs as well, its a sensor and in camera processor ability not a raw matter. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[fotometria gr]

By the way, I am the OP (Original Poster) and the OP (Original Posting) was not about DR but resolution.

Best regards
Erik

"Which is of course RELEVANT to the OP. THE SIZE OF THE PIXEL does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights."
   This is exactly my statement Erik, read it again. Is the size of the pixel irrelevant to resolution? Regards, Theodoros.

[jeremypayne]

"Which is of course RELEVANT to the OP. THE SIZE OF THE PIXEL does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights."
   This is exactly my statement Erik, read it again. Is the size of the pixel irrelevant to resolution? Regards, Theodoros.

I read your post.  As usual, it makes little sense and is filled with inaccuracies.

RAW files from real digital cameras are not "linearized" ... The data within them represents the linear response of the sensels to photons hitting them.  Photons hit the sensels, the sensels generate electrons and those electrons are counted.  The relationship between photons hitting the sensel and the count of electrons recorded is linear.  There is no s-slope, there is no "linearization".

You are wrong ... Plain and simple.

[fotometria gr]

I read your post.  As usual, it makes little sense and is filled with inaccuracies.

RAW files from real digital cameras are not "linearized" ... The data within them represents the linear response of the sensels to photons hitting them.  Photons hit the sensels, the sensels generate electrons and those electrons are counted.  The relationship between photons hitting the sensel and the count of electrons recorded is linear.  There is no s-slope, there is no "linearization".

You are wrong ... Plain and simple.

I know what you believe, there is no need to repeat it to me all the time, try somebody else, there plenty that agree with me. It seems that the processor in your camera is doing a different thing than it does in mine (same camera). Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[jeremypayne]

... there plenty that agree with me ...

There are not "plenty of people that agree" with you.

Furthermore, you have offered no evidence - or even a coherent argument - to support your claim.

[fotometria gr]

There are not "plenty of people that agree" with you.

Furthermore, you have offered no evidence - or even a coherent argument - to support your claim.

That's why I insist for you to quote others, they have! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[jeremypayne]

That's why I insist for you to quote others, they have! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

In your fantasy world, maybe ... but in the real world where the rest of us live, your claims remain unsubstantiated.

[fotometria gr]

In your fantasy world, maybe ... but in the real world where the rest of us live, your claims remain unsubstantiated.

3RD time, find somebody else to quote... Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr

[hjulenissen]

3RD time, find somebody else to quote... Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr

Given the nature of your posts, you will have to live with being questioned and quoted. Don't like it? Fine, then start posting less controversial posts or take some photographs.

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It does actually not. Shrinking the pixel will reduce FWC (Full Well Capacity) but we are getting more pixels. The number of photons reaching the sensor will be the same and highlight rendition will therefore not be affected. Readout noise is not effected by pixel size, so having large pixels has an advantage for rendition of the darks, but highlights are not affected.

Best regards
Erik

"Which is of course RELEVANT to the OP. THE SIZE OF THE PIXEL does affect saturation and thus the recording of highlights."
 

[fotometria gr]

Given the nature of your posts, you will have to live with being questioned and quoted. Don't like it? Fine, then start posting less controversial posts or take some photographs.

-h

Your name and photography please? I don't talk anonymously neither share a photographic discussion with non-photographers. The reason for this, has been well explaned in your previous quote to me. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[Chairman Bill]

Your name and photography please? I don't talk anonymously neither share a photographic discussion with non-photographers. The reason for this, has been well explaned in your previous quote to me. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

I use this on another forum (rationalskepticism.org) when situations demand it. This just seems like one of those times ...