Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 9, 2012, 7:10 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
tacticdesigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 998
Default

In my view, you can't blame the manufacturers.

The way I see it, once computer technology got into cameras, it was inevitable that the rate of "improvement" (ie. number of pixels, iso and speed) was going to improve so rapidly. [It's called Moore's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law ]

And once brand X releases a camera with updated technology, if brand Y doesn't release something equal or better, they are going to lose sales. So brand Y has to bring out something better. Then brand x (and z for the matter) in turn have to bring out something better. And the cycle just goes on and on . . .

But as someone has pointed out above, the change from model to model isn't always a reason to upgrade. Maybe just upgrade every 2 or 3 models.

But ultimately, it depends on what you need the camera to do. If a camera that is 2 generations old does everything you need, then there is no reason to upgrade.

But if when you use that 2 generation old camera you constantly hear yourself saying, I wish it did this, or I wish it did that, then we're lucky that cameras are improving at the accelerated rate that they are. [grin]
tacticdesigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 1:36 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 142
Default

Over the years, I have actually seen some so called new and improved updated models that turned out to have overall picture quality that was not as good as the model it replaced. Just because it is a newer version of a older model does not 100% guarantee that it will be better in all respects.
surplusshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2012, 3:16 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surplusshooter View Post
Over the years, I have actually seen some so called new and improved updated models that turned out to have overall picture quality that was not as good as the model it replaced. Just because it is a newer version of a older model does not 100% guarantee that it will be better in all respects.
Yeah... a good friend of mine who just got a new D800 says he likes his old D700 better, so the D800 is now his backup camera. I wonder if the D4 is like that?
It shouldn't be as there is 4 years between that model. I have one. I'm gonna wait a few more months before getting the D4 and see how that pans out.
In the case of the D5100, it was considerably better than the D5000. However, the D5200 came out so quickly, I wonder about that? More pixels is not necessarily better.
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D5200
Nikon D500 w/MB-D17 Battery Grip
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge

Last edited by jack55; Nov 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM.
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 9:05 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 142
Default

Hey "jack55", I agree 100% with your statement in reference to the new Nikon 24 megapixel D5200....you said: "more pixels is not necessarily better". So very true ! An excellent example of this is the $ 6,000 dollar Nikon D4 professional DSLR. It is rated as one of the finest DSLR's in the world for superb image quality. And somehow this camera manages to accomplish this with only 16 megapixels.
surplusshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 9:38 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Not so. The 24MP sensor in the Nikon D3200 is in almost a dead heat with the D5100, and it's got 50% more resolution. As a result, it records 50% more detail. How is that "not necessarily better"?

Where increased resolution can be a problem is if you insist on using lenses that aren't up to the task. Lots of people are discovering that when they put their favorite D700 lenses on their new D800 and are dissatisfied with the results. It's not the camera that's the problem.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 3:39 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Not so. The 24MP sensor in the Nikon D3200 is in almost a dead heat with the D5100, and it's got 50% more resolution. As a result, it records 50% more detail. How is that "not necessarily better"?

Where increased resolution can be a problem is if you insist on using lenses that aren't up to the task. Lots of people are discovering that when they put their favorite D700 lenses on their new D800 and are dissatisfied with the results. It's not the camera that's the problem.
No comparison to the D4 large format sensor
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D5200
Nikon D500 w/MB-D17 Battery Grip
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 8:21 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 142
Default

Dx OMark lab test have proven that cramming this many pixels onto such a small image sensor creates problems with inadequate light capture due to the pixels being so small. This results in a reduction in dynamic range and degrades the overall image quality. It even gets worst when shooting high ISO. Even if these problems did not exist, why would anyone really need or want a small sensor 24 megapixel camera unless they plan on blowing up their pictures the size of a barn or cropping them to the extreme. I hate to say it but I think Nikon is playing the more is always better "megapixel myth" to catch uninformed buyers.
surplusshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 8:46 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
jack55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surplusshooter View Post
Dx OMark lab test have proven that cramming this many pixels onto such a small image sensor creates problems with inadequate light capture due to the pixels being so small. This results in a reduction in dynamic range and degrades the overall image quality. It even gets worst when shooting high ISO. Even if these problems did not exist, why would anyone really need or want a small sensor 24 megapixel camera unless they plan on blowing up their pictures the size of a barn or cropping them to the extreme. I hate to say it but I think Nikon is playing the more is always better "megapixel myth" to catch uninformed buyers.
100% Correct!
__________________
http://www.moskovita-photography.com/
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/mo...hotography.htm
Nikon D5200
Nikon D500 w/MB-D17 Battery Grip
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR
Nikon TC-14E-III 1.4x AF-S / 2 Nikon SB-800
Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod
Samsung S7 Edge
jack55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 5:39 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
deadshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 759
Default

I know there are loads of these articles but this one is interesting.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1041_3-6156398.html
It's about are more pixels better?
__________________
D5100 +18-200mVR Nikkor lens.
SB400 Flash, ML-L3 Remote.
SB 700 Flash
Holster + Shoulder Bag.
Beike carbon 4 section tripod/monopod
Gorillapod SLR Zoom + BH1 ball head
Panasonic FZ1000
Panasonic FZ200
Nissin D i40 Flash
+ SLR Gorillapod
deadshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 6:26 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadshot View Post
I know there are loads of these articles but this one is interesting.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1041_3-6156398.html
It's about are more pixels better?
February 6, 2007! Come on!
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:21 AM.