Entry level Nikon 24mp?!

Scroll down 1/2 page. A D3200 with 24mp. Poor little 18-55mm kit lens, it
won't know what hit it...

http://nikonrumors.com/

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Scroll down 1/2 page. A D3200 with 24mp. Poor little 18-55mm kit lens,
it
won't know what hit it...

http://nikonrumors.com/

There's some sense in making the sensor resolution rather higher than the
lens resolution. It reduces the need for an anti-alias filter, and having
more samples in the JPEG output will reduce the defects introduced by
JPEG, and allow more use of averaging (either by eye or by processing or
by the display) and hence may reduce the visibility of JPEG quantisation.
Yes, the image may look worse at the pixel level, but on the print or the
display it may be better.

[Me: I'm waiting for the Nikon 5200, as I find the swivel LCD useful.]

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...
Scroll down 1/2 page. A D3200 with 24mp. Poor little 18-55mm kit lens,
it
won't know what hit it...

http://nikonrumors.com/

There's some sense in making the sensor resolution rather higher than the
lens resolution. It reduces the need for an anti-alias filter,

Not really. Unless there won't be any lens mountable, now or
in future, Nikon or Zeiss or any other 3rd party lens maker,
that'll be better than the given lens quality/AA filter strength
assumptions. (Which means: for fixed lens cameras that's true,
for interchangeable lens cameras, not so.)

and having
more samples in the JPEG output will reduce the defects introduced by
JPEG,

Yep.

and allow more use of averaging (either by eye or by processing or
by the display) and hence may reduce the visibility of JPEG quantisation.

Yep. And the same's true for noise.

Yes, the image may look worse at the pixel level, but on the print or the
display it may be better.

And more pixels will always get more out of the lens. Just not
necessarily nearly as much as the increased pixel count would
indicate.

Rich always looks at photos in 200% view, though ...

-Wolfgang

Bruce writes:

Rich wrote:
Scroll down 1/2 page. A D3200 with 24mp. Poor little 18-55mm kit lens, it
won't know what hit it...
http://nikonrumors.com/

A D3200 with 24 MP at a low price will make owners of far more
expensive Nikon DSLRs with "only" 10, 12 or 16 MP feel at least
slightly uncomfortable.

Some, maybe. My 12 megapixel D700 blows the doors off it -- for the
things I most care about. Similarly, a D800 would be only a marginal
improvement in the things I care about (and I'd lose high-speed shooting
that I use fairly often).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
David J Taylor wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...
Scroll down 1/2 page. A D3200 with 24mp. Poor little 18-55mm kit
lens,
it
won't know what hit it...

http://nikonrumors.com/

There's some sense in making the sensor resolution rather higher than
the
lens resolution. It reduces the need for an anti-alias filter,

Not really. Unless there won't be any lens mountable, now or
in future, Nikon or Zeiss or any other 3rd party lens maker,
that'll be better than the given lens quality/AA filter strength
assumptions. (Which means: for fixed lens cameras that's true,
for interchangeable lens cameras, not so.)

I'm thinking this is an entry-level camera, and that people are unlikely
to use first-class lenses with it.

[]
And more pixels will always get more out of the lens. Just not
necessarily nearly as much as the increased pixel count would
indicate.

Rich always looks at photos in 200% view, though ...

-Wolfgang

Indeed!

I would be surprised if an entry level DSLR has 24 MP, but it's not
impossible if Nikon has a good deal on the sensors. Maybe Nikon want to
strengthen their position as the supplier of choice? Or provide greater
differentiation between DSLR and CSC lines?

Cheers,
David

"nospam" wrote in message
...

canon's entry level cameras currently have 18 mp.

Canon says 12.2Mp, but you've never let facts get in your way before.
http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/EOS-...-Cameras/1100D


Trevor.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in
:

Bruce writes:

Rich wrote:
Scroll down 1/2 page. A D3200 with 24mp. Poor little 18-55mm kit
lens, it won't know what hit it...
http://nikonrumors.com/

A D3200 with 24 MP at a low price will make owners of far more
expensive Nikon DSLRs with "only" 10, 12 or 16 MP feel at least
slightly uncomfortable.

Some, maybe. My 12 megapixel D700 blows the doors off it -- for the
things I most care about. Similarly, a D800 would be only a marginal
improvement in the things I care about (and I'd lose high-speed
shooting that I use fairly often).

Just think if landscapers who don't need huge (generally) DR or high ISO
(mostly). They can buy a cheap body and spend what they have on lenses
that will do the sensor justice. Remember when they started selling
disposible film cameras? Well, they stunk, camera and lenses, but this
could be something different. A body as an aferthought.

Rich writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in
:

Bruce writes:

Rich wrote:
Scroll down 1/2 page. A D3200 with 24mp. Poor little 18-55mm kit
lens, it won't know what hit it...
http://nikonrumors.com/

A D3200 with 24 MP at a low price will make owners of far more
expensive Nikon DSLRs with "only" 10, 12 or 16 MP feel at least
slightly uncomfortable.

Some, maybe. My 12 megapixel D700 blows the doors off it -- for the
things I most care about. Similarly, a D800 would be only a marginal
improvement in the things I care about (and I'd lose high-speed
shooting that I use fairly often).

Just think if landscapers who don't need huge (generally) DR or high ISO
(mostly). They can buy a cheap body and spend what they have on lenses
that will do the sensor justice. Remember when they started selling
disposible film cameras? Well, they stunk, camera and lenses, but this
could be something different. A body as an aferthought.

Oh, the D800 is a *fantastic* leap forward for photographers who mostly
aren't me! No argument.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

I would be surprised if an entry level DSLR has 24 MP, but it's not
impossible if Nikon has a good deal on the sensors. Maybe Nikon want to
strengthen their position as the supplier of choice? Or provide greater
differentiation between DSLR and CSC lines?

canon's entry level cameras currently have 18 mp.

In article , Trevor
wrote:

canon's entry level cameras currently have 18 mp.

Canon says 12.2Mp, but you've never let facts get in your way before.
http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/EOS-...-Cameras/1100D

now click the 550d and 600d links on the left. they're both entry level.
http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/EOS-Digital-SLR-Cameras/550D
http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/EOS-Digital-SLR-Cameras/600D