I realize I do not want a higher megapixel camera!

[Jonathan F/2]

Comparing my D700 and D300 in day to day usage, I've come to the conclusion is that I love FX! On that note, I don't think I want a 24mp camera. While great for photogs who shoot static subjects such as in-studio and landscapes, I don't think more MP is the way to go. From my observations, more megapixels does two things. 1st) It requires glass to have more resolving power 2) Higher pixel density requires more care in order to yield sharp photos. I'll admit, I'm a sloppy run and gun type shooter, the D3/D700 sensor is very forgiving in regards to that style of shooting. I hope that Nikon finds a good middle ground between the awesome D3/D700 sensor and the 24mp sensor on the D3X. I'd rather see a hybrid of the two. I find I'm not fond of the D300 image quality compared to what I get out of the D3/D700, yet I appreciate the detail I'm able to pull out of the DX sensor. If they could combine those two aspects, I think we'd edge ever so closer to the near perfect DSLR! What's your thoughts? :wink:

 

[wgilles]

I'd rather have my 12mp D300 than a 3 megapixel D1.

More megapixels aren't always bad.

 

[ddietiker]

My thoughts? I think we need to carefully evaluate expensive purchases. Try and separate wants/desires from real needs/functions. Sounds like you are doing just that very thing. :wink:

 

[Simon Evans]

My thoughts? I think we need to carefully evaluate expensive purchases. Try and separate wants/desires from real needs/functions.

Quite so, the 4.1mp from a d2h earns me several thousand $/£ a year. Dont need more the job its doing.
Likewise the 12 ish from the d2x.
All thats needed is an ability to happily shoot at above iso 800 during the evening and be able to produce a few clean A3 prints, hence looking for d2hs.

 

[little big man]

I'm tired of buying disk space as it is....

Sean

 

[AEDigman]

I'm tired of buying disk space as it is....

Sean

Amen.

 

[SP77]

Actually I was having some crazy thoughts the other week that a D700x might just be my ticket. I love aggressively cropping out whatever I want from my 16.8 megapixel film scans and still having a nice big file leftover. Shooting with a 50mm when I really needed an 85 or 105? No big deal. Shoot horizontally but really need a vertical crop? No big deal either. Still plenty left over for a nice giant print if you want it. That 24MP D3x sensor has a stop and a half better dynamic range than the 12MP FX does too, and goes down to ISO 100. Of course I already don't want to spend $2500 on a D700 body, so spending $3500-4000 on a D700x probably won't happen for me either. :tongue:

Maybe in a few years... :smile:

 

[Elliot73]

My D70, D80, D200 and D300 take more or less the same kind of photos. The new cameras make it easier to take nice photos. You are right on target.

Regards
Elliot

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I'm not justifying that I don't need a higher MP camera, but I'm beginning to appreciate the path Nikon took with the D3/D700. I'd rather see an evolution of that sensor as opposed to just throwing in the D3X 24mp sensor. If they refine the D3/D700 sensor some more and do a slight mp increase (16-18mp) I'd rather Nikon go that route as opposed to playing the megapixel race. It's a sensor in which light is not a factor, that's insane!

 

[A.O.M.E.]

I'm not justifying that I don't need a higher MP camera, but I'm beginning to appreciate the path Nikon took with the D3/D700. I'd rather see an evolution of that sensor as opposed to just throwing in the D3X 24mp sensor. If they refine the D3/D700 sensor some more and do a slight mp increase (16-18mp) I'd rather Nikon go that route as opposed to playing the megapixel race. It's a sensor in which light is not a factor, that's insane!

Is there anything that makes you think Nikon won't go in this direction? I think they've been planning on that all along--evolving the current lower-MP FX sensor rather than putting in the current D3x sensor and making one with even more MP for the D4x. I'm guessing the new D4 will be around 15MP and the D4x will be 30 :smile: And both of them will produce noiseless files at up to 12,800 ISO :biggrin:

 

[Ed-Gein]

Im rocking the super awesome massive 6.1mp from my mighty D40. lol.

I want to upgrade to a D90 for several reasons, higher MP, better ISO, built in motor, etc. The 12.3mp is a big deal for me but the ISO and AF motor are the big sells.

Im glad i started out with this D40 though, knowing my restrictions with cropping it has made me much more aware of composition than i would have been starting out with 10+ Mp camera.

 

[Preston]

D300 produces great files. It has great balance between cost, resolution, performance. Would love a D700 but I am not willing to pay $1000 for a little more high ISO performance right now. Maybe a used one in a year or two.

 

[threecats]

I wouldn't mind the 24 megs if they could pack it in something the size and weight of the 300

 

[Joseph]

I have absolutely no use for 24 megapixels. It's just overkill for what I do.

 

[73Z1]

If they could combine those two aspects, I think we'd edge ever so closer to the near perfect DSLR! What's your thoughts? :wink:

Depends on your definition of a perfect DSLR. According to the dictionary perfect is:

* Main Entry: per·fect
* Pronunciation: \ˈpər-fikt\
* Function: adjective

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect: flawless <a D3 camera> b: satisfying all requirements:accurate c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept <a perfect device> d: faithfully reproducing the original; <a D3 image>
2: expert, proficient <practice makes perfect with a D3>
3 a: pure, total b: lacking in no essential detail: complete
synonym D3: not lacking or faulty in any particular. "Nikon D3": implies the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing.

I agree with you that while "nice", MP isn't a concern to me. More pixels affects something where I can usually control the effect myself, i.e. cropping. If I compose well when shooting, then 12Mp will easily make outstanding 11x14 prints and excellent prints of larger size. I doubt that any significant number of photos are enlarged above 11x14 for pros, much less than for non-pros.

What I cannot directly control is Dynamic Range at a given ISO. While I would't even think of "upgrading" my D3 for 4 more MP, if the D4 had significantly more DR at all ISOs, then I'm interested. If the 20th century, pre-electronics based, physical shutter mechanism was replaced with an electronic equivalent that turned on and off or sampled the sensor or its support circuits at high speed to enable full sync at 1/2000 sec. then I would be interested. Otherwise I already find the D3 to be "the near perfect DSLR". :smile:

 

[KohlerImaging]

Exactly, you buy the tools that you need.

 

[Julien]

The D700 is damn near the perfect camera. It could have less MP and it wouldn't be a problem at all (don't know what I'd do with more ???). I've had full page photos and nearly double spread from the D2h so only 4MP is enough.

Now don't go taking my full frame sensor, I'd never go back, NEVER !

 

[seer_claw]

I wish that I could afford the D700 and lenses that would go along with it but I'll stick with my D300 for a while. While more MP than my old D70s I didn't buy it for the higher MP, I bought it for the high ISO capability and AF system. Lightyears ahead of the D70s.

 

[Elliot73]

The dollar differences among these cameras are not justifiable. They all take the same approximately the same photos provided you tweak the cameras.

Nikon marketing department has the entire group of followers on a desperate waiting list while expecting for the dream camera. It is 10 years with the same story. There are some additional convenience usage factors with the new cameras. Just think about the amount of money everybody on this site have put on these cameras.

Regards
Elliot

 

[threecats]

How can anyone define a dream camera? The minute a new one comes out you get a hundred posts with people wishing for something more with the next model. The better your gear the higher your definition of a dream camera I guess.
I remember quite well my first dream camera was any 35mm as long as it was an slr:smile:

I will say I got to peek through a D700 a few weeks back and..........