HAND.
June 22, 2024
86
-
-
That's not the sense in which I was using it. I was using it to a word or phrase used in its accepted sense where its accepted sense is somewhat misleading. The important point is that I wasn't saying that you, personally, were misusing the word.
-
-
-
Those are exactly the components that appear in my diagrams. My diagrams show how they are connected. Simplified models are great, but one has to beware that the simplifications don't lead to a faulty understanding - which is different from a simplified understanding.
Also, if using the simplified models, avoid the jargon that goes with the full model.
If I wanted to talk about a simplified model I'd discuss the maximum exposure that can be captured and the efficiency (I'd likely leave out the word 'quantum', since that scares some people) explaining that it is the percentage of the available photons that can be captured. Together those two tell you how low you can take your ISO setting and how noisy the outcome is likely to be. The electronic designers figures of merit for image sensor aren't really very useful to most photographers. -
My favorite example:
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55804062
Examples I had posted:
www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66401510
But, let's be honest, 24 MP is overkill for the vast, vast majority (as is FF, for that matter). But if we're talking about "good enough" for the "vast majority", then the smartphone has long since won that contest.
-
wow 6 years ago GB when i was the first to discover that the a7s3 was actually 48mgp binned and the s2 blew it away on noise performance 😁
-
The question was: why is a 24MP sensor still a valid choice. It would be nice to get back to the original question.
-
I agree !
Although your question more specifically was :
”24MP seems like a pretty low pixel count by today’s standards. What advantages does this relatively low MP camera have over cameras with 35-40MP sensors?”Maybe you could start by summarizing what you have learned so far?
-
That there is no real tangible advantage to be had with a 24MP sensor, apart from file size. The other differences come down to hair splitting detail in the real world.
I personally chose the Z7 over the Z6, for the possibility to have more detail.
-
Well, there is the difference in price, too -- the Z7 series costs significantly more than the Z6 series (same is true for the R6 series vs the R5 series). So, if 24 MP does the job for you, and the 24 MP body is every bit as capable as the higher MP body for your photography otherwise, then why pay more for what you don't need?
Of course, the difference in pricing is artificial. It's not like the Z7 costs $1K more than the Z6 to make. But that's another discussion entirely.
-
The first Z7 was a commercial failure. People wanted two card slots. I bought a mint low shutter count Z7i for €1000 as a second body.
But the cost difference is a very valid reason. Even my 12MP D700 allowed for some quite big enlargements.
-
Of course it's a 'valid choice'. Anyone is entitled to choose any kind of equipment they like and it's 'valid'. I use my Z6 quite a bit, even though I know my Z9's photos will be that bit more detailed. But for a whole load of things that bit more detail is not the most important consideration. I still use my mFT gear, even though that's only 16MP and has the DOF and achievable noise limitations associated with the system, because there are cases where that isn't the most important consideration.
As for Nikon's choice, well in the end the market will pronounce on whether they should have gone for more pixels or not. -
I'm wondering if there will be a Z7.3 that bridges the gap, both in terms of price and operation, between the Z6.3 and Z8. I would imagine so, but maybe Nikon can't produce that many lines in this market, and is simply going to force people to go low or high with MP count.
-
Maybe I miss phrased my post. ( I wanted to get the thread back to civility after seeing the now removed posts). What, I meant to ask, is why has Nikon gone for a 24MP rather than lets say a 30+Mp sensor in their compact prosumer camera offering. I believe that most of those buying this camera, want a single camera to cover as many subjects as possible.
I tried running M43 along side my Z7 based system for a while, but for my photography, I found different lens choices like going out with just the 24-200 or a bag full of lenses, made more sense, than running different systems. I do have the underrated Panasonic LX100, for when I really do need a pocketable camera though
-
I only speak for myself, but I'm perfectly happy with 18-24MP.
Lots of reasons why. It's plenty of pixels for anything I ever want to do with my photos, from printing to digital display. I've been happy with 18-24MP since I bought my Canon 550D at release. Many moons ago.I don't need massive computer horsepower to edit the files.
I don't need lots of storage space. Both on my NAS, or SD cards etc when travelling. I can afford to take a few more shots from different angles etc, without being concerned about running out of room.
Last couple of OS trips I've done, all I've taken with me is a camera, and my phone. That's it. My NAS is internet connected, 20-24MP files are quicker and easier to upload than 33-40MP any day of the week.
I'm guessing 24MP sensors are easier and cheaper for manufacturers to produce. They've been around for a long time now. Which leads to cheaper cameras. Nothing to complain about there.
-
I think there probably will be a Z7 III, but it will likely use a variant (maybe also 'partially stacked') of the 61MP sensor. Giving it a 45MP sensor will put it too close to the Z8. Then there's room for a Z5 II, using the old Z6 sensor with the Expeed 7 and some other updates.
-
Nikon's product planning is a bit strange at times. They stuck with 12MP for a long time when the competition had gone to 16 or 24MP. In APS-C they actually reduced from 24MP to 20MP. Then they make unexpected jumps, like the 36MP of the D800, or making their press flagship 45MP and so on.
