If MP is all that, then why 20.8MP in D5?
May 26, 2018 11:33:00 #
If megapixels are really the all-important, be-all, end-all, then why would the Nikon D5 have "only" 20.8MP?
May 26, 2018 11:46:33 #
Naldo wrote:
If megapixels are really the all-important, be-all, end-all, then why would the Nikon D5 have "only" 20.8MP?
Less pixels per square inch means bigger pixels. Bigger pixels can capture more light and therefore, more information or less noise. Number of pixels really only helps for max size of 'acceptable' print and/or ability to crop. In simple terms, number of pixels goes to size of print, density of pixels goes to light gathering ability. Worth noting that DXOmark score is a measure of the relative size of 'acceptable ' print that can be produced not necessarily a measure of the quality of the capture.
At least that is my understanding. I am open to correction.
May 26, 2018 11:56:13 #
Naldo wrote:
If megapixels are really the all-important, be-all, end-all, then why would the Nikon D5 have "only" 20.8MP?
It’s about speed.
It’s a good mix of high quality for what the camera is designed to do and shooting VERY FAST.
Moving and processing that information FAST to shoot fast at the expense of mp.
It’s all about action not landscape!!!
SS
May 26, 2018 11:59:23 #
because that was what was available when the D5 was released, and as SharpShooter said, the need was for speed, not megapixels. Besides, now the D850 is out, and at that Mp range, what more do you need?
May 26, 2018 13:24:45 #
Naldo wrote:
If megapixels are really the all-important, be-all, end-all, then why would the Nikon D5 have "only" 20.8MP?
Very high megapixels is not the be all and end all. It's desirable to have high megapixels but to have fewer MP the D5 can shoot a lot faster and perform better in low light. Of course that some would argue that with the D850 when you down size your image to 20MP you would have the same if not better noise performance than the D5.
May 26, 2018 13:34:00 #
So ya think there'll be a D5s? or might they just jump to D6 this time? I bet the next MP will be 24. . .
May 26, 2018 13:38:59 #
Naldo wrote:
So ya think there'll be a D5s? or might they just jump to D6 this time? I bet the next MP will be 24. . .
If there is a D5s I think it would have the same 20.8MP. Yeah I guess the D6 would be 24MP. The question is would there be a D7?
Nikon only made film cameras up to the F6. It's because people don't use that much film any more. Now if people are shifting to the mirrorless then Nikon may stop making DSLR after the D6.
May 26, 2018 13:43:39 #
May 26, 2018 13:46:29 #
May 26, 2018 13:49:49 #
May 26, 2018 15:05:19 #
Who said MP was the end all and be all anyway?? There are times I like the pixel density of the D850, but nothing just gets the shot like my D5 does :)
May 26, 2018 15:49:57 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
because that was what was available when the D5 was released, and as SharpShooter said, the need was for speed, not megapixels. Besides, now the D850 is out, and at that Mp range, what more do you need?
Sorry, but 36MP was available in the D800 and D800E more than 3 years before the D5 release and 24MP even before then, so on what do you base this statement??
May 26, 2018 15:53:24 #
MT Shooter wrote:
Sorry, but 36MP was available in the D800 and D800E more than 3 years before the D5 release and 24MP even before then, so on what do you base this statement??
Obviously that many MPs were interfering with the speed Nikon was going to include.
May 26, 2018 16:34:01 #
It isn't just speed. It's also buffering. You can take 220 consecutive photos at 12 photos per second on jpeg fine without any pause for buffering. Might be able to take more, depending on the subject. For those who are wondering. That's 18 plus seconds of just holding the shutter down and letting it rip.
That's not something that I do, but there have been occasions when it is nice to know that the camera will keep firing and not stop to buffer no matter how I choose to use it.
That's not something that I do, but there have been occasions when it is nice to know that the camera will keep firing and not stop to buffer no matter how I choose to use it.
May 26, 2018 16:58:59 #
btbg wrote:
It isn't just speed. It's also buffering. You can take 220 consecutive photos at 12 photos per second on jpeg fine without any pause for buffering. Might be able to take more, depending on the subject. For those who are wondering. That's 18 plus seconds of just holding the shutter down and letting it rip.
That's not something that I do, but there have been occasions when it is nice to know that the camera will keep firing and not stop to buffer no matter how I choose to use it.
That's not something that I do, but there have been occasions when it is nice to know that the camera will keep firing and not stop to buffer no matter how I choose to use it.
Ha ha, spray & pray. . .
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.