New D800

[pressld2]

This made me chuckle...

xkcd: Car Problems

And the megapixels comment means it's not completely off topic.

Dave P.

[The_Moaner]

I think it is time they stopped messing us photogs around and stopped making us upgrade every so often. Time for them to give us the camera that has NO NOISE at iso800 and a little less at 1200. That is what we want, but they will not give us it. Time we all said enough is enough. But we won't.
This 800 is not for the likes of any of us. If I won the looty I'd not buy one.
Happy Photography All.

[Boddie]

I still want one. It works perfectly for what I need right now.

I think I'm going to get involved

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by The_Moaner

I think it is time they stopped messing us photogs around and stopped making us upgrade every so often. Time for them to give us the camera that has NO NOISE at iso800 and a little less at 1200. That is what we want, but they will not give us it. Time we all said enough is enough. But we won't.
This 800 is not for the likes of any of us. If I won the looty I'd not buy one.
Happy Photography All.

Maybe the new Olympus OM-D E-M5 will be the ideal wildlife camera?

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Highlights from the quoted spec.:

"16MP MOS Four Thirds format sensor
Weather-sealed body
Twin control dials
New, '5-axis' image stabilization
Shoot at up to ISO 25,600
Up to 9fps shooting (4.2 fps with continuous AF)
800x600 pixel (1.44M dot) LCD electronic viewfinder
VGA-equivalent 3" OLED touchscreen display - tilts 80° upwards and 50° downwards
Latest TruePic VI processor
Improved C-AF autofocus with 3D tracking
Flash sync speed up to 1/250th sec"

Jim

[pressld2]

In terms of pixel density, 16MP on a four thirds sensor sensor is equivalent to 26.36MP on a DX sensor. That's not going to give us the low noise at high ISOs we crave.

Dave P.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by pressld2

In terms of pixel density, 16MP on a four thirds sensor sensor is equivalent to 26.36MP on a DX sensor. That's not going to give us the low noise at high ISOs we crave.

"Shoot at up to ISO 25,600"

But wait and see!

Jim

[pressld2]

Seems like you're sort of missing the point Jim. Of course it can shoot at stupid ISO levels - all cameras can do that! It's high ISO coupled with low noise that I'm after and you can't get that by cramming more pixels onto a smaller sensor. There's a reason why the best high ISO/low noise performance so far achieved on a DSLR is on a full frame sensor at 12MP. It's the same reason that compact cameras have, to my eyes at least, unacceptable levels of noise even at ISO 200. Higher pixel density = more noise.

But you're right, I should wait and see. The technology is still improving with each new generation of sensors so maybe they will be able to get good results at ISO 800 with 16MP on a four thirds sensor. But until I do see it I shall remain highly sceptical. If the D400, when it's eventually launched, is 16MP I'll be highly sceptical of that until I see the results, too.

Dave P.

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Seems like you're sort of missing the point Jim. Of course it can shoot at stupid ISO levels - all cameras can do that! It's high ISO coupled with low noise that I'm after and you can't get that by cramming more pixels onto a smaller sensor. There's a reason why the best high ISO/low noise performance so far achieved on a DSLR is on a full frame sensor at 12MP.

But for much wildlife photography - at least the sort of stuff I do, a 35mm DSLR with its associated lenses is totally impracticable. I can deal with noise on the computer, but I can't deal with the bulk and weight of 35mm gear on top of any camping equipment.

If low noise is the 'be all and end all' of digital imaging, then perhaps you ought to be considering a medium format outfit!

;^)

Jim

[Jim Ford]

I should have mentioned it above, Dave:

A good dose (say a year) of using Kodak Tri-X film developed in D76 will cure you of worrying about noise/grain!

;^)

Jim

[pressld2]

A quick reality check Jim. We're talking about wildlife photography here. In that light your suggestions re medium format and Kodak Tri-X are both in the running for the "worst advice ever" award!

No, noise is not the "be all and end all" but it's important to me. Much more important than more megapixels or trimming a few grammes off the weight of the camera. I'm just starting to make a tiny bit of headway with selling images. If I want that to continue and hopefully grow then I need to be fully focussed on getting the highest quality images possible. If I was shooting still lifes, studio portraits, fine art nudes, etc. then yes, noise would be less important and both medium format cameras and Kodak Tri-X would be realistic options. But to have any chance at all of selling wildlife images they need to be pin sharp and noise free. Getting both in the same image with my current kit, in anything other than perfect conditions, is a bit of a challenge. I'd like my next camera to make it a little easier.

Dave P.