Nikon D800, 36 Megapixels and Blur

[HDNitehawk]

Quotes from Nikon's D800 Tech Guide:

"While its high pixel count of 36 megapixels gives the D800/ D800E resolution unrivalled by previous digital SLR cameras, a side effect is that bokeh and blur are made that much more obvious."

"At the high resolutions offered by the D800/D800E, even the slightest camera motion can result in blur. "

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wr...alGuide_En.pdf

I read the Tech Guide for Nikon's D800, and did a word count, the word Blur appears 19 times. After reading it I came away with the impression it was telling everyone more about how to keep their pictures from being blurry than they were promoting a new high resolution 36 megapixel sensor. Maybe were seeing the end of the megapixel race.

I get the impression from the guide that to much resolution could be a bad thing for everyday general photography, making it much more difficult to get sharp crisp pictures. They start off the first part of the guide with "Use A Tripod". Sure that is good advice, but do you start off a sales pitch by telling your customers they will need a tripod.

[Sean Setters]

Maybe they are simply trying to manage expectations...

[clemmb]

I know we beat the DLA issue pretty hard a while back but the DLA if this 36 megapixel sensor will be around 5.8

[Dr Croubie]

I read a while ago people talking about the D3X's 24MP, and that it was really hard to hand-hold it for anything less than 1/500th without pixels blurring together.
Maybe nikon's already anticipating the reactions to the 36mp and jumping the gun a bit?

Had canon written that, i'm sure there would have been a few more "just use our brand new $3000 10-stop-IS lenses" lines instead of crapping on about tripods (which they don't sell).

[neuroanatomist]

Had canon written that, i'm sure there would have been a few more "just use our brand new $3000 10-stop-IS lenses" lines instead of crapping on about tripods (which they don't sell).

But they do sell tripods: http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_271651_-1, and monopods, too! []

[ChadS]

The rules for hand-holding lenses was always based on the object in the shot not appearing blurred when printed FULL FRAME. Almost nobody every blew up 35 mm negatives to anything approaching what we do every time we zoom in past the pixel-level detail on our shots. To not have motion blur on something 4 microns across (instead of 20 mm) you'd have to have a shutter time 5,000 times faster to have the same effective blur vs. size! Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't been more of an issue to-date. The only thing saving the discussion until now is the fact that most lenses have a point spread function that spans multiple pixels. However, the best lenses can be sharp enough to resolve down to the pixel level now.

[Busted Knuckles]

Dr. C you made my morning - yea I have a boring life - LOL, loved it.

ChadS I am thinking has the point - we have to evaluate the image capture as a system. Lens, Sensor, and the sensor holding device - mechanical or human. Humans are analog animals living in a digital world that is far and fast outpacing the analogs ability to keep up. Fairly soon I suspect we will be getting to the point where earth rotation becomes a factor (stop it, I know motion is relative it is meant as a joke).

As most know I am a pixel density proponent and want to see the quality of the uber small sensors improve so I can get more flexibility from my lens inventory. (just increased with the 17-55 2.8) The debate point is: will the small sensor signal/noise ratio improve faster than the light gathering/holding/signal capability of the larger pixel? With greater pixel density, I don't have to carry as big a lens inventory (or lens itself) into the field for the same photograph. My 85 1.2 with a small sensor buys a lot of ISO sensitivity mated to say (I know I am sinning) Pentax Q (or some other uber small sensor that could be mounted in a better platform), compared to 400mm f4 5dII. Same effective focal length, dramatically different volume in the camera bag, IQ...oops - but coming?

ChadS point on camera motion blur would still be an issue.

As soon as I stop traveling and get a life, I will do the frankencanon surgery and post some pix just for the grins.

[HDNitehawk]

It was one of my thoughts when reading the tech manual, that with this many pixels a 36mp sensor should be able to resolve a line 1.5x finer than a 24mp sensor. Perhaps my math is off, but the cameras ability to resolve is much finer. At some point a camera that resolves to such a level would require an exceptional amount of stability to reach it's full potential. Maybe we have reached this point with MP counts and as we get higher we will have to use tripods to take advantage. ChadS thoughts seemed to be along these lines as well.

But, the tech manual really didn't read this way. My take on the tech manual was that now because the camera can resolve to this finer detail that the higher resolution is going to make your hand held shots blurrier than they would already appear. That because it has a substantial amount of points, pixels or lines of resolution that the additional pixels will exaggerate the blur that you would see in your normal pictures. More lines of resolution, the more blur. Would this be the case? That the normal quality of our hand held pictures if the pixel count and resolution gets higher that they will now be worse because we have an increased pixel count to some insane number?

My other thought is more of the marketing conspiracy theory type. By putting data out that tells photographers how to be better photographers, they increase the sill level of their customer which in turn increases the quality of the pictures they get out of the camera. Then Nikon takes credit for their better pictures and claims it is because of the camera......very ingenious....educate your customer to increase your quality.

[ChadS]

@HDNitehawk You are correct that at a certain point increasing the MP just increases the resolution of blur. With the kit lens that came with my T2i the 18 MP APS-C sensor I have is already at that limit. The blur does not have to be optical - it can be motion as well.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the 36 MP camera is basically the same pixel density as the 7D (T2i, T3i, etc.) but those cameras are used much more often in sports or fast-moving objects. I think the reason Nikon is making a point of this is that FF users aren't used to seeing motion blur at the pixel level - but really it's only about 50% worse than a 22 MP image.

[Daniel Browning]

...I came away with the impression it was telling everyone more about how to keep their pictures from being blurry than they were promoting a new high resolution 36 megapixel sensor.

Normally I expect a so-called "Technical Guide" to be yet another marketing puff piece that only exaggerates all the benefits of the product. Isn't it refreshing when a company actually includes technical guidance, such as describing circumstances where the new product may not be any more superior to the old one? Next thing you know they might start reducing their bald-faced lies content to less than 50%.

Maybe were seeing the end of the megapixel race.

People have been saying that since 8 MP came out, and I don't believe that 36 MP is the end. If it is the end, I'm pretty disappointed, because I could really take advantage of at least 200 MP.

I get the impression from the guide that to much resolution could be a bad thing for everyday general photography,

I don't. What gives you that impression? At the very worst, the increased pixel count will only result in the *same* resolution as before -- it can never be worse.