Nikon D2H - Still competitive?

[Hailstorm]

I've used the original D40 (6 MP) and now use the D80 (10 MP). In my humble experience, images from the latter are definitely noisier under all settings. However, as the ISO setting increases to levels where noise becomes perceptible at low magnification (800+), I have to admit that the finer texture of D80's noise makes it somewhat less disturbing.

On the other hand, I would not put more than 12-14 MP on a DX-sized sensor. While the noise becomes finer and finer as megapixels pile up, you have to keep a decent S/N ratio so that you don't end up with fine noise and nothing else. Kudos to Nikon for sticking to 12 MP for as long as possible.

Would I buy a hand-me-down D2h if I had the cash? Absolutely.

[agun]

If you're going to print big, you'll be better served with higher MP count. Do keep in mind, though, that resolving a 12mp APS-C sensor does take a heftier lens than resolving a 4mp APS-C sensor.

Downscale (properly) 12 MP to 4MP and then tell me what looks better. Using the exact same lens and taking the picture a high Iso.

Wanna print billboards? Okay, given that you do...

Billborads? Did I ever say billboards? no. In fact you are exaggerating to prove your point, aka strawman fallacy.

Let me start by quoting myself to further try to acomplish this task of making you people understand my argument:

My argument, which you are obviously not getting, is: Some people need more than 4MP. Which makes the D2H not so competitive for these people.

I am not saying everyone should have cameras with bigger megapixels. I am not saying a camera with more megapixels than a D2H is immeaditelly better. All I'm saying is that if people want to print at 300DPI and get a decent print size, for whatever reason, they won't find the D2H competitive.
That's the tittle of the thread. It asks if it's competitive. In my opinion, It depends on the photographer's needs. Which is a pretty obvious statement... yet you are trying to argue against it with a whole bunch of fallacies.

[bigblocke]

Ahhh, come on guys, stop arguing about pixels, just let go and care about something more important instead.
I don't think any of us are image sensor engineeers who has the knowledge to compare and rate a sensor based on it's actual spec. Thats advanced applied physics that I doubt many of us are even capable of handling. Just stop this silly argument and go on, and let everyone have their own values and opinions of whats best, and let those who know the actual theory behind be the ones to judge! All we can do is reason about what's best, and that reasoning has gone too far!

[Citruspers]

You know what, i think I'm going to make a large print, just for the heck of it. Anyone want to sponsor me? If you pay, you can choose what picture to print from my deviantart

[agun]

Ahhh, come on guys, stop arguing about pixels

Did you even read what I posted? Seriously.....

@citruspers: How large?

[logic_nguyen]

i guess u guys havn't seen my pixel War video!!!!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcv6dv_pixels-by-patrick-jean_creation

btw marjn, print large prints are expensive in the US

i sent my file to Vietnam to get it printed there, i tested their quality by printing 60cmx90cm only use 72 DPI. (300DPI could be more better)

they print within 24hrs and i get in in the next two day.
cost me no more than $20

i also know that 40x60inch canvas size are very cheap also. given that the quality is nice.


anyways be nice to each other guys , not so defensive

[nomix]

Downscale (properly) 12 MP to 4MP and then tell me what looks better. Using the exact same lens and taking the picture a high Iso.

Right.

Let's quote my original post.

In many situations, you're not getting the 12 mp of ie. a D90, because of issues like diffraction or just general softness with large apertures. Printed at the same size, the 12mp camera will surtainly have the advantage, there is a lot more information in it, but then again, that's to be expected. Don't expect though the same pixel level quality with the same settings on most lenses on both cameras.

As for high ISO, that's a very complex issue. Firstly, it's not completely bound by resolution, as we all know, we now have APS-C sized sensors with 12mp that does a better job at high ISO than the first APS-C sized sensors did with 3 or 4 mp, that is not the issue. With the same sensor size utalizing the exact same level of technology, the lower resolution sensor will work out better at pixel level, but viewed at the same size, for instance as a print, the difference may not be that crucial, not even noticable. To be honest, it's hard to tell what the difference might be, at hight ISO, the higher resolution print will have more detail, but appear less clean, while the lower resolution print should appear cleaner, but with less detail.

Anyhow, that's not the entire story either, as noise may appear in different characteristics, for instance, some sensors might be more prone to banding than other. But I digress, any way we do look at it, the lower resolution sensor will be cleaner at pixel level. Not to mention that smaller pixels DO have an impact on dynamic range, which will be far more noticable in difficult situations than minor differences in resolving power.

Billborads? Did I ever say billboards? no. In fact you are exaggerating to prove your point, aka strawman fallacy.

I do not appreciate accusations of strawman arguments, I would suggest you stop that right away.

I exaggerated, but calling it a strawman is way out of order. Please refrain from it.

Let me start by quoting myself to further try to acomplish this task of making you people understand my argument:

I am not saying everyone should have cameras with bigger megapixels. I am not saying a camera with more megapixels than a D2H is immeaditelly better. All I'm saying is that if people want to print at 300DPI and get a decent print size, for whatever reason, they won't find the D2H competitive.
That's the tittle of the thread. It asks if it's competitive. In my opinion, It depends on the photographer's needs. Which is a pretty obvious statement... yet you are trying to argue against it with a whole bunch of fallacies.

Now let me quote my post again:

But as with most issues, your milage may vary, some need higher resolution, some really don't.

Err..

The kicker, however, is that I was not adressing you, I wasn't adressing anyone in particular.

And did you really read my post?

[jeremy1302]

Everybody love everybody x

[Citruspers]

I really appreciate a good deduction of a cameras capabilities, but, as noted before, this thread is getting out of hand....

Would it be a fair request from me to ask you to stick to talking about the D2H in general, and not about magepixels and imagequality? (After all, I really did NOT buy this camera for the imagequality)

[agun]

You said 12MP needs a heftier lens. I said not if you downscale it in order to compare it to 4MP.

at hight ISO, the higher resolution print will have more detail, but appear less clean, while the lower resolution print should appear cleaner, but with less detail.

You should also consider that the noise in a higher resolution picture is smaller as a cause of the pixels being smaller thus actually blending in better once downscaled.

smaller pixels DO have an impact on dynamic range

I guess this a derivation of your statement that smaller pixels are noisier.
Let me try to explain this once and for all.
People say a larger pixel is better because of it's signal to noise ratio and normally explain it by saying "a bigger bucket catches more light".
Here is the thing, a big bucket takes up more space than a small one. Where you could fit one big bucket you may be able to fit 4 small ones and take up the exact same amount of light per amount of surface used.
Now, imagine you weigh those buckets. Is one measurement going to be more accurate than dividing the water into 4 buckets and measuring each one of them separately? Make your own conclusions.
If you believe smaller pixels affect dynamic range for a reason other than noise, please explain.

I exaggerated, but calling it a strawman is way out of order. Please refrain from it.

Exaggerating to empathize your point is a strawman fallacy. I will not refrain from pointing out your failure to argument yourself in a logical way because if I didn't this discussion would be nonsense. You should learn how to express your arguments logically.

But as with most issues, your milage may vary, some need higher resolution, some really don't.

The problem is that you then humiliate people who prefer higher MP cameras by saying (figuratively) they want to print billboards, something surprisingly dumb as it's not profitable.

In essence you say that low MP cameras are ok for everyone except dumb people who want to print billboards.

That didn't reflect my point so I quoted myself.

The kicker, however, is that I was not adressing you, I wasn't adressing anyone in particular.

These quotes from your previous post might of confused me:
-That's me. It may not be you
-Wanna print billboards? Okay, given that you do
-you'll probably want a digital medium format

And did you really read my post?

yes

@citruspers: we are discussing if the D2H is still competitive. It's major drawback in my opinion is its low megapixels. Other people disagree. I'm trying to explain why higher MP is better in many situations, thus why the D2H isn't a good choice for a number of photographers.

[DvorakArt]

If you believe smaller pixels affect dynamic range for a reason other than noise, please explain.

As far as my understanding goes, pixel size is like aperture size.
The larger a pixel, the faster light will get into it, so if you vary large pixels with smaller ones, you'll effectively be getting a much larger range of exposure*(the larger ones taking in more light and getting the highlights, the larger getting less light and therefor the shadows).Thus a larger dynamic range.

Don't quote me on this...its just what I think.

[MistyCreekPhoto]

The D2H imho is still competitive.

It has Nikon's first JFET sensor, shutter speed of up to 1/8000, and 8fps, witch is fast enough...

The only downside is this camera would not be so good for billboard photos...

If i could get my hands on a d2h i would.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/N ... on_d2h.asp



My two cents...

[agun]

Don't get me wrong... If you are ok with 4MP this camera is very hard to beat.

[nomix]

You said 12MP needs a heftier lens. I said not if you downscale it in order to compare it to 4MP.

Sure, and if you read what I'm writing, you'll see that that's pretty much what I am saying, I was careful to point out that you do get more details, but that you need a heftier lens to actually deliver those details. I've not said that the 4mp sensor will in any way, shape or form deliver more detail than a 12mp sensor, so please drop it.

You should also consider that the noise in a higher resolution picture is smaller as a cause of the pixels being smaller thus actually blending in better once downscaled.

Yes, unless the pixels are so small that the noise gets more pronounced.

I guess this a derivation of your statement that smaller pixels are noisier.
Let me try to explain this once and for all.
People say a larger pixel is better because of it's signal to noise ratio and normally explain it by saying "a bigger bucket catches more light".
Here is the thing, a big bucket takes up more space than a small one. Where you could fit one big bucket you may be able to fit 4 small ones and take up the exact same amount of light per amount of surface used.
Now, imagine you weigh those buckets. Is one measurement going to be more accurate than dividing the water into 4 buckets and measuring each one of them separately? Make your own conclusions.
If you believe smaller pixels affect dynamic range for a reason other than noise, please explain.

Well, looking away from the water in buckets example, which I don't really think is that relevant, I would like you to explain how smaller pixels would not lead to less dynamic range. Thing is, we're talking seriously small engineering, and the larger you make the well that capture the light, the easier it gets to engineer their ability to not only capture the light, but read it properly. In theory, the size of the pixels should not play any part, but in practice, we're talking about practical technology, larger is easier to engineer, simple as that.

Let's take your argument further, do you think there's any reason to limit the numbers of megapixels of any sensor? If the size of the pixel wells doesn't matter (I'm sorry if that's not what you're saying, I might have misunderstood you), then why not go for 50 megapixel APS-C cameras right away?

Exaggerating to empathize your point is a strawman fallacy. I will not refrain from pointing out your failure to argument yourself in a logical way because if I didn't this discussion would be nonsense. You should learn how to express your arguments logically.

It is a straw man if aimed specificly at a specific argument, which it was not. And listen, mate, I've moderated discussion boards for years, and I have to say that I think you are getting quite close to a personal attack, which I believe is frowned upon.

I exagerated to emphesize a point, that's it, please drop it, I do not appreciate being treated like a dumbass.

The problem is that you then humiliate people who prefer higher MP cameras by saying (figuratively) they want to print billboards, something surprisingly dumb as it's not profitable.

In essence you say that low MP cameras are ok for everyone except dumb people who want to print billboards.

No, I don't. You should be very careful to take an argument out of context, not to mention that it's funny getting that from someone who throws around claims of being a victim of a strawman, but I digress. If there's one thing I've learned from years of experience debating with people who offer retorical resistance like you wouldn't believe, is to make sure I understand what people are saying before I get mad and red-faced.

I am not out to humiliate anyone, I am not out to be hostile, I am not out to make fun of anyone. What I am saying is that if you print big, you are better suited with more detail, but many people may not need it. I for one don't, but your milage may vary. There's many people who wouldn't need more than 4 megapixels, even for professional work. You'd be amazed how little difference is between 4 and 12 megapixels for a two page spread on ie. an offset printed paper, I've printed 8 megapixel files at 30x20 inches, which look great - really great.

If you want to print big, A3, 4mp is on the border, but it'll probably work okay.

What I do find curious is how you take this so personal, and if we are to talk about ridicule, I think you're bordering on ridiculing those who are fine with just 4 megapixels. Just my impression, that might not be your intention.

These quotes from your previous post might of confused me:
-That's me. It may not be you

I was not referencing anyone in particular, I was talking to the generic person, thinking out loud, in the same way you might say "I like pasta, you may not" during a speech.

-Wanna print billboards? Okay, given that you do
-you'll probably want a digital medium format

This last thing should have hinted at something, the hinting at medium format gear.

In other words - I'm referring to professionals who shoot professional photos for ADVERTISING BILLBOARDS.

Let me give you a piece of advice, if you're unclear about what you think someone meant, don't assume, just ask for clarification.

[agun]

I'm tired of arguing about this topic.

I've expressed my views on the topic and explained why I defend them. There is no point in repeating them and get further caught in petty fights about who is insulting who.