I’m hearing that a Nikon 36 megapixel DSLR is a done deal. But when it will actually arrive is as yet unclear.
See my discussion of the implications of 36 megapixels. And be careful not to ’dis the idea, because done right it could be a major move forward, and I’m not necessarily speaking only of the full resolution, but of other image quality improvements.
But with 36MP, what I call post-exposure “voyeuristic photography” becomes feasible with 36 megapixels. I mean simply that one can find delightful details in an image of that resolution that might not have been noticed when making the image. Hidden “easter eggs” if you will. Really very fun, especially with travel photography or anytime the unexpected mght be found in a complex scene. For example, I might want to locate my photo tour client wandering about somewhere in the scene below!
The online commentary I’ve been reading about the advent of a 36MP DSLR contains a solid component of myopic hysteria— protests that more megapixels are unnecessary (for whom?). That a faster computer will be needed and that this makes more pixels Bad in itself. That there will be too much noise or bad mojo, and the earth will be despoiled forever. Tiresome dreck— every new technology opens up new avenues for exploration photographically. Which is to say that a 4MP camera that could shoot clean images at ISO 1,000,000 might be equally interesting. In fact, I use my 12MP Nikon D3s specifically for clean images and color when I do not need the resolution, but the rest of the time I wish the 24MP D3x had even more resolution.
Shown below is an image that strains the limits of 24 megapixels (Nikon D3x) and also proves my point about lenses— the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G shows multiple optical problems in this image (not visible at this small size, but quite obvious and this is at f/5.6). An image like this simply does not work well unless certain size objects are clearly resolved, and the lens and camera are delivering at their peak.