Why is the Nikon D4s performance so good despite only being 16 megapixel..

N

NIKOND500

Messages
24
Name
Oliver
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve been using the Nikon D4s for a good amount of time now, along side my D500.. I have also borrowed a D850, all of which I have tested with my f4 500mm.

Consistently the D4s out performs both in colours and over all appearance of image (subjective I know)..

What I can’t understand is why even when pixel peeking the difference in detail, image sharpness and fine detail improves only a tiny, barely noticeable amount despite the mega pixel density being much higher in the D500 & D850..

Forgive my ignorance, but sure the higher the pixels the greater the detail or am I missing something in the equation..

Hopefully someone can explain why the difference in 16 megapixel and over 40 is no small.

Regards
 
I totally agree with you and the reason @GreenNinja67 gives above.

I shot for a long time with a Nikon DF (Same sensor as the D4s) and the images from it were/are lovely. I often wish I could go back to one of those and I guess there's no reason why I can't except I am invested in Canon now and to be fair, the AF on the DF wasn't anywhere near as good as the D4s.
 
Having been a Nikon owner previously it's likely the older lenses let down the sensors resolution for D500 and D850, hence you don't see the difference expected.

Colours and the rest will be a mix of things, but should be adjustable in post. For a guess I'd also wonder if Nikon haven't set the pro camera to give better straight out of camera shots knowing many D4 users will not be post-processing. The other 2 are enthusiasts cameras, and images much more likely to be used as a starting point than the final product.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why someone is angry about that comment. More pixels DO NOT make for better sensors.

In fact super sensors like the D850, 5DIV, R5 etc are arguably too large and the ideal MPX would be somewhere around 24-28, allowing for decent resolution combined with highish ISO.
 
DemiLion said:
I have no idea why someone is angry about that comment. More pixels DO NOT make for better sensors.

In fact super sensors like the D850, 5DIV, R5 etc are arguably too large and the ideal MPX would be somewhere around 24-28, allowing for decent resolution combined with highish ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s certainly a theory that is pushed in almost every review printed or in you tube.. that more pixels gives more ability to crop, which also seems common sense, however practical test I’ve done just don’t reflect that with the D4s.. more than doubling the pixel count does little practically..
 
NIKOND500 said:
It’s certainly a theory that is pushed in almost every review printed or in you tube.. that more pixels gives more ability to crop, which also seems common sense, however practical test I’ve done just don’t reflect that with the D4s.. more than doubling the pixel count does little practically..
Click to expand...

Resolution/detail is down to lenses. More pixels can sometimes make the image appear smoother, but if your lens can only resolve 12mpx then a higher res sensor won't help. Of course you *can* crop harder with better high res sensors before noise starts to show, but that's not the same as keeping detail.
 
NIKOND500 said:
It’s certainly a theory that is pushed in almost every review printed or in you tube.. that more pixels gives more ability to crop, which also seems common sense, however practical test I’ve done just don’t reflect that with the D4s.. more than doubling the pixel count does little practically..
Click to expand...

The best mirrorless lenses of today are quite different to the best lenses of the DSLR era never mind anything that came before and what's more they're often very good at wide apertures too. I don't buy cutting edge lenses (except maybe the Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo which I think is outstanding) but even so I do have lenses that simply blow away anything I had in my DSLR days.

I think you need a really good lens if you're going to start to compare cameras and sensor quality.
 
Last edited:
NIKOND500 said:
I’ve been using the Nikon D4s for a good amount of time now, along side my D500.. I have also borrowed a D850, all of which I have tested with my f4 500mm.

Consistently the D4s out performs both in colours and over all appearance of image (subjective I know)..

What I can’t understand is why even when pixel peeking the difference in detail, image sharpness and fine detail improves only a tiny, barely noticeable amount despite the mega pixel density being much higher in the D500 & D850..

Forgive my ignorance, but sure the higher the pixels the greater the detail or am I missing something in the equation..

Hopefully someone can explain why the difference in 16 megapixel and over 40 is no small.

Regards
Click to expand...

It could be a personal preference thing tbf. I had a D4s back in the day and wasn’t that impressed with image quality even then.
 
It is reasonably easy to get sharp image from quite average glass with quite average technique at 16mp resolution. And that still easily gives you very nice a2 print. D850 and all cameras alike require exceptional glass and exceptional technique including exceptional processing to really make the most of it. It is not for everyone
 
I remember reading years ago, a sports photographer, explaining how his new camera, which had a huge amount of megapixels for the time needed faster shutter speeds to get a sharp images compared to his old camera. If my grey matter is correct, he went from a 12MP to a 20MP sensor. I certainly found this to be the case when I purchased a Sony A7 RIV at 61MP and I had to up the shutter speed by one full get equally sharp images compared to my24 MP sensor camera. As others have said, some lenses are also not capable of handling such high MP sensors. I expect if you were to try a Z8 with one of the new Mirrorless lenses you would be pleasantly surprised by the additional detail compared to your D4. I LOVED my Canon 1DX at 18MP but the detail I get from my Sony A1 with GM lenses blows it away.
 
f/2.8 said:
It could be a personal preference thing tbf. I had a D4s back in the day and wasn’t that impressed with image quality even then.
Click to expand...
Doesn't it depend on the sort of photography you do?

Astronomers and forensic scientists (to name but two) require the sharpest, most accurate record of their subject. Others apply different criteria to the equpment they use. Without a clear statement of such needs, it's difficult to assess what others are telling you.
 
NIKOND500 said:
I’ve been using the Nikon D4s for a good amount of time now, along side my D500.. I have also borrowed a D850, all of which I have tested with my f4 500mm.

Consistently the D4s out performs both in colours and over all appearance of image (subjective I know)..

What I can’t understand is why even when pixel peeking the difference in detail, image sharpness and fine detail improves only a tiny, barely noticeable amount despite the mega pixel density being much higher in the D500 & D850..

Forgive my ignorance, but sure the higher the pixels the greater the detail or am I missing something in the equation..

Hopefully someone can explain why the difference in 16 megapixel and over 40 is no small.

Regards
Click to expand...

Higher pixel counts do increase the possible detail capture. However the resolution of the lens also comes into play.

Many lenses, especially those designed during the film era, and during the early days of digital, are working at near their maximum resolution. limit on 16 to 24 mega pixel sensors. They only show a very little improvement of detail capture at higher counts. For example Fuji are retiring their excellent 18-55 Zoom, now that most of their new sensors are in the 40mpx range.

Most manufacturers are trying not to draw people's attention to this problem as they are a long way from updating their lens range to keep up with the recent higher pixel counts.

However our lenses are as good as they ever were, so there is no need to panic. In any event in most instances such effects as camera shake, subject movement, atmospheric conditions, inexact focus and diffraction are more a limiting factor, than lenses definition, or pixel counts.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Doesn't it depend on the sort of photography you do?

Astronomers and forensic scientists (to name but two) require the sharpest, most accurate record of their subject. Others apply different criteria to the equpment they use. Without a clear statement of such needs, it's difficult to assess what others are telling you.
Click to expand...
Also, a lot depends on the level of enlargement needed. It will be important to some to be able to make massive prints, but many people only ever "print" their work on to a computer monitor.

Going back to when I started out in photography, 35mm was a bit of a gimmick, normal amateur formats were either 6x6 or 6x9cm and pro formats were large format ("my" first arysui camera was a 12" x 15" plate camera, and a really big print would be something like 16" x 20". The quality was terrible even at modest magnification, there were a number of reasons for this but basically the lenses were very primitive and were also uncoated.

Today's technology is amazing, but we don't all need the very latest and best:)
 
Pixle size and density affect results. More MP gives a bigger image but smaller individual pixles (to get more in the same area) Nikon at the time of the D4 were leading in low light ability. It seems theres a "sweet spot" for size of pixles vs qualtity as far are high ISO proformance goes. The D4 falls in this "sweet spot".
I have the Canon 5d4 and 5d3, personally I find the 5d3 with lower pixles numbers has the edge over the newer 5d4 in low light. Not done any proper tests just what I'm noticing using them both.
 
Be aware that dxomark uses different cameras for DSLR and mirrorless lenses. If you want to compare sharpness between them (which you probably won't see above 10mpix unless you crop in a lot) then you need to set the Nikon DSLR to a D850 rather than a D800e. The new mirrorless lenses are not quite as good as they appear on the list.
 
It is pretty well impossible to get a true impression of the possible sharpness of a lens as it depends so much on the sensor used to test it. Some lenses max out well before the resolution of a 40 Mpx sensor, and others are able to resolve more than any sensor available today.
However there is little reason to buy into a quality that you will never take advantage of.

This is as true of bodies as much as of lenses.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
However there is little reason to buy into a quality that you will never take advantage of.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

On the other hand, I think that a high pixel count can be useful, when you haven't got a sufficiently long focus lens to hand. That's why I'm thinking about a Nikon D800 or D850, now that the prices seem to be bobbing along at the bottom.
 
Just out of curiosity which version of the 500/4?. Was told in no uncertain terms to get the best from my D500 and D850 that I buy the 'E'.

As good as having more MP does give you more scope for cropping especially if subject is small or far away, the sensors are far less forgiving of poor technique or older lenses... and unless you go for huge prints 12-16Mp seems to be a sweet spot (the 16MP K5ii still seems to be highly regarded by Pentax users) and the 12MP D3 I had was superb...
 
welshwizard645 said:
Just out of curiosity which version of the 500/4?. Was told in no uncertain terms to get the best from my D500 and D850 that I buy the 'E'.

As good as having more MP does give you more scope for cropping especially if subject is small or far away, the sensors are far less forgiving of poor technique or older lenses... and unless you go for huge prints 12-16Mp seems to be a sweet spot (the 16MP K5ii still seems to be highly regarded by Pentax users) and the 12MP D3 I had was superb...
Click to expand...
Mines the older Nikon 500 F4 not the FL..
 
You should have gone to spec savers or buy a better screen, the d850 files are considerably more detailed. Night and day better
 
IMG_3529.png
Yeah it kinda looks considerably more detailed doesn’t it?
Even the difference of the file size is a lot.
.
I like how the files look from my Nikon d70s compared to other Nikons I’ve owned, even compared to the d610 I had. And there’s no question as to which has better image quality. But it’s not all about image quality isn’t it?
 
Last edited:
If you compare jpegs taken from a RAW D850 image at 12M they look pretty much identical in terms of resolution to ones based on 12M D3S RAW images. Same lens, same settings and same subject. D850 MRAW reduced to 12M and SRAW look the same to. I think that there is no benefit to having a better resolution if you are going to reduce the size of the final output to a lower resolution, The images can be made sharper in the picture control if you want.
 
fujilover said:
You should have gone to spec savers or buy a better screen, the d850 files are considerably more detailed. Night and day better
Click to expand...
They might be better, as I said, but the difference is tiny compared to what you’d expect. Images compared on latest Mac so not that..I’m afraid the chase for higher mega pixels is to sell cameras, auto focus has undoubtedly improved with eye detection etc, but imagine quality hasn’t changed that much..

I find a lot of photos are over sharpened in camera or post…

It’s good to have different options, thanks for adding to the discussion
 
fujilover said:
d850 files are considerably more detailed. Night and day better
Click to expand...


They'll certainly be able to show more detail but are probably more likely to look less sharp (at pixel peeping levels) unless absolutely top notch lenses and close to perfect technique are used.
 
Erty said:
If you compare jpegs taken from a RAW D850 image at 12M they look pretty much identical in terms of resolution to ones based on 12M D3S RAW images. Same lens, same settings and same subject. D850 MRAW reduced to 12M and SRAW look the same to. I think that there is no benefit to having a better resolution if you are going to reduce the size of the final output to a lower resolution, The images can be made sharper in the picture control if you want.
Click to expand...
That's hardly why you'd buy an 8K stills camera! In fact give me a 100MP (MF) one, and I'd happily make the full use of its every single megapickle
 
Simply, casting away all the technicalities the benefit of the bigger sensors that are now available is that you can (really) crop and if appropriate get 2 or even 3 useful images from one shot, (maybe good for wedding togs just to mention one area) - of course posting on the internet or on here or for prints to frame and stick around the house 20MP is plenty.

No matter what they say I reckon that 90% of bird photographer always crop to up to 25% of the original image
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
prints to frame and stick around the house 20MP is plenty.
Click to expand...
really? How far do you think this goes? Something from a 60" printer for the Big wall? Just because you haven't gone this big doesn't make it "plenty"
 
LongLensPhotography said:
really? How far do you think this goes? Something from a 60" printer for the Big wall? Just because you haven't gone this big doesn't make it "plenty"
Click to expand...
How near do you get when you are viewing a 60" print?

how many 60" prints do most people "frame and stick around the house"?
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
How near do you get when you are viewing a 60" print?

how many 60" prints do most people "frame and stick around the house"?
Click to expand...
around 1m would be very realistic.

and actually not insignificant... but sadly not a mainstream number... it is a luxury product or they may get some massive nasty modern "painting" or worse still a blank wall with horrible glossy paint and obvious wall defects. You have the luxury to do it on the "cheap" minus the costs of printing for yourself as long as you have the right body and lens to match with a good technique and some nice locations. I have to say 36"x24" still looks decidedly small in a typical small house (that's limited by my printer size) so I have tens of them. You ideally want 44" wide, and proper houses with proper ceiling height definitely can go full 60" without any shadow of a doubt.
 
Technique, and situation usually limits the recorded resolution to well below sensor resolution; and sometimes the lens in use also limits the resolution to less than the sensor is theoretically capable of. But even in those situations increased oversampling (more MP's) almost always increases the recorded resolution to some small extent; it's just far less that the numbers would indicate.

Also note that increased resolution necessarily reduces contrast, but contrast is a large part of our perception of detail/sharpness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top