Nikon D5500 is official!

[Deezey]

For existing camera users it may be the touch screen is of little interest but what about phone users buying there first DSLR they may want it.

If it ain't got a touchscreen...my girlfriends kids can figure out how to operate it....lol.

funny....but at the same time....very very sad.

 

[J-see]

I discovered the guy responsible for the confusion:

The term photo-macrograph was proposed in 1899 by W. H. Walmsley for close-up images with less than 10 diameters magnification, to distinguish from true photo-micrographs.

Photo-macrography, now there's a word that doesn't roll off the tongue easy. So basically macro-photography is macro-microphotography.

I'm already impressed they could shoot macro in 1899.

 

[J-see]

I don't know if it is correct but I just stumbled upon a page that had some parameters for the D5500.

Pixel pitch is 5.9 micron which is the same size as those on the D750 sensor and that will be quite an improvement in SNR for each sensor pixel.

I'm curious if that is correct since I have a hard time imagining how they can fit larger pixels on the same sensor area they now use with smaller pixels.

 

[SkvLTD]

I don't know if it is correct but I just stumbled upon a page that had some parameters for the D5500.

Pixel pitch is 5.9 micron which is the same size as those on the D750 sensor and that will be quite an improvement in SNR for each sensor pixel.

I'm curious if that is correct since I have a hard time imagining how they can fit larger pixels on the same sensor area they now use with smaller pixels.

Its not that they lack the means, its that there's no reason not to milk the market with subtle upgrades step by step. Give us a 3x00 series camera that can handle ISO better than a D4 and going for a D4 will start to seem trivial for "a few extra features".

Look at the new AF systems that only used to be in higher-end bodies.

 

[J-see]

Its not that they lack the means, its that there's no reason not to milk the market with subtle upgrades step by step. Give us a 3x00 series camera that can handle ISO better than a D4 and going for a D4 will start to seem trivial for "a few extra features".

Look at the new AF systems that only used to be in higher-end bodies.

From what I read ISO control has a lot to do with the sensor pixel size and when going through the list of all cams released during the years, I do notice an increase in Mpix but I also notice those pix getting smaller. The D810 got more but they're slightly smaller than those of the D750 which could explain the difference in noise handling. Canon seems to prefer the "less but bigger" approach.

The DF and D4S have both some impressive sized pixels but sacrifice resolution for that.


I think they can easily add everything else to a newer cam but better ISO handling will be harder. I really makes me wonder if the D5500 pixel size is a typo and should be 3.9 like those of today. They can only change the sensor area when they want to change the pixel dimensions. Which means they'll not be changing the sensor. The D750's sensor is 35.9mm and if you divide that by the 6016 resolution, you roughly get the 5.9 micron each sensor pixel is.

D610 and D750 are both 5.9 so at that level there's no difference between sensors and SNR.

That also means that if the 48Mpix cams they talk about will have the same sensor area, they'll have to shrink the sensor pixels to some 4.5 micron which isn't a good thing. If they then want less noise, they have to start cheating.