« on: November 20, 2011, 11:26:17 AM »
The term "megapixel race" is thrown around a lot, I think somewhat erroneously. There is no "race," but rather progress. As companies are able to deliver cameras that improve digital noise and add more sophisticated features while simultaneously delivering the OPTION of higher resolution (don't forget, you don't have to shoot full size RAWs), why wouldn't they? Don't you think consumers would complain if they knew a technology was capable of 36mp but companies were only delivering 12? I, for one, am happy that 35mm cameras are beginning to reach the resolution of MF, at least in terms of sensor capability.
Some thoughts on the D800/5d Mark III: This may be the new look of the "studio camera." Why do you need 1-series weather sealing in a studio? I'd expect the new standard size cameras to present a full set of pro features in a compact body designed for studio work, but capable of light field work for photojournalists, landscape photographers, wedding photographers, and the like. I think many photographers who started with film have never liked the large 1D body size anyway; I'd far prefer something to which I can attach a grip if I needed it, but otherwise could be compact. The 5d Mark II with enhanced resolution, the new pro autofocus, 100% viewfinder coverage, two card slots, and a slightly extended battery life, plus unlocked software features, would pretty much fit that bill, possibly coming in at around $3,500. Such a price point would leave open a spot for a re-packaged 5d Mark II sensor in a smaller body with fewer features for about $1,800. Just some thoughts. What do you all think?