Comparisons between DXO and lightroom?
Of course you are completely entitled to you opinion. I think its crazy, but then my photography is only a small niche of the enormous range of subjects.
But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.
Regardless of all the pro/con discussion of MP, image quality, sensitivty, noise, etc:
I shoot stock for a living. It is all I do.
I started with a 1Ds2. I switched to a 5D because it gave me better IQ and made me more profitable. I thought the 5D was good enough.
I resisted the 5D2 for over a year because it made me mad. Who needs more than 13MP for stock. Max size needed is double-truck, for which a 5D does just fine. (well, not really, because now I have customers wanting to do large display prints and even small murals suitable for close viewing distances)
But I continued to inspect the 5D2 files from time to time. Finally I jumped. I wish I had not waited a minute.
The 5D2, along with today's software, gives me files that are just plain better than the 5D files. Even when I reprocess my old 5D files with new software. And the improved quailty is something I need to keep my customers happy. The improved quality is visible in the sizes used in my business. Resolution, noise, smooth tonal transitions, croppability, etc.
21MP is enough to meet the current demands of my job and customers. But just barely enough. Almost everything I shoot is with controlled lighting, so I don't need great high ISO performance except when shooting aerials from a helicopter at dusk. And for that I can rent a 1DX.
What I really need now for my work is 25-30MP. A little more resolution and a little better noise and image quality performance. Plus better lenses. Lenses that are truly good enough. I'd like Canon to re-do the 24-105, because the existing version is so marginal (I've tried 5 different copies so far).
The quality of my work would benefit by moving to MF. But the cost of the total kit (bodies, plus backs, plus lenses) would make the move NOT cost-effective. It would hurt my bottom line significantly. So MF is out.
Therefore my vote is:
- 5D3 with 25-30MP, even if it costs up to $3k. But PLEASE give me better focusing with wider spread on the focus points.
- Better lenses (24-105 IS and 100-400 IS) that can easily more than handle 25-30MP. Even if they have to cost $1500-$3000 to be good enough. A $1000 lens that isn't quite good enough is NO bargain.
Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be?A lot more than I'm currently getting with the T1i! At ISO 400, things often are bad enough for critical purposes.
If you want to be able to submit those pictures for stock or a portfolio, those 18 megapixels go a lot farther (for many uses) if they are cleaner.
We can make this thread even 20 pages and there will still be NO CAMERA announced...
And we can argue about the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in MPs and ISOs and landscapes but there are many gusto's and still NO CAMERA...
So, better discuss more real things which make sense and have a teaching impulse, Canon will do their job some day and deliver a low light DSLR AND a High MP DSLR so we can all have one of each .
I wouldn't be surprised if the 5DIII is just a incremental bump in AF, weather sealing and a "downgrade" to the 18MP sensor to save costs rather than developing a whole new sensor.
The only fly in the ointment with this theory is the purported 36MP in the Nikon D800. Really though is video that big a market that they need dedicated video cameras and bang on about video in the stills cameras? As a stills-only landscape shooter I'm not feeling the love from Canon - seriously thinking of going the Nikon way with a D800 if they don't look after me.