Big Megapixel Camera in 2014

[jrista]

Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good". Consumer sentiment would indicate otherwise. Brand B certainly has a better image sensor...but its camera has a variety of issues, say, with white balance, LCD screen rendition, AF system, buffer unload rate, etc. Brand B has great glass, but it is not as good as Brand A. Brand B's camera is phenomenal for some things, but Brand A's camera is phenomenal for just about everything, with a few caveats at really low ISO...

So...IS it really true that Brand B makes a camera "at least as good" as Brand A? Technologically speaking, they certainly have an edge. Overall, consumer sentiment seems to indicate Brand A still makes a better camera. And that sentiment has nothing to do with brainwashing or existing gear or anything like that (we've seen plenty of cases of switchers here on CR, where people have literally dumped their entire Canon kit and switched to Nikon or vice versa.)

As for price/performance...the D800 does have a phenomenal sensor. However that camera is clearly not as viable in as many use cases as the 5D III. Its gargantuan file sizes has turned more than a majority of wedding photographers off. It's lackluster frame rate without spending additional money on a battery grip (which normalizes the price gap and offers a size/weight ratio benefit to the competition). The poor full buffer clear rate of the D800 creates a lag in your ability to keep shooting, where as Canon cameras just keep on plugging away.

If you consider sensor the singular factor that affects a camera's competitiveness, and it actually turns out that sensor is indeed the primary thing that affects IQ for the kind of photography you do (I can think of one case where that is probably always true...landscape photography), and you are completely unwilling to wait and see what Canon does...then dumping your kit and jumping ships, or straddling both the Canon and Nikon ships, is probably the solution to your problem. Does that mean you are getting a better price/performance ratio? Well, if you do not yet currently own Nikon, and do own Canon, your price point for the D800 for better low ISO IQ (and ONLY better low ISO IQ) is a hell of a lot higher...you need at least one comparable lens. If you just pick up the competing Canon camera, even though the single-item price point is potentially higher (depends on whether you actually get that battery grip for the D800 or not), the total cost to upgrade and not jump ship puts you at a better price/performance ratio.

Rationalism isn't as cut and dry it might seem when one only factors image sensor into the basis of image quality and bang for the buck. I'd say the market is pretty rational already, and that photographers already are purchasing the camera with the best price/performance ratio for the kind of work they do. If the D800, D600, etc. were hands down far better cameras than the Canon alternatives, consumers would be buying Nikon.

Everything you say is of course true, but sadly everything you flag up as of limited appeal is of great interest to me and the Canon advantages I don't see as advantages. Thats why I am dissapointed that Canon have chosen to dump all their loyal IDs customers in favour of video and sports use. I am really not bothered if a camera of mine took just 1 shot per second, frame rates and buffer sizes, like high ISO noise, is of no interest.

I fully understand that something like the 1Dx will be perfect for some, all I want is for Canon to consider both sides which at the moment they are not doing.

If that is what you need that is fine. I also would not go so far as to say Canon has "chosen to dump you". On the contrary, it is clear Canon has NOT dumped you, and the reason they have not released a big MP camera yet is they need more time to make it what you want it to be...low noise at low ISO, high dynamic range, etc. But you have to realize, if the D800 had never come along, everyone would still consider the 5D II to be a phenomenal landscape and studio camera. UNTIL the advent of Sony Exmor sensors, no one would have questioned the quality of Canon products. They were great, with excellent IQ, the best of the best at everything, before the D800. Simple fact of the matter is they are STILL great, with excellent IQ, now that the D800 is here. The only difference is now they are not the best of the best at everything...only the best at most things except low ISO IQ.

You also have to realize that you are part of the minority of photographers, not the majority. If you take a small leap back in time, before all of the camera releases in late 2011/early 2012...do  you remember what everyone was asking for? Do you remember all the things people DID bitch about regarding Canon sensors? Everyone complained that there were TOO MANY megapixels. Everyone complained that there was not enough high ISO, and they needed more. Everyone complained that there was too much noise at high ISO. Everyone demanded less megapixels, higher ISO, and better noise characteristics at those higher ISO settings. Everyone, in this context, is the vast majority of Canon's customer base...wedding photographers, sports photographers, wildlife and bird photographers, etc. I think studio photographers who used Canon gear were happy with what they had in the 1Ds III...assuming they did not use a medium format digital camera (which I think is really the majority of studio photographers.) Landscape photographers raved about how great the 5D II was. The biggest complaints elsewise came from the high-end sports group using the 1D line, who had experienced problems with the 1D III AF system, and who wanted something better than the 1D IV AF system that was more competitive against Nikon's new-at-the-time reticulated AF system.

Canon gave the very vast majority of their customers EXACTLY what they were asking for! "We want fewer pixels that do higher ISO and do it better...oh, and throw in a better AF system too."

Today...everyone is asking for something different. Today, everyone wants better low ISO performance and improved low ISO dynamic range. Canon listened to their customers quite well in the past, and gave everyone exactly what they asked for in the last round of camera releases. I have confidence Canon is doing everything they can to meet their customer's demands regarding the next round of camera releases.

I think the 7D II will have much lower noise at all ISO settings, and a stop or two of expanded high ISO usage, thanks to much higher Q.E. I think the Big Megapixel Monster will have not only a very high megapixel count, I also think those megapixels will be fairly competitive next to something like the D800. If the IQ of the 6D is indicative of anything, it seems clear that Canon has nearly eliminated chroma noise at most ISO settings, particularly lower ISO settings in the deep shadows, where as even the 5D III still exhibits a fair amount. All that really remains is for Canon to eliminate banding noise.

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.

[motorhead]

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.
[/quote]

Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back. They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks. What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.

[bdunbar79]

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.

Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back. They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks. What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.
[/quote]

I'm not sure Canon is paying any price, as they lead DSLR sales.

[dafrank]

I fully understand that something like the 1Dx will be perfect for some, all I want is for Canon to consider both sides which at the moment they are not doing.

So what would be in it for the customer? I would hope:
1. At least one "native" UWA of much better quality vs size/cost than SLR UWAs (why are Leica WAs so compact yet highly rated?). Possibly tilt/shift.
-h

Just to let you know a little detail about the Leica wide angles. They are always small and sometimes light in comparison to all wide angles for SLR cameras of any sort, because they are designed totally differently; they are true wide angles in design, while SLR and DSLR wides are "retrofocus" designs - reverse telephotos in effect. Take a telephpoto lens, look through the front to the rear and what you see is the type of field effect that a retrofocus wide angle will yield. This design is necessary because of the mirror inherent in single lens reflex design and the extra space it takes up between the back of the lens and the sensor; it imposes a design requirement to achieve a wide angle of view that makes a "true wide angle design" like Leica's impossible to use, because those are designed for a camera in which their rearmost elements can be situated very, very close to the sensor itself. This allows them to be very small in size compared to SLR lenses, but also introduces some optical problems of their own when using digital sensors, rather than film. Leica and others have done a very good job with these designs and the results speak for themselves. But, Canon cannot make their DSLR lenses that small; such a design would have to defy the currently understood laws and limitations of optical design.

Regards,
David

[jrista]

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.

Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back.

Is that not exactly what I was saying?

They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks.

Canon is paying a price? What price? They are the world's top camera seller, top in DSLRs. They make more money on camera sales than any other company, including Nikon and Sony.

What lesson has Canon learned? That sticking to their guns in a tough economy where garnering sales growth is difficult, and banking their money for more prosperous times (such as, oh, I dunno...2013 where markets are clearly recovering?) is a financially sound decision and has kept them in a profitable position, while many of their competitors, including Sony, are deeply in debt?

Canon is doing exceptionally well, all things considered. A double-dip recession, multiple ecological disasters, slowing growth in the DSLR market at large, etc. etc. And they are STILL making bank! Canon is not paying any price, and if they have learned any lesson, it's that what they are doing works from a business standpoint, and IS satisfying the vast majority of their customers.

It is only the wild notions of the crazy wackos on sites like CR, DPR, FR, etc. who insist that low-ISO IQ is the SOLE factor in total camera quality that could possibly indicate that Canon is doing anything wrong, that they are paying any kind of price, and that they have lessons to learn for their "bad" behavior. Get your head out of your hole, poke it above the horizon, and look around...Canon is kicking ass on nearly every front.

What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.

It may never be your choice, however there are statistically many more photographers who need higher shutter speeds at lower light levels than those who need perfect low-ISO IQ. The only real fields of photography where ISO 100 is the staple of their photography are landscape and architectural photographers, who are able to pop their camera on top of a super-sturdy tripod, pop in a remote shutter release, carefully compose and focus their scene, then sit back and open the shutter. Nearly every other field of photography requires either hand-holding a camera with wider-angle lenses, or using extremely long supertelephoto lenses on or off tripods, where very high shutter speeds are essential to getting the shot, which in turn requires high ISO. Reducing noise at high ISO, and expanding the range of high ISO settings, is what the majority of photographers need, what they asked for, and what Canon gave them.

I don't deny Canon could certainly improve their low ISO IQ. Their banding noise has become their bane at low ISO. A move to a smaller fabrication process will give them the die space they need to slap on some additional circuitry and solve that problem, so the real question is whether Canon IS going to move to a smaller process. Chipworks recently showed some photos of a Canon 180nm process that used copper interlinks and lightpipe technology, so it is clear that Canon is at the very least WORKING on moving to a new process. Whether they do, and whether doing so allows Canon to continue offering the things their customers really need, remains to be seen.

[jrista]

If share price is an indication of how a company is doing! Then Canon are very well served by not bothering, so far, with a high megapixel wider dynamic range 135 format sensor, well certainly much better than Nikon.

http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/07/nikon-stock-plummets-19-biggest-drop-since-1985/

"Businessweek writes that the price drop was the largest single day decline in Nikon’s stock since 1985. It happened after the company cut its profit forecast due to decreasing demand and plummeting prices."

Kind of makes you think the D800 should have been priced at $3500, rather than $3000. It's a tough market out there, but undercutting yourself so much that you can no longer maintain profits is counter-intuitive. I'd even offer that people would be interested in the D800 even if it was more expensive than the 5D III, as there is no question it is the king of IQ in 35mm format.

All things considered, I a little bummed by this news. Competition is so critical for consumers...it leads to the kinds of innovations that found their way into all the cameras released last year, and hopefully more this year. It would be great to see Nikon stock (and sales) pick up throughout the rest of the year. I'd rather not see Canon become an even larger player than it already is, or become a default monopoly...that would be bad (even though it is my chosen brand.) Competition is GOOD!

[motorhead]

Nikon were so far behind for so long they have ended up shooting themselves in the foot. But I don't believe that changes the gloomy outlook for pure stills orientated high end gear.

I've read in the last day or so that Nikon took 40 plus percent of the UK market in dSLR's last year. That's a pretty good batting average! I don't know how much of the total market is taken by the smaller players, but I'm prepared to bet that Canon cannot have done as well.

[RGomezPhotos]

I can't wait for some solid news on this bad boy! 

[Photomoose]

I wish to weigh in on not the speculatation of a larger mpx camera, but my personal experiance and desire for Canon to join the party. I'm a professional wildlife and landscape photographer and have been so since 1974 which means I have seen alot of equipment between my eye and subject. I have been shooting side-by-side since their release both the 5d3 and D800 and Im torn right down the middle. Heres my take away:

1) I love the way the 5d3 feels in my hand and functions. Function and ease of use is close to the top of my list when choosing a camera. Maybe the best two features I like is the C# dial settings and ease of switching from Single shot to Al-servo with the push of programable button. On the D800 you need two hands and be somewhat of a contortionist.

2) Low light (high ISO) situations with wildlife is a daily issue for me and while both camps get excited about their products results the fact is at high ISO (lets just say 12,000 and up for discussion) give nothing better than a record shot or best use a small jpg for screen display only. I know, I know, I have seen and read others argue their results are simply amazing. I'm happy your happy. Lets move on.

3) Frame rate: The D800 is not the camera if high frame rate is important. It is simply slow and takes for ever to refresh, Period. The 5d3 is not much faster, but at least refreshes in less time. Personally unless I'm shooting hummingbird the 5d3 is just fine and in fact the percentage of OOF images with the 5d3 is very low compared to my 1dX. Most the bird life I photograph (and I'm not saying I'm a big birder) I have taken away some great images with the 5d3 that was just not possible with the D800. The good news for me is that most the wildlife I photograph I have never felt I needed 14 fps. I can do that with the 1dx, but OMG thats a lot of editing. Side bar: If you have ever been in Yellowstone photographing lets say a bear, there is likely to be at least a dozen or more photographers standing side by side with you and than the bear moves an ear. The sound of hundreds of frames per second that you hear always makes me chuckle. I digress...

4) When you talk about camera bodies and megapixels there must be some discussion of lenses. Again I use both worlds and you can show me all the graphs you want, but in my world IQ from both lines are close to  equal. With that said I feel Canon has put a lot of R&D in recent years into their 'L' prime lenses. I simply love them! Sharpness is simply outstanding and heres the kicker, the weight! Not sure how they do it, but I think this is what keeps me with Canon. My go to lens is my Canon 600mm. I spent the last year with a Nikon 600mm lens and while the IQ is outstanding it weighs pounds more than the new Canon 600mm and when your my age and carrying it over your shoulder for miles while walking though river banks looking for moose it makes a huge difference. Not a fan of zoom lenses, I dont care who makes them.

5) Final point and this brings me back to this thread: Megapixel. I have looked over hundreds of shots with both cameras and megapixels matter. Again, you can show me all your graphs, but the end result is what brings home the bacon. Hands down the d800 IQ is hard to beat. I'm very pleased with the 5d3 (I still own two), but the 36megapixel is going knock your socks off.

My conclusion is that they both have advantages. If I was king my camera would feel and function like my 5d3 with 36 megapixels. Someday after I'm long gone there will be 80 megapixel camera that fit in you pocket with one lens that does it all with large format results, but until than and while I'm in the game all I ask Canon for is 36 (give or take a few). I think in todays technology there is no reason our DSLR's can't offer IQ that rivals medium format after all they did back in the days of film so why not digital. We are so close.