Nikon D800 at 36mp, Will Canon Respond?

[JonJT]

It's not the resolving power of lenses which is the problem, it's the border & corner performance.  On a 12MP camera it's much less noticeable as the resolution across the frame is more or less uniform, it becomes an issue though as the MP count increases.  The 5D MkII using a 17 - 40mm F/4 at the wide end wide open really shows this problem - plenty of resolution in the centre, no measureable resolution at all in the corners, it's a dramatic fall off which is really noticable.  Up the MP count higher and it'll become even more noticeable as centre performance increases, while border & edge stays the same.

Not trying to rock the boat or start a debate, but I just wanted to get this off my chest... People like to pick apart Canon's ultrawides (i.e. 17-40, 16-35) for example that the corner sharpness is bad, especially at the extremes... Mkay... At the end of the day, what are you shooting in which corner sharpness, especially if used on a Full Frame camera, do you need that corner sharpness?  architecture?  Landscape?  If you are, then why aren't you saving up to use a T/S lens which you would get that corner sharpness such as the new 17mm TS?   That lens is geared for pro architecture/landscape photographers.  17-40, on a crop body, is kinda like a short stubby all around lens however on a full frame, it's as close to a fish eye and you get without the fisheye effect.  That lens is a good lens but has it's place within the professional photographers bag.  I know i'm one to talk and battle this battle on a daily occurance with the costs and everything, but in the end, using a 17-40 or even the 16-35 on a detail critical architecture shoot and then griping about corner sharpness, to me, is like someone using a hack saw to cut off branches off a tree and complaining it's taking to long... It can get the same job done but isn't the correct tool to use.

I donno man.  I think it is wasteful to only consider the most specialized tools for a particular job, particular when the less specific tool has some advantages over the more particular one. 

Photographers, both "prosumer" and professional don't have unlimited resources.  And, sometimes the 17mm TSE just isn't going to cut it, for whatever reason.  That's where those zooms step in.  Nikon understands this, in my opinion.  That's why the 14-24 exists.  Crop shooters have the super sharp Tokina 11-16.  Why can't FF shooters have better performing glass, too?

I fully understand but then again, the 14-24 is at least $500 than the 16-35  and $1000 more than the 17-40.  If/should canon pump out one at the same price point, then it could be argued more apples to apples, but it is what it is.  I work every day as a pro photographer... I used to do a ton of architecture/high end real estate until the market crashed, now i'm doing more commercial.  I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be an equivalent in canon's line-up, but to compare a $700 lens to a $1700 lens I dont think is quite fair on that regards and doesn't quite do it justice... The 17-40 is a fine lens and if you know some short cuts, you can come out with some stunning architecture shots using the sweet spot of the lens and working at it's strengths...

Not gonna argue with that.

[Ivar]

Lovely rumor if true - big future SLR-cameras must be better than smaller sensor companions in every respect to justify their existence. As Sony has shown, a big chunk of MP can be moved quickly these days (24MP@12fps). More pixels are never worse than less, it is the sensor size what defines the IQ and outside factors like lenses, but more MP enable the possibility for better IQ (even ISO is no worse on print than exactly the same sensor with less MP).

[kubelik]

I fully understand but then again, the 14-24 is at least $500 than the 16-35  and $1000 more than the 17-40.  If/should canon pump out one at the same price point, then it could be argued more apples to apples, but it is what it is.  I work every day as a pro photographer... I used to do a ton of architecture/high end real estate until the market crashed, now i'm doing more commercial.  I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be an equivalent in canon's line-up, but to compare a $700 lens to a $1700 lens I dont think is quite fair on that regards and doesn't quite do it justice... The 17-40 is a fine lens and if you know some short cuts, you can come out with some stunning architecture shots using the sweet spot of the lens and working at it's strengths...

awinphoto makes a pretty good point here.  I have the feeling that canon does know that this is a bit of a hole in their lineup, and just as they recently cranked a [stunning] 200-400 f/4 to match/surpass Nikon's, I have a feeling it won't be long before we see a 14-24mm f/2.8 L from Canon.  after all, it's very clear the demand is there, and that people are willing to pay the premium for this lens, so it's just money waiting to be earned by Canon.

the recent comments about canon now diverting focus to its wide angle lenses makes perfect sense as they have pretty much run the gauntlet as far as telephotos go at this point (expect perhaps updating the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 ... but those will probably wait a couple of years until everyone has bought the high-end II-series lenses)

[awinphoto]

awinphoto makes a pretty good point here.  I have the feeling that canon does know that this is a bit of a hole in their lineup, and just as they recently cranked a [stunning] 200-400 f/4 to match/surpass Nikon's, I have a feeling it won't be long before we see a 14-24mm f/2.8 L from Canon.  after all, it's very clear the demand is there, and that people are willing to pay the premium for this lens, so it's just money waiting to be earned by Canon.

the recent comments about canon now diverting focus to its wide angle lenses makes perfect sense as they have pretty much run the gauntlet as far as telephotos go at this point (expect perhaps updating the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6 ... but those will probably wait a couple of years until everyone has bought the high-end II-series lenses)

Thanks... You know, I dont envy the canon lens design engineers... Not only do they have to find new ways to design these lens elements to bend light and not only meet up in unison to create a sharp image, but also get enough light lined up to create a sharp image across the entire frame, and oh yeah, consumers want a 2.8 aperture, oh and it cant be too similar to Sonys/Nikons/Carl Zeiss/etc patents... And then once it's all done, how to make it at a price point where people would want to buy it... Then again thats why they make the money they do... To invalidate "lesser" lenses such as the 17-40/16-35 especially compared to the 14-24 is just not the same, they are two separate animals, different strengths... I do think at one day sooner than later Canon will once again own not only the telephoto lineup but also the ultrawides, but until then there are options... There's TSE lenses which you can rent if need be if you need those critical shots, do pano style shots with 50% overlaps so the sweet spot of the lenses cover the entire scene you wish to cover, merge in photoshop... Quick, easy, and can make stunning photos... That's how I made many of my architecture shots...

[scokar]

why the heartburn over file sizes, folks?

I gotta agree with this, all you people who want a slower car go buy a slower car, but stop telling the manufacturer not to make fast cars, because some of us have races to win....

Since we're going with silly analogies --

When your primary goal is to make the fastest car, you make tradeoffs for that car - safety.  cargo capacity, passenger capacity; affordability; comfort

I don't have a race to win, but I do want consistent, quality, focused images that don't need a main frame to process or fiber optics to get images out of the camera.

TODAY. Right Now.  the % of people NEEDING (life depends on it) 35+ megapixel images is a corner case.  if you want one, then you are a part of that corner.  it just so happens its is easy for Canon to address the needs of this corner case and THEN , improve on DR, noise characteristics (note: NOT quantity), improving ISO quality over entire range.

some are asking Canon to slow down the drive for megapixel supremacy  and put the SAME energy into the other aspects of exposure that a camera creates

[Zuuyi]

and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.

I will take the GTX 570 over a Quadro 5000. And if you really want the best get a GTX 580.  Seeing that they are Adobe certified cards; both of the GTX cards have more Cuda Cores than the Quadro 5000, 480 & 512 respectably.
All 3 are 320 bit cards.

The one main advantage is less energy demand from the Quadro cards.  Because you can get a GTX card with 3gb or 2.5gb of ram now.  And I'll happily save $1500 on a video card.

Quadro cards are amazing in Autodesk & Maya; but for photography and adobe based video a GTX card will do more than enough for a fraction of the price.

Most people here would be better off with a 2GB 560 Ti, 120 GB SSD, and $1300 than a Quadro 5000.

[fotoray]

If the 5Dmk3 has 36MP, I wouldn't buy it unless it  makes coffee *and* give head better than my girlfriend.

Why don't you try another website?

[puqq]

why the heartburn over file sizes, folks?

I gotta agree with this, all you people who want a slower car go buy a slower car, but stop telling the manufacturer not to make fast cars, because some of us have races to win.

It's not that a high mpix count is bad per se, it's that it withdraws attention from more important technical aspects.

Building on your example, unless you are a pixel peeping show off, you do not a car with that is capable of 500km/h top speed but cannot take a sharp turn at 50km/h. In other words, 36mpix is cool, but having several additional ISO steps would permit so much more (imagine street photography in night or candle-lit portraits), let alone higher Dynamic Range- think about perfectly exposed shadow and still detailed blue sky. A real racer will not look at the top speed of a car, but at its acceleration and handling.

[Picsfor]

For me, 36mp for portraiture is just too much. I would rather see less MP, better focusing and higher ISO.

I love to shoot at 6400, it gives a lovely grainy feel to a mono shot; but think how much nicer it would be if I could do that in even lower light.

Every one craves grain free, but grain can be a good thing!

Sorry, noise for the non film users   

The 5D2 is only really lacking a decent focusing system. It has demonstrated over the last few weeks just how good a camera it really is during opposing lighting conditions that change by the minute...

A 36mp D800 would be interesting and most definitely bring about a release by Canon, who I believe pretty much already know what the D800 specs are, but would it be at a price that people are willing to pay - given the price of the 5D2's?

[obscura]

and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.

I will take the GTX 570 over a Quadro 5000. And if you really want the best get a GTX 580.  Seeing that they are Adobe certified cards; both of the GTX cards have more Cuda Cores than the Quadro 5000, 480 & 512 respectably.
All 3 are 320 bit cards.

The one main advantage is less energy demand from the Quadro cards.  Because you can get a GTX card with 3gb or 2.5gb of ram now.  And I'll happily save $1500 on a video card.

Quadro cards are amazing in Autodesk & Maya; but for photography and adobe based video a GTX card will do more than enough for a fraction of the price.

Most people here would be better off with a 2GB 560 Ti, 120 GB SSD, and $1300 than a Quadro 5000.

I have to second this.  I regularly use Avid, Premiere, After FX, Lightroom and Photoshop on both on an old 9series GeForce and a brand new $1800 Quadro 5000 - there is no discernable difference.  I've worked many years in digital media and the Quadro cards give you nothing over a $200 nvidia 'gaming' card when using the aforementioned software.  I know it may be hard to believe since you'd naturally equate such a vast difference in cost to some sort of gain, but there is none.  Poke around the internet and you'll find other testimonials.

[J. McCabe]

If the 5Dmk3 has 36MP, I wouldn't buy it unless it  makes coffee *and* give head better than my girlfriend.

Why don't you try another website?

Why should I ?

If you are unable to cope with people who disagree with you, go get professional help, rather than send people away.

[Blaze]

For me, 36mp for portraiture is just too much. I would rather see less MP, better focusing and higher ISO.

I love to shoot at 6400, it gives a lovely grainy feel to a mono shot; but think how much nicer it would be if I could do that in even lower light.

Every one craves grain free, but grain can be a good thing!

Sorry, noise for the non film users   

The 5D2 is only really lacking a decent focusing system. It has demonstrated over the last few weeks just how good a camera it really is during opposing lighting conditions that change by the minute...

A 36mp D800 would be interesting and most definitely bring about a release by Canon, who I believe pretty much already know what the D800 specs are, but would it be at a price that people are willing to pay - given the price of the 5D2's?

You can always add grain in post. It's a bit trickier to take it out. I'm definitely hoping for a big improvement in high ISO performance. There's never enough light when I shoot indoor sports.

[epsiloneri]

Every one craves grain free, but grain can be a good thing!

Sure, but we want pretty grain, not ugly grain! That is, homogeneous isotropic random noise is fine but please reduce the ugly "pattern" noise that the 5D2 suffers from.

[kubelik]

and by production graphics cards, I mean Nvidia Quadro or AMD Firepro cards ... don't get the stuff your buddies use for gaming if you're concerned about per-dollar performance in graphics applications.

I will take the GTX 570 over a Quadro 5000. And if you really want the best get a GTX 580.  Seeing that they are Adobe certified cards; both of the GTX cards have more Cuda Cores than the Quadro 5000, 480 & 512 respectably.
All 3 are 320 bit cards.

The one main advantage is less energy demand from the Quadro cards.  Because you can get a GTX card with 3gb or 2.5gb of ram now.  And I'll happily save $1500 on a video card.

Quadro cards are amazing in Autodesk & Maya; but for photography and adobe based video a GTX card will do more than enough for a fraction of the price.

Most people here would be better off with a 2GB 560 Ti, 120 GB SSD, and $1300 than a Quadro 5000.

I have to second this.  I regularly use Avid, Premiere, After FX, Lightroom and Photoshop on both on an old 9series GeForce and a brand new $1800 Quadro 5000 - there is no discernable difference.  I've worked many years in digital media and the Quadro cards give you nothing over a $200 nvidia 'gaming' card when using the aforementioned software.  I know it may be hard to believe since you'd naturally equate such a vast difference in cost to some sort of gain, but there is none.  Poke around the internet and you'll find other testimonials.

hi guys, thanks for correcting me on that.  you're right, I was thinking of 3D applications when I wrote that, but for 2D photo work, the gaming cards are indeed a better bang for the buck.  I appreciate the catch.

the original point stands as regards to the poster's computer setup; I would be very surprised given the quad core 3 GHz and 8 GB of RAM that he would have any issues with processing images off of the 5D Mark II; the only thing I can think of is getting 1 or 2 graphics cards to do some extra lifting.

[moreorless]

One thing to consider is that Canon might actually have a mirrorless  as there "cheap" FF body. That would likely steal Nikon's thunder even if it didnt outspec the D800.