Nikon D800 Outed?

[pulsiv]

I think, Canon will make that 30-40 mpixel full frame monster... and they will most likely not make it a bargain... they aim for the 1Ds- and 5DII-owners... and as they do that... they will implement some stuff from the 1-series, but not much... just enough to justify a significant price mark-up.
but what choice does the average gear-aquisition-syndrome-ridden user have...?

[sjprg]

Well if the D800 does have the rumored 36 MPs AND the lack of an AA filter I'll probaly jump ship if Canon doesn't respond with the same of better at under $8,000. Either there or the Mamiya 645DF.
Paul

[anthony11]

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?

It's not an "OPTION".  Selecting fewer pixels to save to storage doesn't make those pixels any larger on the sensor, or give them another stop or two of sensitivity.  I don't need the ability map pixels 1:1 to billboards, but being able to shoot my son indoors without motion blur would be awesome.  Screw 36 MP.  Give me 12 with another stop or two of usable ISO / aperture instead.

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. 

Would the same consumers eventually complain if, unlike the proles, they awakened and began to understood that diffraction is already making today's pixel densities worthless?  Will nobody be satisfied until we hit DLA at f/2.8?

[anthony11]

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?

[szmigielDESIGN]

(...)  Will nobody be satisfied until we hit DLA at f/2.8?

That's quite the point.
I'd rather see an X3 sensor with 9 - 12 megapixels with usable 6400 ISO instead of quadrillion megapixels.

It still makes me wonder how would my 7D perform with the same technology, but 12 megapixels instead of 18.

[KeithR]

Would the same consumers eventually complain if, unlike the proles, they awakened and began to understood that diffraction is already making today's pixel densities worthless?

Diffraction is a non-issue in the Real World.

Read this: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

And, in particular, this:

Are smaller pixels somehow worse? Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached with large pixels does not mean the final photo will be any worse than if there were instead smaller pixels and the limit was surpassed; both scenarios still have the same total resolution (although one will produce a larger file). Even though the resolution is the same, the camera with the smaller pixels will render the photo with fewer artifacts (such as color moiré and aliasing). Smaller pixels also provide the flexibility of having better resolution with larger apertures, in situations where the depth of field can be more shallow. When other factors such as noise and depth of field are considered, the answer as to which is better becomes more complicated.

I'll have those small pixels please, plenty of 'em, and I won't worry one little bit about diffraction.

[KeithR]

Him and the not insignificant crowd of people who use a high resolution camera with a crop factor - bird photographers, sports and news types...I doubt many are smiling benevolently on Canon's youthful blunder of the f/5.6 AF limit, either.

I'm a bird 'tog too, and I'm also surprised at the f/5.6 AF limit: but I don't believe for a second that Canon will change its direction just because I - or anyone else - complains on an internet forum about it or threatens to spend my hard-earned elswhere.

They're not in the business of building me my camera: all any of us can ever do is hope that what they do build ticks enough of our own personal boxes.

[motorhead]

I find it very curious that the users who want low megapixel counts and high ISO seem to want to rubbish those of use who want/need exactly the opposite.

I'll never rubbish anothers needs because they are different from my own, but then I do expect the same consideration from others. Not so much here, where everyone is friendly, but on at least one Canon forum I used to frequent, the users want to draw blood.

My own work tends to be very methodical and slow moving. It makes much use of tripods, low ISO and slow shutter speeds, nothing like the photojournalistist or sports news togs need. Hence my wanting Canon to produce a D800 competitor.

[candyman]

OFF Topic

Richard

www.rcb4344.zenfolio.com

Beautiful photos

btw Pont du Gard; did you walk on top of it? I did in 1980. Amazing

[smirkypants]

A D800 + a 200-400 f4 lens sounds like a pretty killer sports camera. Think how much you could crop!

[psycho5]

screw it... the 1Dx is my next body since the amount necessary to process  36mp images and a 5D3 would come out to be more than a 1Dx, so why not skip the BS and daydreaming and get the absolute best?

My 7D is 18mp, the 1Dx is 18mp, so the file size shouldnt be too different. Can spring come any quicker? ill be laughing with a new 1Dx while all the fools (a lot of my friends who are megapixel whores) with the next 5D complain about large file sizes and how their camera is more noisy in low light.

$6800... at least ill get the sensor I want without waiting for the S___heads at canon to finally make an outdoor FF (like 7D)

[alipaulphotography]

screw it... the 1Dx is my next body since the amount necessary to process  36mp images and a 5D3 would come out to be more than a 1Dx, so why not skip the BS and daydreaming and get the absolute best?

My 7D is 18mp, the 1Dx is 18mp, so the file size shouldnt be too different. Can spring come any quicker? ill be laughing with a new 1Dx while all the fools (a lot of my friends who are megapixel whores) with the next 5D complain about large file sizes and how their camera is more noisy in low light.

$6800... at least ill get the sensor I want without waiting for the S___heads at canon to finally make an outdoor FF (like 7D)

This is exactly canons plan. I am very tempted to do the same but don't want to give into canons money making master plan. I guess I can cope with crap autofocus for now...

[motorhead]

Candyman,

"Beautiful photos   btw Pont du Gard; did you walk on top of it? I did in 1980. Amazing"
Thank you, very much appreciated.  Although no, we did not walk on the very top, we did cross at a lower level.

Cheers,

[NXT1000]

what is this? i thought canon is the megapixel king, and nikon years behind? But now it seem that for a short time, nikon might be the megapixel king, if the rumor is true of course. I hope so.

[Sunnystate]

If you try to "push" $11,000.00 lenses replacements, you would to build flagship cameras that do not support converters...
Canon is to obvious, out of control milking is going on like there is no tomorrow... !

Him and the not insignificant crowd of people who use a high resolution camera with a crop factor - bird photographers, sports and news types...I doubt many are smiling benevolently on Canon's youthful blunder of the f/5.6 AF limit, either.

I'm a bird 'tog too, and I'm also surprised at the f/5.6 AF limit: but I don't believe for a second that Canon will change its direction just because I - or anyone else - complains on an internet forum about it or threatens to spend my hard-earned elswhere.

They're not in the business of building me my camera: all any of us can ever do is hope that what they do build ticks enough of our own personal boxes.