More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]

[plutonium10]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

... And I was under the impression that the D700 competed directly with the 5D II and was very much in the same market segment. Is this not the case?

[briansquibb]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

... And I was under the impression that the D700 competed directly with the 5D II and was very much in the same market segment. Is this not the case?

DxO testing is debatable

D700 is 12mp only

[plutonium10]

DxO testing is debatable

Fair enough.

This is the article which has led me to "bash" Canon today. (I dont make a regular habit of it.)
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/

[elflord]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

The D800 and more generally, newer Sony sensors have delivered big performance improvements at low ISOs. This is only relevant if the performance of the Canon sensor at ISO 100 is not good enough for you.

If you do a lot of your shooting at ISO800 or higher, the difference is largely academic.

In particular, if you don't keep your ISO set to 400 or less (make that 200 if you're using an APS-C body) for fear of degrading the image quality, those differences are largely academic.

I'm not dismissing the DxO results or trying to say that there's anything wrong with them, just that they get blown way out of proportion, and people jump on the numbers too quickly without looking at what the implications are to realistic shooting scenarios.

[plutonium10]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

The D800 and more generally, newer Sony sensors have delivered big performance improvements at low ISOs. This is only relevant if the performance of the Canon sensor at ISO 100 is not good enough for you.

If you do a lot of your shooting at ISO800 or higher, the difference is largely academic.

In particular, if you don't keep your ISO set to 400 or less (make that 200 if you're using an APS-C body) for fear of degrading the image quality, those differences are largely academic.

I'm not dismissing the DxO results or trying to say that there's anything wrong with them, just that they get blown way out of proportion, and people jump on the numbers too quickly without looking at what the implications are to realistic shooting scenarios.

Actually, I do shoot all of my landscapes at ISO 100 or 200 except on the rare occasion where the light isn't good enough and I haven't brought a tripod. That gives you an idea of how bad a pixel peeper I am!

[Neeneko]

Actually, I do shoot all of my landscapes at ISO 100 or 200 except on the rare occasion where the light isn't good enough and I haven't brought a tripod. That gives you an idea of how bad a pixel peeper I am!

*nod* I tend to do my landscape work at 100 or 200 also.

I am starting to think the 'high ISO' has become the new megapixel war.

[Marsu42]

I am starting to think the 'high ISO' has become the new megapixel war.

This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

But I think there's a difference to mp. Every little mp increase is nice but not really that important (yes, computing power rises, yes, I've read in the 5d3 threads I'm not supposed to want more mp in spite of shooting macro and cropping a lot). But a little iso noise decrease is nothing, you don't notice it after pp. What would make a difference is a bigger, real leap ahead, diminishing the need for the current heavy and expensive "low light" 2.8 zooms.

[plutonium10]

This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

Yes. I'm excited to see what effect Digic V will have on APS-C image noise.

[Marsu42]

Yes. I'm excited to see what effect Digic V will have on APS-C image noise.

My prediction: none, at least in raw. And I can do smarter, adaptive denoising in pp just fine... A faster cpu is nice for more fps (see dual 7d digic4 with its problems) and hopefully better video contrast af - but imho that's about what you can expect from it.

[Neeneko]

This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

I keep hoping that they will take all this new tech and cheaper manufacturing and focus it towards larger sensors with lower pixel density instead.  The MF/LF market is just itching for something competitive that drags prices down to something sane.... and there are still very few affordable view camera solutions which I suspect eventually people are going to rediscover and want to work with again.

Though I suspect instead, next year, we are going to see 'well, OUR camera can go up to 1M ISO!' 'well, OUR camera can go to 1.2M ISO!'.