Canon will reclaim their full-frame megapixel crown [CR1]

[Michael Clark]

And they still let you pick which of those options you want. They generally don't arbitrarily restrict things. Like if you want a red vehicle from Ford you're not forced to buy a F-150 because you can't get red on any other model.

Go into a Ford dealer and try to buy an F-150 with some, but not all, of the options offered in a specific trim level. Let us know what happens.

 

[Michael Clark]

Which brings up his other contradiction. EF glass "works fine on Sony" but he hates the RF mount because it "requires an adapter to mount any of my tilt-shift lenses....." So Sony doesn't require an EF adapter?

While we're at it...



When were used digital backs around the 50mp range ever cheaper than a new 5Dsr? For a while last year I was flirting with the idea of putting together a used digital MF kit and the cheapest backs I could find in that MP range were STILL more expensive than a brand new 5Ds/sr. That's the back. Not the body, and certainly not a Hasselblad body. On eBay a Leaf Aptus-II 56mp Digital Back for the Mamiya 645AFd recently sold for $3,845. A 40mp one went for $2,800 and even the 28mp ones are going for $2k. These are the kind of prices I ran into last year. (After carefully reviewing some sample files and thinking it through I realized there wouldn't really be any gain over my 5Ds at low ISO and the 5Ds would win at high ISO simply because of the generational differences. The idea of digital MF appealed to me but the reality is that you've got to be reasonably current on the silicon. A 150mp Phase One can certainly put 35mm FF to shame, but not a decade old CCD.)

I gotta ask: are you just throwing stuff out there hoping to make Canon sound bad?

For product photography I suppose one could use a digital scanning back. But then one would need to spend a small fortune on very high quality (flickerless) continuous lighting.

 

[sdz]

I wasn't insulted by it at all. I've been a Canon customer since the 1990s.

You should have felt insulted. That you were unaware of or unconcerned about this insult does not alter the fact that it was an insult. If someone were to call you a dirty ~$?!*!%+×@ to your face and if you were not bothered by that fact, we would rightly say that you were insulted and also that you took the insult in stride. The act determines the characteristics attributed to it, not the feelings of the target.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You should have felt insulted. That you were unaware of or unconcerned about this insult does not alter the fact that it was an insult. If someone were to call you a dirty ~$?!*!%+×@ to your face and if you were not bothered by that fact, we would rightly say that you were insulted and also that you took the insult in stride. The act determines the characteristics attributed to it, not the feelings of the target.

So according to you, I should feel insulted that Subaru didn’t include a laser printer in my Outback? LOL.

Perhaps you want to sleep with 1080p24 video as a snuggly toy after kissing it goodnight, but you need to accept the fact that many people simply don’t give a damn about it.

 

[unfocused]

So according to you, I should feel insulted that Subaru didn’t include a laser printer in my Outback? LOL.

Perhaps you want to sleep with 1080p24 video as a snuggly toy after kissing it goodnight, but you need to accept the fact that many people simply don’t give a damn about it.

Maybe it was a micro aggression?

 

[PGSanta]

I suppose some people find established facts and simple logic so intellectually taxing that they would term them ‘mental gymnastics’. Personally, I think that’s sad.

Let's examine what you think "simple logic", and "established facts" are.

First you claim "Sensors hardly seem to matter to the majority of camera buyers, at least that is what the global market share data have been saying for years."

So, you're claiming that Sensors don't matter to camera buyers, because the majority of cameras sold use overwhelmingly lower quality (smaller, inferior, low end, however you want to frame it) sensors. In your mind, this is an established fact, when in reality something like... oh I don't know, price might be a more significant driving force in camera purchases than anything else, but that sensor quality might still be very important. The mere fact that most cameras sold use lower quality sensors does not equate to any consumer stance on sensors at all.

Then you let off this gem: "Or more correctly, the differences between Canon’s sensors and their competitors’ are irrelevant as far as most camera buyers are concerned."

Which, logically, is just as stupid a conclusion as your first statement.

Either you're a troll designed to generate more postings here via conflict, or you're a complete clown. Either way, I'll just ignore your babble from here on out.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Let's examine what you think "simple logic", and "established facts" are.

First you claim "Sensors hardly seem to matter to the majority of camera buyers, at least that is what the global market share data have been saying for years."

So, you're claiming that Sensors don't matter to camera buyers, because the majority of cameras sold use overwhelmingly lower quality (smaller, inferior, low end, however you want to frame it) sensors. In your mind, this is an established fact, when in reality something like... oh I don't know, price might be a more significant driving force in camera purchases than anything else, but that sensor quality might still be very important. The mere fact that most cameras sold use lower quality sensors does not equate to any consumer stance on sensors at all.

Then you let off this gem: "Or more correctly, the differences between Canon’s sensors and their competitors’ are irrelevant as far as most camera buyers are concerned."

Which, logically, is just as stupid a conclusion as your first statement.

Either you're a troll designed to generate more postings here via conflict, or you're a complete clown. Either way, I'll just ignore your babble from here on out.

I guess I used words that were too big for you, or concepts that were too complex, sorry.

You should definitely ignore my posts, and anything else you’re unable to comprehend. Be the ostrich!

 

[Architect1776]

Erm, I don't dare to write this, but my wife still uses 12 MP Nikons, and she makes A3 prints in which you can see every fine hair. Henry Cartier Bresson once said to the younger Helmut Newton: "sharpness is just a bourgeois concept!" Maybe, today, he'd say "many megapixels are just a bourgeois concept" ...

I still use my 10D, 6mp Camera.

 

[AlanF]

DLA only begins to affect image sharpness when viewing at 100% (one image pixel = one screen pixel) on a monitor for which the viewer can discriminate a single pixel from adjacent pixels. For an 80 MP 3:2 image viewed on a 96 ppi monitor, that would be the equivalent of looking at a piece of a 115 x 76 inch image from less than one foot away! One can use apertures well past the DLA before it begins to perceptibly affect an image viewed under standard conditions.

Michael
Unfortunately, many of us birders are in that territory of verging on pixelation, just taking the centre 1500x1500 px or fewer. If I can get a 1000 px in length on a bird, I can usually get a good enough detailed image. But, I get what you mean.

 

[stevelee]

I still use my 10D, 6mp Camera.

I made very nice pictures with a 4MP camera in 2002. A picture I took with it of the Grand Pacific Glacier is printed on 13" x 19" paper is framed and hanging on my wall. It looks great when viewed from a normal distance of 1.5 to 2 feet.

 

[Ozarker]

You're confusing him with facts, man!

He edited out the part where he says he already bought the Sony A7 RII, before commenting on the RP.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Sensors hardly seem to matter to the majority of camera buyers, at least that is what the global market share data have been saying for years.

I guess global market share data matter even less to the camera buyers.

Personally I don't care about the market share data and about what the majority of other buyers think about sensor specs. Sensor specs - I do care about.

 

[AlanF]

I made very nice pictures with a 4MP camera in 2002. A picture I took with it of the Grand Pacific Glacier is printed on 13" x 19" paper is framed and hanging on my wall. It looks great when viewed from a normal distance of 1.5 to 2 feet.

I took some great photos of my daughters wedding in 1998 with an Agfa ePhoto 1280, which had a 0.8 mpx sensor uprezzed to 1.3 mpx by their software.

 

[BillB]

DLA only begins to affect image sharpness when viewing at 100% (one image pixel = one screen pixel) on a monitor for which the viewer can discriminate a single pixel from adjacent pixels. For an 80 MP 3:2 image viewed on a 96 ppi monitor, that would be the equivalent of looking at a piece of a 115 x 76 inch image from less than one foot away! One can use apertures well past the DLA before it begins to perceptibly affect an image viewed under standard conditions.

In any case, the same lens is at the same aperture is going to produce sharper images of equal size using a higher mp sensor than it will using a lower mp sensor of equal quality. DLA never completely cancels out the effect of the additional pixels, or at so I understand.

 

[BillB]

I guess global market share data matter even less to the camera buyers.

Personally I don't care about the market share data and about what the majority of other buyers think about sensor specs. Sensor specs - I do care about.

That's fine. If sensor specs float your boat, go for it. For other buyers, the question is whether the differences in sensor specs make any practical difference.

 

[sdz]

So according to you, I should feel insulted that Subaru didn’t include a laser printer in my Outback? LOL.

Perhaps you want to sleep with 1080p24 video as a snuggly toy after kissing it goodnight, but you need to accept the fact that many people simply don’t give a damn about it.

no, but you should feel insulted if your car maker hurried the window washer box in the engine bay.

You seem to think you are clever....

 

[neuroanatomist]

I guess global market share data matter even less to the camera buyers.

Personally I don't care about the market share data and about what the majority of other buyers think about sensor specs. Sensor specs - I do care about.

Of course buyers don’t care about market share. But they do determine market share, in aggregate. Thus, their aggregate buying decisions give some insight into their priorities. Those insights are far more informative than anecdotes about what one person wants or what ‘all their friends’ are buying.

 

[neuroanatomist]

no, but you should feel insulted if your car maker hurried the window washer box in the engine bay.

You seem to think you are clever....

Just realistic. Sorry, you don’t get to decide what is insulting, for anyone except yourself. Grow up.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Of course buyers don’t care about market share. But they do determine market share, in aggregate. Thus, their aggregate buying decisions give some insight into their priorities. Those insights are far more informative than anecdotes about what one person wants or what ‘all their friends’ are buying.

True. But how should this insight affect my buying decisions? Or anyone else's individual buying decisions?

 

[3kramd5]

True. But how should this insight affect my buying decisions? Or anyone else's individual buying decisions?

It shouldn’t. Nor does it. That information is useful to someone analyzing the market, it not someone buying a product.

*edit:
Typo corrected