An Update on the 75+mp Camera in the Wild

[bdunbar79]

It is absurd to have to add a flash just to get a little fill flash or photo-trigger from time to time. At least Nikon is gracious enough to supply that.

I use a TS-E 24L II. The graciously-provided popup flash on the D800 interferes with full rotation of the PC-E 24mm. Granted, that's not going to be an issue for too many people, but personally, it would annoy me.

yes but Nikon have also high iso and DR + megapixel

But is that helping them sell more dSLRs than Canon? :

Funny story about the more MPs - I was out shooting yesterday with a couple of Nikon shooters. One was looking to upgrade her main wedding camera, and she said she called NPS and the recommended getting the D600 and not the D800 for shooting weddings. When even Nikon recommends not getting the D800.... The other Nikon shooter recommended picking up a used D700 instead of the D800.

spreading lays and myths-why?
we can take the cars examples again, Toyota are the best selling cars company, I do not drive Toyota and several with me who wants a better car

 

[Don Haines]

Gentlemen.....not everyone has the same needs and/or desire..... Just because you care deeply about DR does not mean everyone does.

Personally, I care a lot more about focus. I see this split pixel innovation on the 70D as ground breaking. Not only does it have the potential of more accurate focus and faster focus, plus supporting slower lenses, think about the possibilities with focus tracking. Instead of jumping between a few autofocus points on a dedicated sensor ( and compared to 20 million, 63 is VERY few), the camera has the potential for much smoother tracking. If your picture is out of focus, who cares what the noise, DR, or ISO was......

And with your precious DR, consider what happens with split pixels when Canon decides to do HDR by having one half at one ISO and the other half 8 or 10 stops away????? If we have thought of it, Canon has thought of it.

The times, they are a changing........

 

[pulseimages]

I would love a high megapixel Canon DSLR but unfortunately Canon will over price it just like they did with the 5D Mark III.

 

[jrista]

Gentlemen.....not everyone has the same needs and/or desire..... Just because you care deeply about DR does not mean everyone does.

Personally, I care a lot more about focus. I see this split pixel innovation on the 70D as ground breaking. Not only does it have the potential of more accurate focus and faster focus, plus supporting slower lenses, think about the possibilities with focus tracking. Instead of jumping between a few autofocus points on a dedicated sensor ( and compared to 20 million, 63 is VERY few), the camera has the potential for much smoother tracking. If your picture is out of focus, who cares what the noise, DR, or ISO was......

And with your precious DR, consider what happens with split pixels when Canon decides to do HDR by having one half at one ISO and the other half 8 or 10 stops away????? If we have thought of it, Canon has thought of it.

The times, they are a changing........

Haha! That Gollum image is great!

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Uh, that DR-obsessed guy reminds me of that notorious poster on the DPR Canon forums who is a self-confessed Nikon fanb0i and yet most of his posts are in the Canon forums (hint: his avatar is a balding cartoon guy drooling). That's like listening to good 'ole (also) self-confessed Nikon fan Thom Bombadil prognosticating about Canon roadmaps & future tech when it is in his financial interest to promote Nikon products because he is selling Nikon camera guidebooks that he himself wrote!

 

[aznable]

fuji has more DR than nikon sensor and they are being outsold by nikon too... so better the DR worst the sales of cameras; canon execs have to care about their stakeolders, that's the reason because they dont improve DR on their sensors

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

fuji has more DR than nikon sensor and they are being outsold by nikon too... so better the DR worst the sales of cameras; canon execs have to care about their stakeolders, that's the reason because they dont improve DR on their sensors

A lot of quite possible false assumptions being made here. Maybe Fuji would be even worse off if they had poor DR. Maybe Canon would realllllly have been spanking Nikon if they had moved top AF down the liner sooner and improved DR sooner. Who knows. But you just can't point to sales and say that what they did necessarily was for the best for sales (and it certainly isn't best for the user.... well unless maybe you own a LOT of stock hah).

 

[jrista]

More pixels would be nice, but more dynamic range would be much more appreciated. I just hope if they do have something good in the works, they at least announce it before my CPS membership expires...

with Canons existing read out more pixels are equivalent to better read out noise at base iso

It actually doesn't matter. The read noise is relative to the total charge. Bigger pixels have a higher maximum charge, and have a proportionally greater read noise, relative to their pixel area. Conversely, smaller pixels have a lower maximum charge, and also have proportionally less read noise, again relative to their pixel area. It doesn't matter if you have 30e- with 65,000e- FWC, or 8e- with 20,000e- FWC...same difference in the end.

If it DID matter, then Canon cameras with APS-C sensors and small pixels would have better DR at low ISO than FF sensors with large pixels. As it stands, the difference between the two is negligible. The problem isn't the pixels themselves...its downstream from the pixels.

 

[neuroanatomist]

fuji has more DR than nikon sensor and they are being outsold by nikon too... so better the DR worst the sales of cameras; canon execs have to care about their stakeolders, that's the reason because they dont improve DR on their sensors

A lot of quite possible false assumptions being made here. Maybe Fuji would be even worse off if they had poor DR. Maybe Canon would realllllly have been spanking Nikon if they had moved top AF down the liner sooner and improved DR sooner. Who knows. But you just can't point to sales and say that what they did necessarily was for the best for sales (and it certainly isn't best for the user.... well unless maybe you own a LOT of stock hah).

If Ford had made better decisions, the Edsel might still be around. There are a lot of ways for a company to screw up and end up on the bottom of the heap, but far fewer ways to climb to and stay at the top. Could they have done better? We can't know. But they've certainly done well...and better than their competition.

 

[pj1974]

Gentlemen.....not everyone has the same needs and/or desire..... Just because you care deeply about DR does not mean everyone does.

Personally, I care a lot more about focus. I see this split pixel innovation on the 70D as ground breaking. Not only does it have the potential of more accurate focus and faster focus, plus supporting slower lenses, think about the possibilities with focus tracking. Instead of jumping between a few autofocus points on a dedicated sensor ( and compared to 20 million, 63 is VERY few), the camera has the potential for much smoother tracking. If your picture is out of focus, who cares what the noise, DR, or ISO was......

And with your precious DR, consider what happens with split pixels when Canon decides to do HDR by having one half at one ISO and the other half 8 or 10 stops away????? If we have thought of it, Canon has thought of it.

The times, they are a changing........

Great post, Don!

And... truly funny (& applicable) Gollum caption! love it. ;D

Like you, I'm also v much looking forward to what Canon is doing with dual pixels, both as a ground-breaking AF (LiveView) - and other applications - as you said DR / possibly even reducing noise in certain situations by comparing neighbouring pixels.

Cheers.

Paul

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Funny story about the more MPs - I was out shooting yesterday with a couple of Nikon shooters. One was looking to upgrade her main wedding camera, and she said she called NPS and the recommended getting the D600 and not the D800 for shooting weddings. When even Nikon recommends not getting the D800.... The other Nikon shooter recommended picking up a used D700 instead of the D800.

Adding to this --- though some are now coming to like the d800 for weddings, most often I hear nikon users recommend and praise the d3s. the d700 is recommended as the if you don't have the budget for the d3s. I think the whole nik vs canon debate can really be summed up as - the grass is always greener.

I had a second shooter with me recently, he had a d3s and a d4...it was interesting working with those files, but in the real world, not very much different than what came out of my mk3 and my 6d

 

[Skulker]

I would love a high megapixel Canon DSLR but unfortunately Canon will over price it just like they did with the 5D Mark III.

I'm not worried about loads of megapixels, 20 odd is fine for my needs. Yes the 5d3 was a lot of money, but I never think of that as I look at the results I get from it.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51885688

Interesting test that shows that the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is not remotely capable of handling 36MP density on FF anywhere even slightly remotely close to the edges. It shows radically worse 'per pixel' sharpness than the 5D3+24-70 II over much of the frame (that said it DOES pull in noticeably more detail over the entire central portion of the image and almost pulls in the same detail at the edges, comparing both as is the Nikon image looks hideous compared to the 5D3 image overall since such huge areas near the edges look wayyyy soft, however that is an unfair non-normalized comparison and if you downscale you see that the detail delivered is not really more than maybe a trace worse even at the far edges, so the overall D800 image actually is better, since it's noticeably better center frame and very nearly as good at the edges when fairly compared, but the point also is is that their 24-70 can't remotely make use of 36MP FF density other than in the central region of the image). Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is clearly not even quite able to even handle 22MP FF density at the far mid and edges.

So maybe their was some truth to the talk that Canon was refreshing all of their lenses first before unleashing >22MP FF cameras. (granted for wildlife reach and the aps-c region of a FF image they already had lenses that would've made use of more already but maybe they were afraid of all the standard to wide lenses showing awful edges on FF and the crying that would've ensued over that).

Going by this I bet even the 24-70 II won't really be able to pull close to 75MP FF density near the edges at all although it seems like it still might be able to benefit from a bit more than 22MP, maybe 27MP range or so at the far edges? Looks like it might be able to pull in more than the Nikkor at far mids, maybe to 36-40MP level??

I think it also shows that the old 24-105L wouldn't have a prayer of being able to take good advantage of a 36MP FF camera beyond the middle half of the frame, never mind a 75MP FF camera other than maybe (to a reduced degree for 75MP) just in the very center of the frame. (it can't honestly even handle 22MP anywhere near the edges, maybe more like 13MP??).

 

[JR]

I hope they announce such a camera. I would pre-order it in a heart beat!

 

[jrista]

This is the lenses together with D3x and 5dmk2
24Mp and 21Mp

the D3x has higher resolution together with nikon 24-70 than Canon together with the new 24-70 from Canon
My question is, has Rick got a well centered copy of the Nikon lens.

The actual resolution numbers here don't matter. LTRLI's point was that you can obviously see, just with a basic visual inspection, that the D800 with the Nikkor 24-70 performs worse than the 5D III with the Canon 24-70, in the corners. It wouldn't matter what aperture the lens was used at...if the corners are worse t f/8, they are bound to be much worse at a wider (more aberration limited) aperture.

 

[CarlTN]

As I have said before, it does seem that, especially for a 24-70 zoom, it will be difficult to make full use of the outer 30% of the image, when mounted to a very high resolution full frame sensor. But the middle 70% should still resolve plenty of detail. I suspect landscape shooters who print really large, using lenses wider than 24mm, would have an even more difficult time making use of the outer image in those cases. (Even the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 probably will not look "sharp" in its periphery, when coupled to an ~75mp full frame sensor). But of course, there is always stitched panorama...in which case you don't really need or desire, extreme wide angle lenses.

 

[TexasBadger]

Bring us a shrubbery

-- The Knights that say Nee

 

[neuroanatomist]

the D3x has higher resolution together with nikon 24-70 than Canon together with the new 24-70 from Canon
My question is, has Rick got a well centered copy of the Nikon lens.

It makes sense that that would be your question, given the pro-Nikon, anti-Canon bias that your CR posts display.

What if he tested a good copy of the Nikon lens, but got a Canon lens that had internal damage from being dropped to the factory floor a few times before it was shipped, and the Nikon lens still had only very slightly higher numbers? No, that wouldn't fit with your viewpoint at all, would it? :

Ahh, looking at the RAW files are proof. I guess DxO and TDP got not-well copies of the Nikon lens, too.

 

[CarlTN]

with proper USM i don't se any problem with that d800 has a lot more resolution than the canon combo

The parts of the image you enlarged, are in the middle 50% of the image. Not really where the problem comes into play.

 

[neuroanatomist]

with proper USM i don't se any problem with that d800 has a lot more resolution than the canon combo

I guess that DxOMark disagrees... (It seems they're only right when it comes to DR and sensors...even their Lens Score is suspect, because clearly, despite the optical superiority of the Canon lens on most of their measurements, the Nikon combo merely tied the Canon combo, when it obviously should have scored higher : .)