Big Megapixel Camera in 2014

[jrista]

Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?

You do realize how LOW 4k resolution is as far as still photography goes, right? Not everyone is just out to "get the snapshots" like you. To some of us, photography is the core of our being and the primary outlet for our artistic tendencies. I don't want to relegate myself to purposely softened 4k video at 8mp when I can have way better than 4k at 20, 22, 24, 36, or even 40-50 mp. I want the highest quality in the best-made STILL photography camera I can afford. If I can get 20-24mp of high quality pixels at 8-12fps, with a top-notch AF system, and ideal ergonomics, lenses, and other gear for STILL photography, I'm going to do just that.

Video is an entirely different thing, works in a different way, and is in no way a direct replacement for a still photography camera. You will never achieve the same level of quality at the same price point with a video camera as you can with a still camera.



It is quite clear you are just a troll at this point. You have no reasonable arguments, there is no basis for your arguments at all...there is no other logical conclusion other than that you are arguing the contrarian argument simply for the sake of being contrary. If that is the only way you can get your jollies off, to be frank, I pity you. There is more to life than digging lulz out of what you would consider hapless, easy targets on a Canon-dedicated forum. It is a no-win situation for you...terrible and often illogical arguments against a thoroughly aligned front of happy Canon fans... (Of course, as a troll, that is probably exactly where you want to be...so, I'm calling it quits.)

 

[bdunbar79]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

And your point is being stated because??????????????????? What? There are many shots I couldn't have gotten during fast-action basketball games, that I did get, simply because of fps. I guess at the end of the day, who really cares when I got the shot and you didn't. It's hard to print an 8x10 of something you don't have.

Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?

I'm getting that you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

 

[expatinasia]

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

It doesn't lower the keeper ratio, it gives you more keepers and can sometimes give you a headache in which to choose.

You can do the same with lower fps but then there is a certain amount of skill and luck involved, high fps removes some of the luck especially.

Take baseball or cricket or hockey or some such sport. The ball is moving at such speed that milliseconds count.

Ask anyone that shoots pro sports with a 1DX whether they would switch for a high megapixel camera with an fps of 6 and they would most likely laugh at you. High fps makes it easier and increases your chances of getting a perfect shot compared to a good or great shot.

And I have no idea about shooting in video mode or using a 1DC. Those file sizes are insane and you would have to shoot the entire game to make sure you do not miss anything, it would be a night mare. Plus there are a lot of very strict rules about taking moving pictures (video) at sporting events (even if you promise to later on take stills from it. But it does not matter sports=more fps please.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

But my second point which I meant to add on is that either shooter, skilled or not gets more better sports shots with 12fps than 4fps or a better AFing camera than a poor one, etc.

It doesn't just give more, it gives more better. At 4fps you basically get one key frame from most sports action sequences and if something gets blocked or goes weird with that frame or if an even more dramatic thing happened an instant later, forget it. At 6fps you might get two frames from around peak action time and if you are at 8fps you almost always get two key frames.

And with wildlife, maybe the bird hits the perch and is gone quickly and at 4fps you get all shots timed where it moved it's head or blinked eye or something bad and you get no good frames while at 6fps or 8fps maybe you get that one good frame.

 

[RLPhoto]

1D body

46 Megapixels

5 FPS

61-Point AF

16-bit processing - 14+ stops of DR

7499$

Bring it canon. 8)

 

[Loswr]

1D body

46 Megapixels

5 FPS

61-Point AF

16-bit processing - 14+ stops of DR

7499$

Bring it canon. 8)

And a 135mm f/1.8L IS to go with it, right?

 

[RLPhoto]

1D body

46 Megapixels

5 FPS

61-Point AF

16-bit processing - 14+ stops of DR

7499$

Bring it canon. 8)

And a 135mm f/1.8L IS to go with it, right?

It couldn't hurt.

 

[9VIII]

1D body

46 Megapixels

5 FPS

61-Point AF

16-bit processing - 14+ stops of DR

7499$

Bring it canon. 8)

The 1D is sports focused, I doubt they'll release anything that shoots less than 10fps in that range ever again. People probably would pay big bucks for 10fps at that resolution too.
They need something to compete with the D800 as well. I could swing $4K for a slow shooting 5DIV with the same sensor a lot easier than $7K for a 1D that does the same thing if you're not shooting a moving subject.
Not that I would complain about having a 1D, it's just hard to justify if you're not the target audience.

And a 135mm f/1.8L IS to go with it, right?

If they make it as sharp wide open as all the other new telephoto lenses, Yes please!

 

[pedro]

In another thread a split of the 5D line was recommended. I'd go that route as well. I don't want Canon to "spoil" the 5D3 as it is now ("jack-of-all-trades" type body) by a high MP sucsessor only. At its price it is the ideal and afforadable body for amateurs like me, shooting high ISOs.

 

[motorhead]

I'd prefer a return to the 1D / 1Ds arrangement than downgrading a high pixel camera to "second grade". Never understood why Canon abandoned the traditional 1Ds customers.

 

[jrista]

I'd prefer a return to the 1D / 1Ds arrangement than downgrading a high pixel camera to "second grade". Never understood why Canon abandoned the traditional 1Ds customers.

I guess there are at least two main concerns:
1. What can we make, at least as good as our competitors, and at least as cheap to us?
2. What does our customers (current and future ones) want?

We tend to forget about 1 and only think about 2.

-h

Simple fact of the matter is, #1 is not nearly as important as #2 so long as the majority of your customers are still willing to pay for your products, regardless of their price.

People get too hung up on the image sensor low-ISO IQ factor. That is only one factor out of many, and not necessarily the most important to the greatest majority of photographers. There are dozens of factors that play into IQ. When Canon releases a big megapixel DSLR, I am sure it will be a competitive part with competitive features at a price point their customers will pay. There are other benefits beyond the DSLR body itself Canon offers, not the least of which is some of the best glass with the highest sharpness at the lightest weight the world has ever seen. Pixels with the best DR in the world don't matter much if you can't get sharp detail onto them, and Canon excels at getting the best detail onto pixels that are excellent in the majority of situations.

If the sensor-only IQ benefit of the 6D over the 5D III (which is actually fairly significant...better low-light performance and FAR less chroma noise), then the next sensors from Canon should be quite good. Even if they are not "as good" as an Exmor in a Nikon at ISO 100 and 200, that is still a minor factor, and customers will still want and will still be willing to pay for that nice big 47mp monster megapixel beauty...even if it clocks in at $8 grand.

#2 is more important than #1.

 

[jrista]

I'd prefer a return to the 1D / 1Ds arrangement than downgrading a high pixel camera to "second grade". Never understood why Canon abandoned the traditional 1Ds customers.

I guess there are at least two main concerns:
1. What can we make, at least as good as our competitors, and at least as cheap to us?
2. What does our customers (current and future ones) want?

We tend to forget about 1 and only think about 2.

-h

Simple fact of the matter is, #1 is not nearly as important as #2 so long as the majority of your customers are still willing to pay for your products, regardless of their price.
...
#2 is more important than #1.

So your belief is that if brand A can make a camera at $2000 and brand B can make an camera at least as good at $1495, the majority of prior brand A customers will stick to brand A?

Why? Due to existing investement (perhaps only a heavily invested minority), or due to being brainwashed?

I like to think that there is at least some "rationalism" in the market, where people choose the supplier that has the best price/performance ratio.

-h

Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good". Consumer sentiment would indicate otherwise. Brand B certainly has a better image sensor...but its camera has a variety of issues, say, with white balance, LCD screen rendition, AF system, buffer unload rate, etc. Brand B has great glass, but it is not as good as Brand A. Brand B's camera is phenomenal for some things, but Brand A's camera is phenomenal for just about everything, with a few caveats at really low ISO...

So...IS it really true that Brand B makes a camera "at least as good" as Brand A? Technologically speaking, they certainly have an edge. Overall, consumer sentiment seems to indicate Brand A still makes a better camera. And that sentiment has nothing to do with brainwashing or existing gear or anything like that (we've seen plenty of cases of switchers here on CR, where people have literally dumped their entire Canon kit and switched to Nikon or vice versa.)

As for price/performance...the D800 does have a phenomenal sensor. However that camera is clearly not as viable in as many use cases as the 5D III. Its gargantuan file sizes has turned more than a majority of wedding photographers off. It's lackluster frame rate without spending additional money on a battery grip (which normalizes the price gap and offers a size/weight ratio benefit to the competition). The poor full buffer clear rate of the D800 creates a lag in your ability to keep shooting, where as Canon cameras just keep on plugging away.

If you consider sensor the singular factor that affects a camera's competitiveness, and it actually turns out that sensor is indeed the primary thing that affects IQ for the kind of photography you do (I can think of one case where that is probably always true...landscape photography), and you are completely unwilling to wait and see what Canon does...then dumping your kit and jumping ships, or straddling both the Canon and Nikon ships, is probably the solution to your problem. Does that mean you are getting a better price/performance ratio? Well, if you do not yet currently own Nikon, and do own Canon, your price point for the D800 for better low ISO IQ (and ONLY better low ISO IQ) is a hell of a lot higher...you need at least one comparable lens. If you just pick up the competing Canon camera, even though the single-item price point is potentially higher (depends on whether you actually get that battery grip for the D800 or not), the total cost to upgrade and not jump ship puts you at a better price/performance ratio.

Rationalism isn't as cut and dry it might seem when one only factors image sensor into the basis of image quality and bang for the buck. I'd say the market is pretty rational already, and that photographers already are purchasing the camera with the best price/performance ratio for the kind of work they do. If the D800, D600, etc. were hands down far better cameras than the Canon alternatives, consumers would be buying Nikon.

 

[jrista]

I guess there are at least two main concerns:
1. What can we make, at least as good as our competitors, and at least as cheap to us?
2. What does our customers (current and future ones) want?

We tend to forget about 1 and only think about 2.

...
#2 is more important than #1.

So your belief is that if brand A can make a camera at $2000 and brand B can make an camera at least as good at $1495, the majority of prior brand A customers will stick to brand A?
...

Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good".

(posts trimmed for the readers convenience)

Please check the text that you quoted from me originally. When you say that #2 is more important than #1, you are saying that it is more important to make what customers want, than to make what you can make at least as good and cheap as the competitors.

-h

What I am saying is that Canon obviously makes a great product that their customers really want. Canon ALSO makes a product that is "competitive" in price. A competitive price does not necessarily mean an equal price. Price matching is not necessary, so long as #2 is met. If your customers like your product, and are willing to pay a higher price, then that "market sentiment" indicates #2 is certainly met, and #1 is probably met for a majority of customers.

If the 5D III was not a competitive product sold at a competitive price that had features consumers wanted, it would not be one of the worlds best selling DSLRs. As far as I know, the 5D III is currently the single top rated DSLR on Amazon (a prime source of customer sentiment statistics), while the D800 is nowhere to be seen. The 5D III body only currently holds the 8th spot on the Amazon top sellers list, at $3200, where as the D800 body only holds the 18th spot on the Amazon top sellers list at $2800. One would have suspected that while the D800, a supposedly superior camera supposedly "ideally priced" at $3000, would have taken a higher position than the 5D III and maintained it's price point, while the 5D III concurrently dropped to a lower price point than the D800 and took a lower position in the Amazon top sellers list. As it stands, both cameras have dropped in price, and the price gap has largely been maintained, down only $100 (to $400 from $500.)

Technologically, the only negative gap between the 5D III and D800 is ISO 100 and ISO 200 IQ. Outside of that one gap, the 5D III is superior technology. From a customer sentiment standpoint, the 5D III is still a better-liked camera than the D800.

So...#2 is more important than #1. That is not to say #1 is not important at all. However, neither does it mean that for Brand A to be "competitive" on both features and price it must offer the exact SAME features at the exact SAME price. Brand A offers a competitive product at a competitive price, with better features in most cases, and slightly worse features in ONE case, than Brand B. Brand A sells more cameras at a higher price than Brand B, which can only indicate that Brand A is probably making a better overall camera at a reasonable price point, offering a high price to performance ratio as far as customers are concerned. That also does not mean Brand B makes a "bad" product...it simply makes a product that is less compelling to a majority of customers, despite its strong, but solo, technological lead in the sensor area.

 

[Don Haines]

So your belief is that if brand A can make a camera at $2000 and brand B can make an camera at least as good at $1495, the majority of prior brand A customers will stick to brand A?

Why? Due to existing investement (perhaps only a heavily invested minority), or due to being brainwashed?

I like to think that there is at least some "rationalism" in the market, where people choose the supplier that has the best price/performance ratio.

-h

There is also momentum.... Someone who is just getting into cameras may make a very different decision than someone who has legacy equipment.

Take me as an example. I shoot a 60D, have several APS lenses and a few APS-C lenses, and I am going to upgrade. Let's say I decide to go FF and let's say I have around $3000 to spend. I might look at a Nikon or Sony offering and decide that it's a better body for my needs than a $3000 Canon body, but then I would need lenses..... and there lies the problem. It can never be an equal comparison when I ask what $3000 Nikon body PLUS lenses will work as well as a $3000 Canon with a bunch of Lglass thrown in the mix for free.

 

[pedro]

So your belief is that if brand A can make a camera at $2000 and brand B can make an camera at least as good at $1495, the majority of prior brand A customers will stick to brand A?

Why? Due to existing investement (perhaps only a heavily invested minority), or due to being brainwashed?

I like to think that there is at least some "rationalism" in the market, where people choose the supplier that has the best price/performance ratio.

-h

There is also momentum.... Someone who is just getting into cameras may make a very different decision than someone who has legacy equipment.

Take me as an example. I shoot a 60D, have several APS lenses and a few APS-C lenses, and I am going to upgrade. Let's say I decide to go FF and let's say I have around $3000 to spend. I might look at a Nikon or Sony offering and decide that it's a better body for my needs than a $3000 Canon body, but then I would need lenses..... and there lies the problem. It can never be an equal comparison when I ask what $3000 Nikon body PLUS lenses will work as well as a $3000 Canon with a bunch of Lglass thrown in the mix for free.

When I started with Canon coming from a Sony DSC-F 828 compact cam, the reason to switch was a) I dropped the sony, but b) was unhappy with the IQ. While saving up I decided to go back to SLRs (had a Contax 139 Quartz 30 years ago) and chose Canon a) gut feeling b) IQ c) price. Purchased an EOS 30D. While growing deeper into nightphotography I decided to save up for a 5DII, skipped it due to the reported AF issues, and bought the 5DIII last August. So, I changed brands, but in my case did not loose anything, as the cam was the loss in itself. But, according to sensor tech, it sometimes pays off to stay with the brand and go for a walk through the "desert". Although, at the end of the day, if the mirage of a perfect cam becomes real, recompensation for the wait is tremendously high 8)

 

[jrista]

So your belief is that if brand A can make a camera at $2000 and brand B can make an camera at least as good at $1495, the majority of prior brand A customers will stick to brand A?

Why? Due to existing investement (perhaps only a heavily invested minority), or due to being brainwashed?

I like to think that there is at least some "rationalism" in the market, where people choose the supplier that has the best price/performance ratio.

-h

There is also momentum.... Someone who is just getting into cameras may make a very different decision than someone who has legacy equipment.

Take me as an example. I shoot a 60D, have several APS lenses and a few APS-C lenses, and I am going to upgrade. Let's say I decide to go FF and let's say I have around $3000 to spend. I might look at a Nikon or Sony offering and decide that it's a better body for my needs than a $3000 Canon body, but then I would need lenses..... and there lies the problem. It can never be an equal comparison when I ask what $3000 Nikon body PLUS lenses will work as well as a $3000 Canon with a bunch of Lglass thrown in the mix for free.

When I started with Canon coming from a Sony DSC-F 828 compact cam, the reason to switch was a) I dropped the sony, but b) was unhappy with the IQ. While saving up I decided to go back to SLRs (had a Contax 139 Quartz 30 years ago) and chose Canon a) gut feeling b) IQ c) price. Purchased an EOS 30D. While growing deeper into nightphotography I decided to save up for a 5DII, skipped it due to the reported AF issues, and bought the 5DIII last August. So, I changed brands, but in my case did not loose anything, as the cam was the loss in itself. But, according to sensor tech, it sometimes pays off to stay with the brand and go for a walk through the "desert". Although, at the end of the day, if the mirage of a perfect cam becomes real, recompensation for the wait is tremendously high 8)

EXACTLY!! Ironically, think about the Nikon camp. They were actually IN the desert, wasting away in the heat, until the D800 and D600 came along. It took Nikon a number of years to really put out a sensor that had the low ISO IQ everyone is currently raving about. Before that, the 5D II was the king of the town. The release cycles for DSLR's are quite long, and the major players have leapfrogged each other every generation or two for...well, ever. Sometimes the dry spells for a given brand are really long. After the advent of the Canon AF system, Nikon had a pretty long dry spell until they finally came up with an AF system and metering system that surpassed Canon. Then Canon started pumping out FF DSLRs. Now Nikon has better low ISO IQ, while concurrently Canon has better AF. The leapfrogging will continue, but its a two to four year dry spell each time...there won't be a "correction" until the next major round of professional-grade DSLRs in the 2015-2016 timeframe, with the potential for a new line here or there (i.e. Canon Megapixel Monster....2D, 3D, 4D, 9D, whatever) and an intermediate model (i.e. 7D II).

 

[Lawliet]

46 Megapixels

For some reasons my guts tell me something about 39.32(+ perhaps whats needed for phase detect on sensor)MP - involves meeting mastering/broadcast standards for 4K video, one could get 4:4:4 data with the proper interface. Or 61.5 for the next (almostl) clean sample binning.
Not that it would be a deciding factor, with all the other potential practical limits around.

Just don't be cheap at the metering, or include some arbitrary limitations...

 

[motorhead]

Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good". Consumer sentiment would indicate otherwise. Brand B certainly has a better image sensor...but its camera has a variety of issues, say, with white balance, LCD screen rendition, AF system, buffer unload rate, etc. Brand B has great glass, but it is not as good as Brand A. Brand B's camera is phenomenal for some things, but Brand A's camera is phenomenal for just about everything, with a few caveats at really low ISO...

So...IS it really true that Brand B makes a camera "at least as good" as Brand A? Technologically speaking, they certainly have an edge. Overall, consumer sentiment seems to indicate Brand A still makes a better camera. And that sentiment has nothing to do with brainwashing or existing gear or anything like that (we've seen plenty of cases of switchers here on CR, where people have literally dumped their entire Canon kit and switched to Nikon or vice versa.)

As for price/performance...the D800 does have a phenomenal sensor. However that camera is clearly not as viable in as many use cases as the 5D III. Its gargantuan file sizes has turned more than a majority of wedding photographers off. It's lackluster frame rate without spending additional money on a battery grip (which normalizes the price gap and offers a size/weight ratio benefit to the competition). The poor full buffer clear rate of the D800 creates a lag in your ability to keep shooting, where as Canon cameras just keep on plugging away.

If you consider sensor the singular factor that affects a camera's competitiveness, and it actually turns out that sensor is indeed the primary thing that affects IQ for the kind of photography you do (I can think of one case where that is probably always true...landscape photography), and you are completely unwilling to wait and see what Canon does...then dumping your kit and jumping ships, or straddling both the Canon and Nikon ships, is probably the solution to your problem. Does that mean you are getting a better price/performance ratio? Well, if you do not yet currently own Nikon, and do own Canon, your price point for the D800 for better low ISO IQ (and ONLY better low ISO IQ) is a hell of a lot higher...you need at least one comparable lens. If you just pick up the competing Canon camera, even though the single-item price point is potentially higher (depends on whether you actually get that battery grip for the D800 or not), the total cost to upgrade and not jump ship puts you at a better price/performance ratio.

Rationalism isn't as cut and dry it might seem when one only factors image sensor into the basis of image quality and bang for the buck. I'd say the market is pretty rational already, and that photographers already are purchasing the camera with the best price/performance ratio for the kind of work they do. If the D800, D600, etc. were hands down far better cameras than the Canon alternatives, consumers would be buying Nikon.
[/quote]

Everything you say is of course true, but sadly everything you flag up as of limited appeal is of great interest to me and the Canon advantages I don't see as advantages. Thats why I am dissapointed that Canon have chosen to dump all their loyal IDs customers in favour of video and sports use. I am really not bothered if a camera of mine took just 1 shot per second, frame rates and buffer sizes, like high ISO noise, is of no interest.

I fully understand that something like the 1Dx will be perfect for some, all I want is for Canon to consider both sides which at the moment they are not doing.

 

[jrista]

Well, for one, you are assuming Brand B makes a camera "at least as good". Consumer sentiment would indicate otherwise. Brand B certainly has a better image sensor...but its camera has a variety of issues, say, with white balance, LCD screen rendition, AF system, buffer unload rate, etc. Brand B has great glass, but it is not as good as Brand A. Brand B's camera is phenomenal for some things, but Brand A's camera is phenomenal for just about everything, with a few caveats at really low ISO...

So...IS it really true that Brand B makes a camera "at least as good" as Brand A? Technologically speaking, they certainly have an edge. Overall, consumer sentiment seems to indicate Brand A still makes a better camera. And that sentiment has nothing to do with brainwashing or existing gear or anything like that (we've seen plenty of cases of switchers here on CR, where people have literally dumped their entire Canon kit and switched to Nikon or vice versa.)

As for price/performance...the D800 does have a phenomenal sensor. However that camera is clearly not as viable in as many use cases as the 5D III. Its gargantuan file sizes has turned more than a majority of wedding photographers off. It's lackluster frame rate without spending additional money on a battery grip (which normalizes the price gap and offers a size/weight ratio benefit to the competition). The poor full buffer clear rate of the D800 creates a lag in your ability to keep shooting, where as Canon cameras just keep on plugging away.

If you consider sensor the singular factor that affects a camera's competitiveness, and it actually turns out that sensor is indeed the primary thing that affects IQ for the kind of photography you do (I can think of one case where that is probably always true...landscape photography), and you are completely unwilling to wait and see what Canon does...then dumping your kit and jumping ships, or straddling both the Canon and Nikon ships, is probably the solution to your problem. Does that mean you are getting a better price/performance ratio? Well, if you do not yet currently own Nikon, and do own Canon, your price point for the D800 for better low ISO IQ (and ONLY better low ISO IQ) is a hell of a lot higher...you need at least one comparable lens. If you just pick up the competing Canon camera, even though the single-item price point is potentially higher (depends on whether you actually get that battery grip for the D800 or not), the total cost to upgrade and not jump ship puts you at a better price/performance ratio.

Rationalism isn't as cut and dry it might seem when one only factors image sensor into the basis of image quality and bang for the buck. I'd say the market is pretty rational already, and that photographers already are purchasing the camera with the best price/performance ratio for the kind of work they do. If the D800, D600, etc. were hands down far better cameras than the Canon alternatives, consumers would be buying Nikon.

Everything you say is of course true, but sadly everything you flag up as of limited appeal is of great interest to me and the Canon advantages I don't see as advantages. Thats why I am dissapointed that Canon have chosen to dump all their loyal IDs customers in favour of video and sports use. I am really not bothered if a camera of mine took just 1 shot per second, frame rates and buffer sizes, like high ISO noise, is of no interest.

I fully understand that something like the 1Dx will be perfect for some, all I want is for Canon to consider both sides which at the moment they are not doing.

If that is what you need that is fine. I also would not go so far as to say Canon has "chosen to dump you". On the contrary, it is clear Canon has NOT dumped you, and the reason they have not released a big MP camera yet is they need more time to make it what you want it to be...low noise at low ISO, high dynamic range, etc. But you have to realize, if the D800 had never come along, everyone would still consider the 5D II to be a phenomenal landscape and studio camera. UNTIL the advent of Sony Exmor sensors, no one would have questioned the quality of Canon products. They were great, with excellent IQ, the best of the best at everything, before the D800. Simple fact of the matter is they are STILL great, with excellent IQ, now that the D800 is here. The only difference is now they are not the best of the best at everything...only the best at most things except low ISO IQ.

You also have to realize that you are part of the minority of photographers, not the majority. If you take a small leap back in time, before all of the camera releases in late 2011/early 2012...do you remember what everyone was asking for? Do you remember all the things people DID bitch about regarding Canon sensors? Everyone complained that there were TOO MANY megapixels. Everyone complained that there was not enough high ISO, and they needed more. Everyone complained that there was too much noise at high ISO. Everyone demanded less megapixels, higher ISO, and better noise characteristics at those higher ISO settings. Everyone, in this context, is the vast majority of Canon's customer base...wedding photographers, sports photographers, wildlife and bird photographers, etc. I think studio photographers who used Canon gear were happy with what they had in the 1Ds III...assuming they did not use a medium format digital camera (which I think is really the majority of studio photographers.) Landscape photographers raved about how great the 5D II was. The biggest complaints elsewise came from the high-end sports group using the 1D line, who had experienced problems with the 1D III AF system, and who wanted something better than the 1D IV AF system that was more competitive against Nikon's new-at-the-time reticulated AF system.

Canon gave the very vast majority of their customers EXACTLY what they were asking for! "We want fewer pixels that do higher ISO and do it better...oh, and throw in a better AF system too."

Today...everyone is asking for something different. Today, everyone wants better low ISO performance and improved low ISO dynamic range. Canon listened to their customers quite well in the past, and gave everyone exactly what they asked for in the last round of camera releases. I have confidence Canon is doing everything they can to meet their customer's demands regarding the next round of camera releases.

I think the 7D II will have much lower noise at all ISO settings, and a stop or two of expanded high ISO usage, thanks to much higher Q.E. I think the Big Megapixel Monster will have not only a very high megapixel count, I also think those megapixels will be fairly competitive next to something like the D800. If the IQ of the 6D is indicative of anything, it seems clear that Canon has nearly eliminated chroma noise at most ISO settings, particularly lower ISO settings in the deep shadows, where as even the 5D III still exhibits a fair amount. All that really remains is for Canon to eliminate banding noise.

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.

 

[motorhead]

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.
[/quote]

Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back. They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks. What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.