High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?

[JoeDavid]

I had an email exchange with someone in Canon USA marketing recently. As a long time user of Canon equipment, I expressed my disappointment with Canon's lack of a high megapixel offering. With the D800/E and now the Sony A7R, Canon is distinctly lacking in that area. The response I got was troubling to me. I'm paraphrasing but, basically, I was told that the person agreed with me but that high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market. Personally I don't consider landscape, commercial, fine art, large group photography, etc... a niche market. It is more of an enthusiast, semi-pro and pro market but a "niche" market? I guess Canon USA also considers mirror-less bodies a niche market as well...

I had also pointed out that Canon was pricing camera bodies much more expensively than the competition. The answer to that one was that the market would decide prices. To me he was saying, buy somebody else's equipment, Canon doesn't care. There are plenty more people out there willing to pay their prices. I've been with Canon since they came out with the EOS mount back in '87 but it may finally be time for a change.

 

[J.R.]

Was this an exchange of emails in official capacity or just a personal exchange?

 

[bholliman]

I don't have any problem with his comment on prices. Canon and every other company sets their prices based on the market. Mainstream companies like Canon can price higher than the competition because of their brand recognition and reputation for high quality products. Companies with less well regarded products historically like Sigma and Tampon must set their prices lower to attract buyers. If Sigma continues to produce excellent quality lenses, their reputation will continue to improve e and they will be able to charge premium prices as well. Canon can only retain their premium pricing by continuing to me a leader in the industry and to maintain high quality.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

The response I got was troubling to me. I'm paraphrasing but, basically, I was told that the person agreed with me but that high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market. Personally I don't consider landscape, commercial, fine art, large group photography, etc... a niche market.

It's niche in term of how many cameras Canon will sell, and how much profit Canon will make from it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Many users who bought a D800 are selling it, it requires a knowledgeable photographer to get the best out of all those pixels, and real estate agents and casual users suddenly realize that they can't deal with the large files and go for something simpler.

That doesn't mean that more MP is bad, but its niche in that only photography pros or enthusiasts who are willing to learn and to deal with the large files will get the benefit.

I know a person who asked me if he should switch from his D800 to a 5D MK III. He has a big investment in Nikon hardware and lenses. I told him that he should stick with his Nikon simply because changing hardware will not make him a better photographer or make his images better. He needs to learn to post process and edit to get the best out of his images, and needs to learn more about lighting.

 

[Ricku]

Well then, good thing I preordered the A7R.

It seems that Canon has lost their mind completely. High MP and mirrorless full frame is no more niche than the 1DX.

And it's not just about the high resolution. Canon has still to release a sensor with improved dynamic range and NO shadow banding.

 

[Eldar]

One of the key reasons behind Canon's success in the DSLR market is their top end pro bodies, combined with extensive marketing. People buying consumer cameras have seen the flocks of pros with 1D bodies and white lenses. I believe Canon would be gambling with their position if they gave the top spot amongst the pros to one of the others.

I'm not sure resolution would be the most important for that though. If I had to choose between more pixles and DR/high ISO noise performance, I know what I would choose. But to be perceived as the top brand, Canon needs to support both (preferably combined).

 

[Kwanon]

Oh, please....

Whoever you were sending emails to DOES NOT represent Canon as a whole....
He is not the president of the company or anyone even close!

Until you get someone from Canon who's in charge of anything don't think anything about what that nameless "canon" guy said.

 

[wockawocka]

High MP is niche compared to needs of Canon's userbase.

You have to look at the market as a whole.

My H4D50 Raw files are 70mb each. It has a knock on effect in terms of processing and storage. The end user has files way bigger than they need to have them in nearly all cases and I have more work to do supplying them in sizes they can handle.

I mainly use my Hassy for Actors headshots (for the res and colour accuracy) and for Landscapes when on Holiday. Sometimes at Weddings.

That's it. Yet I took 122,000 images with the 1DX in the last 12 months. An 18mp camera.

Personally, I would prefer a 22mp medium format CMOS solution from Canon so I can have 16 bit colour with High ISO performance. Then I'd use that for EVERYTHING.

Image quality is my number one concern. If Canon came out with a 35mm 16bit 1DX that was 12mp. I'd buy it.

 

[Sporgon]

Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I am staggered at how many 5D mkiiis Canon seem to be selling. For an extra £450 Canon lifted the mkiii to full pro spec as requested by its sales profile of mkiis ( photographers eschewing the 1Ds mkiii for the 5D mkii ) ; not a bad deal IMO.

Fort those that don't want to pay the extra they introduced the 6D. Do you think the 6D was the answer to Nikon's D600 ? I bet it was the other way around but Nikon got to announce first.

I think the biggest threat to Canon's higher end dslrs could be the rumoured Nikon DF ( Digital 'F' mount - who the hell said 'Digital Fusion ?' ). If they get this camera sorted properly with a really good 16 - 18 mp chip, good ergonomics and sturdy build with no b****y pop up flash, and manage to still give a very good OVF along with the EVF facility the camera could be a winner for them.

 

[docsmith]

What did you expect him to say? "Yeah, we are really missing the boat on the high MP cameras...Nikon/Sony is really killing us on that and we can't do anything about it"......you got predictable stock answers. That is all.

I am sure Canon will call a high MP cameras a "niche" right up until the second they release a high MP camera.....then it will be the "best thing ever"....."game changing resolution"......and Canon will be "leaders of the technology...."

 

[Lichtgestalt]

somebody from canon usa..... well you can stop reading after that.
no official statement, probably a guy doing callcenter work.

you know how tight canon is about R&D "some guy" in the USA sure knows nothing.

but hey.. good opportunity to complain about canon and tell everyone you preordered camera XY because canon does not what you want them to do. ;D

 

[Marsu42]

was told that the person agreed with me but that high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market. Personally I don't consider landscape, commercial, fine art, large group photography, etc... a niche market.

He was probably not talking of subjective importance, but of estimated sales volume - and he's correct here, because for a *working* high-mp camera you need lenses that are able to resolve this resolution - and with both crop (dense pixels) and ff (sharpness across the frame) this would mean cost well beyond the current Rebel or 6D *system* prices.

As for prices themselves, it's clear Canon is driving a high-price policy for early adopters, and then lets the market decide how fast and far the prices drop - this is frustrating for enthusiasts who want the newest and best products now, but if you know it and wait some it's expectable.

My issue with Canon (and what you should ask about ) is that they're too often crippling their own products for internal differentiation and currently ignoring the middle segment altogether but concentrate on either high-end (200-400L, 1dc, ...) or low-end or video (st-m, IS primes) and there are interesting patents and prototypes, but to no avail - a 430ex successor with rt anyone?

 

[Lichtgestalt]

As for prices themselves, it's clear Canon is driving a high-price policy for early adopters, and then lets the market decide how fast and far the prices drop - this is frustrating for enthusiasts who want the newest and best products now, but if you know it and wait some it's expectable.

yep.. in a few month the 6D dropped from 1999 euro to 1580 euro here.

and for someone who does not need a sports AF system it´s a fantastic camera.
are there limitations, sure. otherwise nobody would need to buy a body with more features.

we live in camera heaven these days and all people on such gear sites like this do... is complain.
complaining will not make your images look better.. more MP neither....

 

[Marsu42]

we live in camera heaven these days and all people on such gear sites like this do... is complain. complaining will not make your images look better..

But complaining, then discussing workarounds for the issues you're complaining about will - so I see nothing bad in pointing out products' shortcomings as everyone can decide how much corner sharpness or other (non-?) issues matter.

more MP neither....

Good point there - I have to admit with my new 6d experience looking at the 60d crop shots my first thought usually is "oh my, what crappy iq" - but after some seconds I always realize 100% crop on the monitor is not the most important aspect, and if you cannot do nice photography you won't be able to with ff or high-mp ff...

 

[photonius]

Well then, good thing I preordered the A7R.

won't you have a problem getting lenses that can actually really use all these MPs? Canon still has the best lens lineup, and even DxoMark show that a 5DIII with a good Canon lens produces better results than a D800. example:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-500mm-and-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR-lens-reviews-legendary-performers-in-the-range/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-500mm-f-4G-ED-VR-fights-off-both-Canon-and-Sony

 

[Sporgon]

more MP neither....

Good point there - I have to admit with my new 6d experience looking at the 60d crop shots my first thought usually is "oh my, what crappy iq" - but after some seconds I always realize 100% crop on the monitor is not the most important aspect, and if you cannot do nice photography you won't be able to with ff or high-mp ff...

You summed it up here; I saw the same thing after using a 5D mkii. Looking at the files on screen I thought 'this is much better than the original 5D. But it doesn't translate to the image as a picture, at least not one of a 'normal' size.

The only photographers who will benefit from very high mp all the time are those that like to look at their images at 100% on screen.

 

[AmbientLight]

more MP neither....

Good point there - I have to admit with my new 6d experience looking at the 60d crop shots my first thought usually is "oh my, what crappy iq" - but after some seconds I always realize 100% crop on the monitor is not the most important aspect, and if you cannot do nice photography you won't be able to with ff or high-mp ff...

You summed it up here; I saw the same thing after using a 5D mkii. Looking at the files on screen I thought 'this is much better than the original 5D. But it doesn't translate to the image as a picture, at least not one of a 'normal' size.

The only photographers who will benefit from very high mp all the time are those that like to look at their images at 100% on screen.

Even in this case you need to have good quality pixels on the 100% level. If an image consists of very many pixels, but whatever information gets there through lens, filter and sensor is of mediocre or even bad quality per pixel, even a pixel peeping photographer won't have an overall resolution benefit compared to another camera with less MP, but better per-pixel quality. This may become a rather frustrating experience for some.

The experience with crop sensor cameras like the 7D should set a clear example regarding the limitations of increasing pixel density.

 

[Orangutan]

Also remember that markets change: what constitutes a niche market today may be mainstream in 5 years. 9 years ago, when I bought my first digital camera, its 8MP was considered large for its class, and there was a shot-to-shot lag writing to CF. As processors and memory get faster, and as user demand increases, eventually there will be a need for more MP. Demand may have hit a plateau after it achieved the speed/IQ/reliability to replace 35mm film. 18-22MP is more than adequate for most amateur and pro uses, and there are diminishing returns beyond that.

At some point, MP will creep up to meet slowly advancing demand and supporting tech. Yes, 35MP+ is a niche market now, but it won't stay that way forever.

From the business perspective, those companies who push out huge MP FF cameras not "innovative" they are desperate. Think of it: why would a tech company, any tech company, blow all its best tech on a current generation product? They'd want to hold some back for the next gen. And who wants a mutant camera with a great sensor, but second- or third-rate components and "fit and finish?" Some, yes, but not most. Most people want something like a 5d3, where everything just works.

I don't mean to disparage the D800, which seems to be a great camera, and I really hope the Sonys turn out well because competition is good and I'm a fan of EVF; but yes, these are currently niche cameras put out by companies desperate to improve their market position. As long as Canon (any company) leads in market share, you can expect them to trail slightly in innovation because innovation is inefficient.

 

[dak723]

I believe that for most camera owners 6 to 10 MPs is plenty and the entire MP increase over the years is basically a marketing gimmick. More MPs for professional photographers is another story - and since the number of pros is small compared to the number of photography enthusiasts, one could easily call it a "niche" market.

I still have the original 6 MP rebel and over the years have purchased two new replacements (14 MP and 18 MP, I believe) only to return them both. For viewing on my monitor, or for printing and selling prints up to 8" x 12' there was no significant difference with more MPs. Recently, when I needed a camera that could print significantly larger sizes to produce photos for public meetings, up to 24 x 36, I purchased a 6D. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice camera and it has many more - and more easy to set - settings. I like it a lot (although I had to return the first two I bought due to exposure issues), but for taking vacation or family pics, I would prefer a new Canon camera body with all the bells and whistles of the new cameras - but with only about 10 MP and smaller file sizes!