High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?

[ajfotofilmagem]

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!

Well said. There is no reason to over 8 megapixel image if the purpose is just viewing on your computer, or print to paper 30x40 cm. I've printed 50x70 cm with modest Rebel XTI (10 megapixel) and was breathtaking. If stop to think a moment, you'll find high-quality lenses will most visible improvements of 36 megapixel. I understand that some jobs (rare) benefit from high megapixel, but in this case lenses and technique for accurate focus, shutter speed enough, and tripod are essential to take advantage of improvements.

 

[sdsr]

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.

And to enjoy doing so, they may well have to adjust their shooting style and brush up on their technique if not using a tripod. Consider these comments by Roger Cicala on the D800 at the end of his enthusiastic comments on the rental page for that camera at lensrentals.com:

"All of that [= high praise] being said, I know already that between 25 and 50 people are going to email after using the camera and say their shots didn’t seem much sharper than their old camera. And I’m going to ask to see their pictures. And they’re going to send me shots taken with a nice prime lens at f/1.4. Repeat after me: there is no lens that can do justice to this camera at f/1.4. The best primes can at f/2.0, but most primes will need to be at f/2.8. Even the best zooms will be better at f/4 than f/2.8. If you need to shoot at wide open aperture, save some money and rent a D700."

Presumably that will be true of any camera with a similar sensor. I happen to like looking at images 100% on a large screen from time to time, just to see how much detail the camera happened to pick up, so I rented a D800E just for the heck of it. I think he's right. It also seems to be the case, as others have said, that you have to be able to hold a camera really steady if not using a tripod - in several cases, I found that photos which looked perfectly good viewed at a normal size on a 30" monitor revealed evidence of slight movement at 100%, something I hardly ever see with my FF Canons. The detail was wonderful, but....

 

[Pi]

Low Megapixel DLSR a niche market

It is the other way around. Higher mp dSLRs are becoming mainstream, and lower resolution ones will soon be considered a niche market (when high fps or maybe video is more important).

 

[deleteme]

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

Absolutely correct. Canon has a huge line that has a ton of sales volume.
Canon got sidetracked in the MP race a while ago precisely because the were responding to their customer demands for better video and low light performance. Nikon continued chasing the MP numbers because they did not sense a cost -effective battle in the video arena.

The manufacturers only chase so many rabbits.

 

[Marsu42]

It is the other way around. Higher mp dSLRs are becoming mainstream, and lower resolution ones will soon be considered a niche market.

We should define what "high mp" actually means - he 36mp of the d800 might come close - but for me "high mp" is ff 40mp+ as this is a higher pixel density than current crop & really makes a difference, for good or worse.

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.

True, but for some cases a higher mp mediocre shot has advantages over a low mp good pixel-quality one - you simply have more data to work with, which might matter to image rotation, lens correction and modern noise reduction algorithms (take the newest dxo version for example). As long as the postprocessing algorithm is able to isolate the junk data (outresolved lens or sensor noise) from the good data you can still downsize it and probably end up with better iq than the low mp sensor - but of course at the cost of higher data storage.

Also higher-mp Canon ff cameras will hopefully get an in-camera raw crop mode like Nikon - 100% af array coverage and less junk data if your lens isn't long enough... and m-raw and s-raw might get more often used than now.

 

[Etienne]

When processing speeds (PC, laptop, even phones), storage space, etc make high MP fast and easy, I'd take 100 MP. Why not? It gives more options.

Even for video. 4K video allows you to crop and zoom in post, or create a slider look in post (without using a slider), etc, and still end up with a 1080p finished product.

As the tools get more powerful, we all benefit. And creative people will find unexpected uses for the new abilities, including ultra-high MP cams.

I say ... bring it on baby!

 

[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

what kind of lame arguments !

think about what NIKON 85/1,4 , Nikon 200/2 , SIGMA 35/1,4 and many more lenses can do together with 36Mp

the same with Canon , but Canon has no high Mp camera

Not a lame argument, just the choices of super high res lenses for Sony are more limited. Of course it was not clear that you plan to use Nikon lenses on the Sony.

 

[AmbientLight]

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

what kind of lame arguments !

think about what NIKON 85/1,4 , Nikon 200/2 , SIGMA 35/1,4 and many more lenses can do together with 36Mp

the same with Canon , but Canon has no high Mp camera

Not a lame argument, just the choices of super high res lenses for Sony are more limited. Of course it was not clear that you plan to use Nikon lenses on the Sony.

Interesting point. The key issue is that you do require a full system of lenses and camera to be adequate for high MP shooting. If there is even one no-good compromise in the entire system end results will suffer and the resulting high-MP images won't be forgiving either.

 

[JoeDavid]

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.

I wouldn't mention the guy's name in case Canon has someone scan these forums. He was not speaking officially, just candidly to me. I will say that you would probably know the name...

In any event, the change I am contemplating is to medium format. I used to shoot all three (35mm, 6x6cm, and 4x5") back in my film days but with the cost of entry for digital I concentrated on my Canon equipment. To get into medium format in digital is extremely expensive. I'm looking at Phase One equipment, but even used, it is about like buying a luxury car! If I end up going ahead with it, it won't just be for higher resolution. As some of you pointed out, dynamic range appears to be better in the large MF sensors.

 

[unfocused]

I don't understand why any of this is surprising to anyone.

...high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market.

Of course it is a niche market. About the only group of professionals remaining today that constitutes a market of any size are portrait, wedding and event photographers. That's a grueling, highly competitive business with a high failure rate and a high rate of turnover. Canon initially priced the 5DIII at a premium for that market because they were confident that the value added by the camera as a competitive tool would prompt these photographers to buy it. From the sales figures, it's obvious they were right.

Photojournalism jobs were never plentiful and with the consolidation and cost cutting going on in newspapers today, they are even harder to come by. Very few people actually earn a living in the areas you mention: landscape, commercial, fine art and large group photography. So yes, it is a small niche market.

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.

Are you shocked that the market sets the prices? And, what he was really saying is that Canon is confident that their products are good enough to justify their costs in the market. That's hardly the same as saying buy someone else's equipment.

Besides, the whole idea that Canon products are overpriced in comparison to other manufacturers doesn't really hold up. Maybe the product you want is more expensive, but across the entire line, there is little difference between Canon and Nikon prices. And, from what I've seen of other manufacturers pricing lately, Canon isn't out of line there either.

 

[sdsr]

...high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market.

Of course it is a niche market. About the only group of professionals remaining today that constitutes a market of any size are portrait, wedding and event photographers. That's a grueling, highly competitive business with a high failure rate and a high rate of turnover. Canon initially priced the 5DIII at a premium for that market because they were confident that the value added by the camera as a competitive tool would prompt these photographers to buy it. From the sales figures, it's obvious they were right.

? Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

i have bought the trey ratcliff new zealand tutorial.

on that are original files from the D800.

i honestly don´t know what the fuss is about.
when i look at the original NEF files included i see nothing that is breathtaking.

all images he has on that DVD don´t show a better image quality then a 5D MK3 or 6D.
the borders look mushy.
and i guess the MP are wasted because his lenses can not resolve.

i can hardly see any more details in his images then i see in 5D MK3 images.

his images are not bad, thats not what im saying.
i am just saying that, looking at the images from acknowledged and prominent pro, i see nothing that makes me wish to have a D800 over a 5D MK3.

this is just useless talk. 36 MP or 22 MP will not make a big difference in most cases... not even at 1:1.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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

And the call centers are often in India. I'm sure that someone in India really cares if you buy a sony. They work for Sony as well.

 

[Marsu42]

Then it is nothing more to discuss from my point of view

Indeed there isn't, not if you simply ignore what the thread is about: high mp, not dr or base iso performance.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

i have bought the trey ratcliff new zealand tutorial.

on that are original files from the D800.

i honestly don´t know what the fuss is about.
when i look at the original NEF files included i see nothing that is breathtaking.

all images he has on that DVD don´t show a better image quality then a 5D MK3 or 6D.
the borders look mushy.
and i guess the MP are wasted because his lenses can not resolve.

i can hardly see any more details in his images then i see in 5D MK3 images.

his images are not bad, thats not what im saying.
i am just saying that, looking at the images from acknowledged and prominent pro, i see nothing that makes me wish to have a D800 over a 5D MK3.

this is just useless talk. 36 MP or 22 MP will not make a big difference in most cases... not even at 1:1.

It takes a lot of energy to explain away the benefits of Nikon / Sony's 36Mp resolution with a wide dynamic range.

well from what you guys make of the sony sensor.. IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BY LOOKING AT IMAGES... not? ;D

when you have to explain the benefits of the sony sensor .. they can´t be worth much to someone who is interested in photograpyh... and not gear talk. ;D

It's very easy to see the benefits of a sensor that has higher resolution, wider dynamic range, better color resolution, transitions. if you know where to look for.

ah, so now im just not able to see it because i lack the technical skills.

well im doing photography for more then two decades and im a MF user too.
what books should i read to get it? 8)

i don´t speak about shadow banding or DR.
above i speak mostly about MEGAPIXELS.
megapixel that´s what this thread is about and something a lot of you guys here are obsessed with.

im absolutely for better DR!
and even more for cleaner shadows that can be pushed even further.

it´s just not that the D800 makes such a big difference as some people wants us to believe.

Can I have please at least 56MP from Canon with S/N value= 14,4 stop DR at base iso and better color resolution

well get my phase one or a hassi when you need that.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.

The whole discussion is for the want of an extra 2MP (which is <10%) advantage cameras like the Nikon D3200 have over the 5Dmk3? Gee...

 

[Lichtgestalt]

Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.

The whole discussion is for the want of an extra 2MP (which is <10%) advantage cameras like the Nikon D3200 have over the 5Dmk3? Gee...

and that is a 10% advantage in pixel number... not even resolution!

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I don't quite understand why I continually allow myself to read these threads when I'm on the can only to find more minutiae regarding how horrible canon's sensors and bodies are. Yes, there has been little innovation with regard to sensor tech at canon in recent memory. And yes, I too am curious about the 36.3 mp sensor and all the DR goodness people speak of. But for those that keep threatening to leave.....

The only request I'd like to make is just go already. Make some awesome images that show just how inferior canon's tech is and convince me to switch as well. But thus far, no seems to be willing to do it as much as they are spouting off about it. I would love nothing more than to see some amazing images out of the Sony/Nikon sensor because I would then have something definitive to show me that current users of that sensor are able to do empirically perceptible things that I myself cannot with my canon rig.

As it stands, I have yet to see images that evoke a feeling of "wow, I wish I could accomplish that shot with my rig" or "wow, that image definitely exhibits qualities of a much higher quality sensor than mine."

 

[Lichtgestalt]

I don't quite understand why I continually allow myself to read these threads

i ask myself why i frequent these gear focused websites at all.
most discussions circle around the same lame topics or "what shall i do" questions.

still i come back....

 

[sdsr]

Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.

The whole discussion is for the want of an extra 2MP (which is <10%) advantage cameras like the Nikon D3200 have over the 5Dmk3? Gee...

Beats me - I don't think anyone in this rather odd discussion has defined what "high megapixel" means. I was merely responding to someone who asserted that that high mp is a niche market and gave as an example the 5DIII. (I mentioned the D3200, not because I think it has any advantages over the 5DIII but because whatever else it is, it surely isn't a niche market - unless "people who buy Nikon's cheapest dslr" qualify....)