How can Nikon remain in business with 12MP FF?

[poias]

Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.

Now Canon doesn't feel like they have to better the specs and come with 18mp 1Dx and similarly sized 5D3?

Canon has always been about pleasing its customers with better specs, but if Nikon does not push them, they will remain content and cruise, not innovate. This is frustrating.

 

[Orion]

To answer your question, it is because they have very good cameras, just like Canon does, while bettering Canon in ISO performance and to some degree in ergonomics and AF (but not by much . . and it is real world experience that counts, not "specs").

 

[torger]

Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.

12 megapixels is for many shooting styles all you need. Pretty much everything handheld without flash you won't get sharper than 12 mp anyway. For newspaper and magazine prints you don't need more. High mp is for tripod and studio, fine art and large commercial prints, which is probably a smaller (?) market than say photojournalism, wedding photography etc where great ISO performance is much more important than high mp.

 

[Alba]

Just had a National Geographic photographer in the area, shooting with a nikon d700. His images are spectacular

 

[wickidwombat]

To answer your question, it is because they have very good cameras, just like Canon does, while bettering Canon in ISO performance and to some degree in ergonomics and AF (but not by much . . and it is real world experience that counts, not "specs").

ditto, try shooting the same things with a 5dmk2 next to someone with a d700 and compare AF and you will cry like a baby :'(

 

[pedro]

Then the 5D3 SHOULD get 1Dx sensor definitely. But I know: Wishful thinking only. Or as there are several rumored protoypes out in the wild as I read in some post here...A revamped 21 MP as is with a 1Dx sensor treatment...I bet they'd beat Nikon hands down. Or is that too enthusiastic?

 

[Flake]

This is a post by someone without the first understanding about digital cameras - cue the smiting!

The 1Dx is not about high MP counts, but it's still an amazing acheivement, and does what it's supposed to in an amazing technological tour de force. It's all about high fps 14 to be precise, it's a camera for action photography, up the MP count and the frame rate would fall, which is not what the market wants.

As for Nikons 12MP sensor, many users love it, end users only want web or low res print and even for bill boards 12MP is enough. PP is faster as is file transfer, there's a whole host of advantages to lower MP counts. Then perhaps you might like to check out just how much as a percentage larger the 21MP canon senosr actually is. The funny thing though is the way that Nikon users are looking forward to a 36MP camera extolling the virtues of high MP count sensors while forgetting the arguements they used to defend the 12MP they currently have.

 

[Loswr]

The funny thing though is the way that Nikon users are looking forward to a 36MP camera extolling the virtues of high MP count sensors while forgetting the arguements they used to defend the 12MP they currently have.

Indeed. It's almost as funny as Canon extolling the virtues of ISO performance and downplaying higher resolution, while talking about upscaling images... :-X

 

[ghosh9691]

Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.

Now Canon doesn't feel like they have to better the specs and come with 18mp 1Dx and similarly sized 5D3?

Canon has always been about pleasing its customers with better specs, but if Nikon does not push them, they will remain content and cruise, not innovate. This is frustrating.

Because it is good enough for everyone other than those that are predisposed to standing with their noses against a 10-foot print with magnifying glass in hand or those that live and die by specifications. For the rest of the proletariat, 12MP is high enough resolution. 21MP of the 5DII is even better. Size does not matter - what you do with it does...

 

[JR]

The funny thing though is the way that Nikon users are looking forward to a 36MP camera extolling the virtues of high MP count sensors while forgetting the arguements they used to defend the 12MP they currently have.

Indeed. It's almost as funny as Canon extolling the virtues of ISO performance and downplaying higher resolution, while talking about upscaling images... :-X

Yes, indeed and I'm not sure which amuses me more - the change in the Canon camp or the change in the Nikon camp!

I am hoping that somewhere in between, like 18MP, will bring us the best of both worlds - or at least the best compromise money can buy for $7000!

 

[EYEONE]

Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.

Because you can walk around shooting at ISO 4000 just because you want to. The noise performance on the D3s is so good I've heard of people shooting at 4000 or higher just because it doesn't really matter. The noise is low and the noise is more attractive than Canon cameras. I can speak personally that the noise on the 7D is pretty hideous.

 

[KeithR]

I can speak personally that the noise on the 7D is pretty hideous.

Then you need to learn how to use it and convert/process the files properly - I have no problem at all with 4000 ISO and way higher, with mine - at the image level it easily compares with the D700/D3 :

3200 ISO

6400 ISO:

12800 ISO:

And feel free to check the Exif - these are almost all low light images...

(The forum software has reduced the size of the images - look at them full size. And yes, they look great much bigger and printed).

But as usual, it's easier to blame the gear than to actually work out how to get the best from it, isn't it?

 

[MK5GTI]

judging from the reflection off the bottle, these image you have are kind of well lighted, my understand is that shooting high iso in well lighted situation will perform better than same iso in really low light situation, anybody confirm that.

also, you using flash as well, which makes shutter speed faster?


to answer OP question, have you seen the used market for the 5Dc? old 12mp FF, still lots of people want it. such a great camera to use if you don't print poster

 

[Jettatore]

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f#6
I shot this on a 7D & 16mm-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, f/2.8, ISO 3200, 1/13 sec.

http://minus.com/mwi8ith2f#5
7D & 16mm-35mm f/2.8L II @ 32mm, f/2.8, ISO 2500, 1/50 sec.
This one is a little lower on ISO strength but was shot in even lower light

If you click on the pictures they will load in high res and you can study the noise levels on each, zoomed in.

The noise is acceptable for my purposes (but could be improved, along with low-light performance in super high ISO settings in general), I didn't touch any fancy noise removal tools on either shot. That said I have no argument that Nikon's aren't good, I'm sure they are awesome, but I wouldn't call 7D performance hideous.

 

[poias]

I think some here are missing my point. I did not say Nikon was bad or low MP is bad. It is just that 12mpx and still competing. Come on!

Since Nikon is competing with these 12mpx, Canon hosed us by going back on resolution in the flagship 1Dx. Sounds like resolution is not what matters anymore to Canon. Ironically, Nikon is rumored to have 36mpx and moving much ahead of Canon in the resolution department.

I may not print big, but high resolution gives me option to crop. It is just another tool.

 

[EYEONE]

I can speak personally that the noise on the 7D is pretty hideous.

Then you need to learn how to use it and convert/process the files properly - I have no problem at all with 4000 ISO and way higher, with mine - at the image level it easily compares with the D700/D3 :

3200 ISO

6400 ISO:

12800 ISO:

And feel free to check the Exif - these are almost all low light images...

(The forum software has reduced the size of the images - look at them full size. And yes, they look great much bigger and printed).

But as usual, it's easier to blame the gear than to actually work out how to get the best from it, isn't it?

Hey man, don't insult my photography that you've never seen. Did I blame the 7D for troubles in my work? Did I talk about how much the 7D ruins my photography? Nope. So basically you need to stop telling me that I'm converting my RAWS incorrectly when you have no earthly idea how I do my work. And you need you to not insult my photographic skill as good or bad as it may be.

I actually didn't even say the noise was unacceptably high. I typically defend the 7D when people complain about the noise. I was simply speaking to the look of the noise. I'll shoot at 4000 and 6400 if I have to and process them quite nicely. But I don't like the pattern of the noise.

Thanks for your useful suggestions anyway... :

 

[LEGACY]

Have you ever shot a D3S? it is 12mp

It is no joke that it's called the LOW LIGHT KING ! 8)

I have and believe me when i say this, if D3S were in $2k price range, i would BUY IT in a Second ! ;D

Nikon has these teeny 12mp cameras and are still in business with people talking about their upcoming lineup.

Now Canon doesn't feel like they have to better the specs and come with 18mp 1Dx and similarly sized 5D3?

Canon has always been about pleasing its customers with better specs, but if Nikon does not push them, they will remain content and cruise, not innovate. This is frustrating.

 

[Loswr]

judging from the reflection off the bottle, these image you have are kind of well lighted, my understand is that shooting high iso in well lighted situation will perform better than same iso in really low light situation, anybody confirm that.

That's absolutely true. Most internet/review ISO noise tests are carried out in an expeident manner - a scene with bright, constant lighting, aperture held constant (so DoF doesn't change), and ISO increased with corresponding decreases in shutter speed to keep exposure the same. So, the highest ISOs are shot with the shortest shutter speed - a typical range might be from 1/30 s at ISO 100 to 1/8000 s at ISO 25600. Those settings are not often real-world relevant - usually, if you need to use ISO 6400, you don't have anywhere near enough light for a 1/2000 s shutter speed (exceptions exist such as needing to stop action in motorsports). Those short shutter speeds minimize the effect of read noise, which is a major contributor to total noise when light is limiting. So, ISO 6400 and 1/2000 s is going to look a lot better than ISO 6400 at 1/60 s.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I would have bought a D3S for the low light performance, but switching all my lenses makes the cost of a body look like chump change.

Tha main advantage of high mp is the ability to crop, and I do a lot of cropping of my 5D MK II images with good results. If you fill the frame of a 12 mp camera the image will be excellent, since 6mp is about all you need for most prints.

 

[JR]

judging from the reflection off the bottle, these image you have are kind of well lighted, my understand is that shooting high iso in well lighted situation will perform better than same iso in really low light situation, anybody confirm that.

That's absolutely true. Most internet/review ISO noise tests are carried out in an expeident manner - a scene with bright, constant lighting, aperture held constant (so DoF doesn't change), and ISO increased with corresponding decreases in shutter speed to keep exposure the same. So, the highest ISOs are shot with the shortest shutter speed - a typical range might be from 1/30 s at ISO 100 to 1/8000 s at ISO 25600. Those settings are not often real-world relevant - usually, if you need to use ISO 6400, you don't have anywhere near enough light for a 1/2000 s shutter speed (exceptions exist such as needing to stop action in motorsports). Those short shutter speeds minimize the effect of read noise, which is a major contributor to total noise when light is limiting. So, ISO 6400 and 1/2000 s is going to look a lot better than ISO 6400 at 1/60 s.

This makes perfect sense Neuro and I always wondered why I had better high ISO shots in daylight! From my own limited experience with the 5D mkII, if I need to shoot at 6400 or even at 12,800 during the day to stop the action it gives me very good and usable results. However if I try the same settings indoors at night in low lights the noise shows up a lot more and even with a heavy dose of noise reduction in Lightroom, the picture then become very "artificial" and not usable...