K
KeithR
Guest
Apparently they didn't build him his own tailor-made personal camera.handsomerob said:I don't see where Canon made an error?!
Upvote
0
Apparently they didn't build him his own tailor-made personal camera.handsomerob said:I don't see where Canon made an error?!
dilbert said:x-vision said:Not sure where Nikon is going with that.
36MP is spectacular on paper but seems impractical for event photogs (arguably the main target market of this camera).
The slow frame rate does not help either.
This is not aimed at event photographers.
It is for studio and landscape use.
JR said:If so then we could expect the next D4 to be low in MP like the 1DX and maybe also expect a new body from Nikon between the D4 and the D800 with smaller MP (like a D4) and a smaller form factor compared to the D4 right?
traveller said:If this is true, then Nikon are being very strange as well... This D800 will more or less kill off the D3x and the D4, which will presumably be presumably lower resolution to get better high ISO & frame rates for action shooters, is due for release first (Olympic year)? So maybe it's both Canon and Nikon that see no future for a large body, high resolution camera? Roll on the 5D MkIII at 300MP+!
handsomerob said:JR said:If so then we could expect the next D4 to be low in MP like the 1DX and maybe also expect a new body from Nikon between the D4 and the D800 with smaller MP (like a D4) and a smaller form factor compared to the D4 right?
The D300s replacement (D400?) would fit perfectly in that spot, in the 18-24MP range, to compete with 7DII
I also expect D4 to be quite close to 1DX, in almost all areas.
traveller said:If this is true, then Nikon are being very strange as well... This D800 will more or less kill off the D3x.andThe D4, which will presumably be presumably lower resolution to get better high ISO & frame rates for action shooters, is due for release first (Olympic year)? So maybe it's both Canon and Nikon that see no future for a large body, high resolution camera? Roll on the 5D MkIII at 300MP+!
It will kill the D3x but not the D4, no, they will be in different leagues.
motorhead said:With any luck this will make Canon think about a 1Ds replacement in the same megapixel range.
Sorry Canon, but I have no intention of being fobbed off with a 1Dx. I'd rather wait until you see the error of your ways.
Him and the not insignificant crowd of people who use a high resolution camera with a crop factor - bird photographers, sports and news types...I doubt many are smiling benevolently on Canon's youthful blunder of the f/5.6 AF limit, either.KeithR said:Apparently they didn't build him his own tailor-made personal camera.handsomerob said:I don't see where Canon made an error?!
AG said:Interesting Youtube video posted by Dom Bower today regarding this camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPX_Q1zVJc&feature=share
Most interesting part being his section on the lenses. Now i don't keep up with the specs on the Nikon gear but if what he is saying is true, then he makes a fairly solid case why this camera may not actually be as great as people think/hope.
It's not an "OPTION". Selecting fewer pixels to save to storage doesn't make those pixels any larger on the sensor, or give them another stop or two of sensitivity. I don't need the ability map pixels 1:1 to billboards, but being able to shoot my son indoors without motion blur would be awesome. Screw 36 MP. Give me 12 with another stop or two of usable ISO / aperture instead.Eagle Eye said:As companies are able to deliver cameras that improve digital noise and add more sophisticated features while simultaneously delivering the OPTION of higher resolution (don't forget, you don't have to shoot full size RAWs), why wouldn't they?
Would the same consumers eventually complain if, unlike the proles, they awakened and began to understood that diffraction is already making today's pixel densities worthless? Will nobody be satisfied until we hit DLA at f/2.8?Don't you think consumers would complain if they knew a technology was capable of 36mp but companies were only delivering 12? I, for one, am happy that 35mm cameras are beginning to reach the resolution of MF, at least in terms of sensor capability.
Eagle Eye said:The term "megapixel race" is thrown around a lot, I think somewhat erroneously. There is no "race," but rather progress. As companies are able to deliver cameras that improve digital noise and add more sophisticated features while simultaneously delivering the OPTION of higher resolution (don't forget, you don't have to shoot full size RAWs), why wouldn't they? Don't you think consumers would complain if they knew a technology was capable of 36mp but companies were only delivering 12? I, for one, am happy that 35mm cameras are beginning to reach the resolution of MF, at least in terms of sensor capability.
Some thoughts on the D800/5d Mark III: This may be the new look of the "studio camera." Why do you need 1-series weather sealing in a studio? I'd expect the new standard size cameras to present a full set of pro features in a compact body designed for studio work, but capable of light field work for photojournalists, landscape photographers, wedding photographers, and the like. I think many photographers who started with film have never liked the large 1D body size anyway; I'd far prefer something to which I can attach a grip if I needed it, but otherwise could be compact. The 5d Mark II with enhanced resolution, the new pro autofocus, 100% viewfinder coverage, two card slots, and a slightly extended battery life, plus unlocked software features, would pretty much fit that bill, possibly coming in at around $3,500. Such a price point would leave open a spot for a re-packaged 5d Mark II sensor in a smaller body with fewer features for about $1,800. Just some thoughts. What do you all think?
anthony11 said:(...) Will nobody be satisfied until we hit DLA at f/2.8?
Diffraction is a non-issue in the Real World.anthony11 said:Would the same consumers eventually complain if, unlike the proles, they awakened and began to understood that diffraction is already making today's pixel densities worthless?
I'll have those small pixels please, plenty of 'em, and I won't worry one little bit about diffraction.Are smaller pixels somehow worse? Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached with large pixels does not mean the final photo will be any worse than if there were instead smaller pixels and the limit was surpassed; both scenarios still have the same total resolution (although one will produce a larger file). Even though the resolution is the same, the camera with the smaller pixels will render the photo with fewer artifacts (such as color moiré and aliasing). Smaller pixels also provide the flexibility of having better resolution with larger apertures, in situations where the depth of field can be more shallow. When other factors such as noise and depth of field are considered, the answer as to which is better becomes more complicated.
I'm a bird 'tog too, and I'm also surprised at the f/5.6 AF limit: but I don't believe for a second that Canon will change its direction just because I - or anyone else - complains on an internet forum about it or threatens to spend my hard-earned elswhere.Edwin Herdman said:Him and the not insignificant crowd of people who use a high resolution camera with a crop factor - bird photographers, sports and news types...I doubt many are smiling benevolently on Canon's youthful blunder of the f/5.6 AF limit, either.
motorhead said:Richard
www.rcb4344.zenfolio.com