Specialised cameras or a good all rounder?

[Flake]

The reason for this question is an apparant divergent path being taken by Nikon & Canon.

The new D800 has a massive MP count, but likely will not have great low light performance, the D4 has great low light / high Iso performance but nothing like the MP count. Nikon fans say there are people who want a high MP count, and others who want high Iso as if they are mutually exclusive, and for Nikon users now they are.

The way I see it, if you want both then there's no alternative but to buy two cameras depending on what you're shooting, for some that's not going to be an issue, but I much prefer the way Canon appears to be going with a camera which covers all the bases very well in a single package.

I just wonder what the feeling of others are on this

 

[Hillsilly]

I'd agree that a middle of the road approach is generally better than a choice of cameras on both extremes.

But I assume Nikon have done their market research. Imagine a situation where you had a choice of three cameras - low light / allrounder / big MP count. I'd suspect that most people would choose the big MP option. Some would choose the low light option. The allrounder would probably be a sales flop?

 

[torger]

Today you can make a high MP camera a good all-arounder. ISO performance will be fine up to ISO6400 - which I think is enough to cover "all-around" ground. 4 - 6 fps is also good enough for all-around. Which AF to include is up to the manufacturer.

The big mistake in the D800 making it less all-around is that it does not have the reduced size RAW formats like Canon has. Say a 36 megapixel camera with a 18 and a 9 binned RAW formats would be great all-around.

I think the manufacturer should provide a camera to cover all niches (possibly several bodies), to show that they support all photographers, not just the largest most profitable group. My current feeling is that Canon is on the way to abandon their customers in the smaller niches (i e high res niche), I hope I'm wrong though.

 

[moreorless]

I'd agree that a middle of the road approach is generally better than a choice of cameras on both extremes.

I'd say that the more expensive a camera is the more focused on a specific task it should probabley be considering that it will be more likely to be bought by professionals or amatures with a serious interest in one aspect of photography.

For FF DSLR's I think sports/jurno/wildlife body needs to be at the top given that its the area where such cameras can claim to provide the highest performance, then a high megapixel landscape/studio body somewhat cheaper as it will not be able to compete with MF for performance and finally a good all round body as the cheapest.

What exactly makes a "good all rounder" is I spose whats up for debate, personally I'd say that ISO performance is probabley more in need of an upgrade friom the 5D mk2 than megapixels. How many people often print at A2 or larger to really exploit 36 megapixels? my guess is not that many, espeically as 18X12 is where most comsumer printers max out. By comparison takling pics of moving subjects indoors does very quickly move you to pretty high ISO's unless your willing to work with a very large appature.

But I assume Nikon have done their market research. Imagine a situation where you had a choice of three cameras - low light / allrounder / big MP count. I'd suspect that most people would choose the big MP option. Some would choose the low light option. The allrounder would probably be a sales flop?

The impression I get is that Sony are ultimately the ones behind the decision to go with 36 megapixels. I'd guess we'll probabley see it in a new FF body from them reasonabley soon and going for a headline grabbing high megapixel count is probabley viewed as a good way to increase market share.

 

[unfocused]

This isn't a choice that camera manufacturers want to make. It's a choice they have to make because of the current state of technology.

The imaging material (formerly film) is now an integral part of the camera. Technology has advanced sufficiently that any DSLR will produce good results under normal conditions. But, it is not yet possible for a single sensor to meet every demand (high resolution, broad dynamic range, low noise, high ISO performance). We are playing around the margins and the margins keep getting pushed out.

On this forum and others we make a big deal out of small differences. But, the fact is that for probably 99% of shooting, the differences between the lowest cost DSLR and the highest-cost DSLR aren't going to be apparent in the final product.

So, in reality, every DSLR now manufactured works fine as a good "all-rounder" but when you go beyond typical conditions and typical subjects, there are tradeoffs and the manufacturers are simply trying to match their products to as many of the unusual conditions as possible, knowing that some of those conditions and demands are incompatible with other conditions and demands in the current state of technology.

 

[K-amps]

The big mistake in the D800 making it less all-around is that it does not have the reduced size RAW formats like Canon has. Say a 36 megapixel camera with a 18 and a 9 binned RAW formats would be great all-around.

I was wondering if the 1.5x crop modes on the D800 make for a smaller RAW file size... perhaps thats why they do not have sRAW/mRAW.

All I want to keep saying is, Thank you Nikon for releasing the D800 Already! It pushes Canon to show it's hand and end our long overdue wait.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The reason for this question is an apparant divergent path being taken by Nikon & Canon.

The new D800 has a massive MP count, but likely will not have great low light performance, the D4 has great low light / high Iso performance but nothing like the MP count. Nikon fans say there are people who want a high MP count, and others who want high Iso as if they are mutually exclusive, and for Nikon users now they are.

The way I see it, if you want both then there's no alternative but to buy two cameras depending on what you're shooting, for some that's not going to be an issue, but I much prefer the way Canon appears to be going with a camera which covers all the bases very well in a single package.

I just wonder what the feeling of others are on this

I prefer an all rounder. If CR rumors are to be believed Canon isn't going that direction at all (I'm not sure CR rumors are to be believe in this case though ;D).

Canon easily has the tech to make a 30MP,6fps (without grip and magic batteries), better than 7D AF. Just hope they get it and do it. Some signs point to the fact they have but a number of little signs are popping up though that hint they will have decided to hold way back again .

EDIT: hah just read your entire message and it I see you think the Canon is heading all rounder and that Nikon is being all specialist, 100% opposite of how it looks to me ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

For FF DSLR's I think sports/jurno/wildlife body needs to be at the top given that its the area where such cameras can claim to provide the highest performance, then a high megapixel landscape/studio body somewhat cheaper as it will not be able to compete with MF for performance and finally a good all round body as the cheapest.

What exactly makes a "good all rounder" is I spose whats up for debate, personally I'd say that ISO performance is probabley more in need of an upgrade friom the 5D mk2 than megapixels. How many people often print at A2 or larger to really exploit 36 megapixels? my guess is not that many, espeically as 18X12 is where most comsumer printers max out. By comparison takling pics of moving subjects indoors does very quickly move you to pretty high ISO's unless your willing to work with a very large appature.

The thing is MP count doesn't hurt image quality as much as people think. And if the D800 uses the SONY column ADC and the 1DX uses the same ADC tech they have all along the D800 with 36MP might even have 1-2 stops BETTER low ISO DR than the 1DX.

And there are some strong hints that 36MP vs 18MP might not cause more than 1/4 stop loss of SNR at high ISOs, which is nothing much you can notice.

And MP are also very useful for people who shoot wildlife which is often hard to approach, some species even stick to the tops of tall trees, etc. and even if you can afford an 800mm it may still leave you short.