Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800

[atkinsr]

Even the highly regarded mpixpro lab made me send them an 8 bit sRGB JPG for my 24x36 print, and much to my surprise, at 24MP, it turned out just fine.

Are you using the latest ROES version? I'm not sure about MPix, but the ROES that Bay Labs and others are now using support TIFF uploads and most labs that use ROES allow you to use AdobeRGB.

Yes, downloaded about an hour before I submitted the order for the big canvas. I'm going by what they say on their website. I'll have to play around with this and if it accepts the large TIFF file and AdobeRGB, email them and try to get it re-printed. According to their website, all of their printers work in the sRGB colorspace, so if ROES does accept it, it may be changing colorspace and converting the TIFF to JPG... if so, I'd rather do it myself so I have some control over the output. The help page I'm referring to is: http://www.mpixpro.com/help/help.aspx?id=21#anchor_115

I may look into Bay Labs in the future as well. Thanks for responding! (and apologies to the OP; not trying to thread-jack)

 

[Loswr]

It's not because you don't need it than no one does.

Of course not. The point is that Canon's goal isn't to make a product to meet the specific needs of every individual. They've shown that they can accurately assess the needs of the majority, and design/produce cameras and lenses that satisfy the needs of the majority of customers. If an individual's needs differ from those of the majority, they should look elsewhere for gear...and understand that their doing so doesn't bother Canon in the least.

 

[David Hull]

can anyone explaine why Canon has no high Mp FF camera as Nikon
Brett

Can you explain why the 5DIII seems to outsell the D800? Just curious.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A lot of people purchase D800's because of the High MP count. I did it as well. Then, I bought some very good Nikon Lenses and used it for about 2000 images at varying ISO's up to 12800.

It was very good up to ISO 400, but by ISO 800, the noise and file size started noticeably climbing. The 24-70 f/2.8 G had such horrible CA's at the edges that it could not be corrected in Lightroom. Of course, if I printed it at a small size and did not crop, it was fine, but I wanted to be able to crop images a lot, and that's when the noise shows up - in spades. Noise wasn't horrible, and could be reduced with NR, but it was taking too much time. With today's better raw processors and faster computers, NR and processing are not a issue. The thing was, I used my 1D MK IV sise by side with the D800, and it performed very well at 12,800 and focused much better. I had bought it used, so the cost was the same.

Then, there was the issue of trying to edit 1000-1500 NEF images from a nights shoot at high ISO's. The time it took my computer to run NR was so long that it was very frustrating. I have 2 generations newer pc, and LR5 now, and it does run faster, usable even.

So far, the photographers I know who bought the D800 were not happy, and either sold it, or are wanting to. Last fall, one wanted to give his D800e in trade for my 5D MK III. Its a good camera, but needs some exceptional skill to get the most out of it, and many can not do that and are disappointed.

Its entirely possible that the refresh will sell, and some of the early issues will be overcome, but Nikon's track record in fixing issues has not been good as of late.

 

[symmar22]

It's not because you don't need it than no one does.

Of course not. The point is that Canon's goal isn't to make a product to meet the specific needs of every individual. They've shown that they can accurately assess the needs of the majority, and design/produce cameras and lenses that satisfy the needs of the majority of customers. If an individual's needs differ from those of the majority, they should look elsewhere for gear...and understand that their doing so doesn't bother Canon in the least.

I hear you, but aside from the debate if Canon sells more or less, it is supposed to be one of the 2 real professional DSLR brands (aside from medium format). The want / need for a higher Mpx count is not the fact of only one individual, it is a requirement for lots of pro photographers. Therefore it is not completely insane to assume that Canon (if they still consider themselves as a professional photo equipment company), could think about fulfilling the needs of a decent part of the professional market (fashion, beauty, product, architecture, interiors, art repro and so on), who would need more resolution. The market being what it is, not everyone can afford the 50k investment for a digital back. I am just saying that Sony/Nikon, seem to have understood the need, while Canon wants to sell a camera that does everything. Doing that, they push away a sizable part of the pro market (not everybody is into sports or weddings).

The way Nikon has segmented the pro cameras make IMO more sense, D4 for press/speed, D800 for studio/resolution, D600 for general public/budget. With canon we have 1Dx for everything/high end, 5D3 for everything/medium end, 6d for everything/budget. I'm not saying they are bad cameras, I am saying that the image they give are all the same.

And no, I do not want to switch to Nikon (I was there for 20 years), I would just like to have another sensor to put behind my 10k of EF glass. In my case the Sony A7r will likely be the alternative, but I would have preferred a Canon 35/40 Mp DSLR offer.

 

[R1-7D]

One of the posters (I forgot to record the name, damn it) at dpreview.com said this on Nikon sensors. I saved the quote to ask Neuro about, but since it seems relevant to this thread I'll just post it.

Nikon has completely given in to the whims of customers in protecting shadows (because we all know the importance of exposing shadows to the point that they are no longer shadows) but that sacrifices highlights at the other end of the spectrum.
Canon focuses on just the opposite, but according to the masses they do not capture as much shadow detail in giving you that greater range in highlights.

Technically, in the scope of capturing light, once the upper end of the spectrum is blown - it is gone - and therefore should be the end protected the most. However the average photographer (aptitude or numerical demographic) has been made to believe that broad dynamic range in the areas of a photo that you were not intended to see (shadows) is the most important part of photography.

 

[3kramd5]

can anyone explaine why Canon has no high Mp FF camera as Nikon
Brett

Yes, however those who can explain understandeably don't share proprietary information. The rest of us can speculate, as has been done here, as well as many other places.

To finish, I do not agree with the idea that the D800 (or A7r) are niche products; they are not for everyone, and have not been designed as all-round cameras. Nikon has the D600 and Sony the vanilla A7 for that purpose, but that doe not make them niche cameras, simply specialized ones (ask pro fashion and beauty photographers if their Hasselblads are niche cameras).

That's exactly what it makes them. Specialized cameras aimed at a specific subset of the market are niche by definition. They include medium format systems, 1Dx, D4, D800, etc.. There's nothing wrong with serving a niche market, it's just risky from a business perspective.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?

And about signal noise and if the cameras file size are compared at the same file size, there are not much to discusse, they are equal regarding higher iso. So my question is, why can not Canon introduce a high megapixel camera year 2014 ?

Canon can and have produced high mp sensors (160mp on a 1.3 crop was the last I heard of) however they probably don't see a market for high MP cameras. As a Canon user I most certainly do not want higher MP and on APSC cameras I want much lower MP than is currently available.
Given that Canon, up until recently, offered higher MP cameras than the competition don't you think they would still be doing so if they thought there was any profit in them?
Perhaps you should contact Canon and see what they say?

 

[Loswr]

The way Nikon has segmented the pro cameras make IMO more sense, D4 for press/speed, D800 for studio/resolution, D600 for general public/budget. With canon we have 1Dx for everything/high end, 5D3 for everything/medium end, 6d for everything/budget. I'm not saying they are bad cameras, I am saying that the image they give are all the same.

It may make sense to you, but obviously Canon doesn't see it that way...and Canon sells more dSLRs than Nikon, so clearly Canon's way of segmenting the market is working for them.

 

[Sporgon]

The cheapest modern medium format back is worth 20k for 40-50MPx resolution, so the idea of getting 36 Mpx for 1/10th of the cost makes perfect sense.

Does it ? As someone who has used medium and large format film you must know that these mediums were not just about more resolution; there are significant benefits from the much larger format - as well as some disadvantages of course. With digital we are not even getting the same size of medium format !

My own feeling regarding the answer to this thread is that Canon are probably of the opinion that if you really require more than 24 mp you require a larger format to make it worthwhile. I'm also sure their market research guys will have an accurate handle on the general response to the D800, and that has only confirmed this view.

I'm also amazed that Nikon produced a 36 mp camera without any way of having access to raw data in a smaller file form. I know that sRAW etc are generally not at all popular on CR, but for people coming away from an event with over 1000 frames, that are not likely to be produced very big anyway but will require editing, the smaller files are very welcome - and that's on 22 mp never mind 36.

 

[Loswr]

I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?

As I've stated many times, people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. For example, with a given data throughput rate, one could have 50% more resolution or a 50% higher frame rate.

As stated above, Canon produced a 120 MP APS-H sensor, so clearly they can achieve high pixel density. The most likely answer is that Canon could produce a high MP body, and likely could have done so for some time. But they haven't. Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. You can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.

 

[Bruce Photography]

I've read a number of reviews (in print and online) that indicate that the D800 starts to fall apart once you get above ISO 800-1600.

I don't agree and I use D800/e bodies.
you can get perfectly usable shots at 1600 & 3200 with very little NR required so it's nowhere near "falling apart" at 800. I don't even bother with NR at 800 and it's still good at a per-pixel level.

otherwise..
As for the constant comments on superiority of Canon glass, what's the point of it until there's a more capable EOS body to put it on? Did no one here bother to look at the lens tests for D800e on DxOmark?
There's a good many lenses capable of rendering more MP than Canon has theoretical ones and you can mount them on a D800e .

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-DxOMark-sharpness-rankings

e.g. The flyweight Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is capable of stunning resolution, handheld, a few stops below the usual 1/FL rule as well. A little technique and decent glass can get a lot of MP out of these bodies, if needed, and the sensor performance in other areas is still top-of-class.

Truly good and unique Canon glass, like the TS series, are better adapted for use on Sony A7 bodies.

Canon has, for years, been a letdown for those hoping for improved sensor performance and-or resolution.
I was one of those people but, with little patience, I found better options, went there, and have enjoyed the benefits of that decision since 2012. I don't have time to waste on Canon-HOPE.

+2 At long last someone that reports the same results for the D800/E as I have been getting. I was shooting the new Tamron 150-600mm at 3200 on the D800 last night hand-held and I was pleased with the results (except for the fact that all the birds in the area took off when they saw the lens). I did have to do some noise reduction but I really like the tighter grain (I mean noise) and can smooth it over to what print size I'm aiming at. Thanks again for letting Canon users know they do have options.

 

[3kramd5]

I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. ... So my question is, why can not Canon introduce a high megapixel camera year 2014 ?

.

Before you asked why they do not, not why they can not. They certainly can produce higher resolution sensors. Whether and when they do are business decisions.

 

[DanielW]

I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?

Is that swedish food I'm smelling?

 

[Lawliet]

Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. You can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.

Thats a very simplified view of "market". For example does the 5D3 sell better because people feel its in a sweet spot, or are there factors like depreciation rules that make a quick switch unviable?
The idea that sales of one particular item within a complete system in the context of a long term commitment is an accurate reflection of how well it fits unbiased customer demands(i.e. thats all we get, so it has to fit) is somewhere between naive and intentionally bad science.

 

[DanielW]

Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. You can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.

Thats a very simplified view of "market". For example does the 5D3 sell better because people feel its in a sweet spot, or are there factors like depreciation rules that make a quick switch unviable?
The idea that sales of one particular item within a complete system in the context of a long term commitment is an accurate reflection of how well it fits unbiased customer demands(i.e. thats all we get, so it has to fit) is somewhere between naive and intentionally bad science.

What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?

 

[Sporgon]

Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. You can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.

Thats a very simplified view of "market".

If you want to see the 'market' look at the used availability and values. In the UK at least there are more D800 s for sale than 5DIII s, and cheaper to boot. That says it all really.

 

[Lawliet]

What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?

That question is about as smart as DXO or and lens review site boiling their whole results down into a single number...
But complacent reliance on market inertia has historical precedence, lets seewhat has been learned from those examples.

 

[Loswr]

Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. You can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.

Thats a very simplified view of "market". For example does the 5D3 sell better because people feel its in a sweet spot, or are there factors like depreciation rules that make a quick switch unviable?
The idea that sales of one particular item within a complete system in the context of a long term commitment is an accurate reflection of how well it fits unbiased customer demands(i.e. thats all we get, so it has to fit) is somewhere between naive and intentionally bad science.

Given the petulant and transparent nature of the original question, only a simple response was warranted.

The fact remains that we aren't privy to the motivation behind Canon's business decisions, much less the motivation behind the buying decisions of millions of consumers. To suggest we could know that information is somewhere between disingenuous and just plain silly.

Nevertheless, we can observe the results of those business and buying decisions, namely that Canon is the market leader for dSLR sales, and has been so for over 11 years. For the last ~4 of those years, Nikon has had "better" sensors (better if you believe DxOMark's Biased Scores, that is), and that hasn't helped Nikon move ahead of Canon in market share, nor even gain significantly. I would not consider market inertia or brand loyalty as major drivers for that, since the bulk of the market is at the entry-level end, where system buy-in doesn't really affect buying decisions.

 

[DanielW]

What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?

That question is about as smart as DXO or and lens review site boiling their whole results down into a single number...
But complacent reliance on market inertia has historical precedence, lets seewhat has been learned from those examples.

I definitely agree with you on that one. That's probably why Canon outsells other companies: it's rather a good system, not a good sensor or whatever piece. That's why you can't just boil it all down to a number or a single reason.
There must be a better way of saying "Canon's wrong, but the reasons are way too complex for you to understand", though. I was truly hoping for something better...
About market inertia, well, I guess we will really have to see, even though I fail to see it on Canon's part except on the mirrorless market.
Cheers,
Daniel