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

[Chuck Alaimo]

Just wanted to add my two cents to the struggle. The Mpx fight seems to be an endless debate, nevertheless, I am always surprised to see people who seem to decide what is good for others. More resolution will always be wanted, that doesn't mean it's always needed. Saying that more pixel is useless is just nonsense; it might be useless for you, but some folks need more resolution for different matters. I am old enough to have worked with film for a good while, and in the good old times, everyone was trying to switch to the newest film because of it's better sharpness and finer grain. Some jobs needed better resolution than others, a press photographer could deal with small format (24x36), while fashion required medium format and advertising large format view cameras; nobody would discuss if 4x5 format was useful or not. It's like asking Ansel Adams if he really needed to shoot 8x10 sheet film.

Nowadays, things have changed a bit, since all DSLR outresolve easily small format, and the only thing that is still out of reach is the large format (minimum 4x5) cameras. On the other hand, most people only watch their pictures on screens, so for that purpose, most DSLR are overkill.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't a demand for higher quality. My work is architecture, landscape and interiors, where every pixel available is required. These jobs were previously done ideally with large format view cameras, one of the domains were DSLR cannot still compete.

One of the option is to put a digital back on a view camera, but we talk about 30 to 50k budgets here, plus they are extremely awkward to use in the field. 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.

Sure not everyone needs that, as a hobbyist, if you take pictures of the dog in the garden to show on facebook, it's just plain ridiculous, but for lot of working pros with budget limitation, the Sony 36Mpx sensor is plain gold, whether you are a Nikon user (D800) or for us Canonists in the form for now of the Sony A7r / metabones combination. The Sony has the immense advantage of "opening" the system, and to get rid of the dependence to one lens/camera brand.

You like it or not, the Sony sensor is more advanced than anything Canon is able to put on the market. It's one thing that you are perfectly happy with your equipment (or for some that you rage about the inability from Canon to design a competitive sensor for now), but it is another one to say that nobody needs better. I can read that lots of people here use their camera hand held, focus with AF and make extensive use of high ISOs. For this use, a 1Dx, 5D3 or 6D make perfect sense; in my case, I use a tripod 99% of the time, very seldom use more than 400 ISO, and focus manually since 75% of my work is done with TS-E lenses.

I could easily say : "why the hell do people need 150 points AF, 12Fps and 12800 ISO"?. I don't, because I know some folks shoot different things than I do, use different technique and simply have different needs. So maybe it's time to admit that other people may need more than the average 20Mpx than Canon can offer us nowadays.

It's not because you don't need it than no one does. I work with a 5D2 and I've reached the limits of its sensors, some of my clients would like (need) more, but the 50k digital view camera option is not a realistic financial option in my case. Fact is that Canon has nothing better to offer for my needs than my 5 years old 5D2. So the option will likely be the Sony / metabones combination. There is no shame here, and I consider myself lucky that Sony is offering an alternative.

When I shoot for pleasure, I use a Linhof 4x5 camera with Schneider lenses, and the digital files I get from my Canon simply look ridiculous compared to a well scanned 4x5.

A more careful a way to put it would be to ask in what case more resolution is needed, instead of assuming that what is good for you is enough for all. 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). I think it is just different approaches, Canon wants every camera to be an all-rounder, but doing that, they have pushed away specialized users. Nikon or Sony make different cameras for different uses, and I am betting that the new Sony A7s will be extremely successful with videographers, though as well a specialized camera.

I don't think anyone here really doubts that there are people who do need more MP's. But from Canon's standpoint, it's a numbers game, and the numbers don't go in your favor - and I think that's the biggest thing people here are arguing - that numbers game - sure there are tons who want more MP's, but those that need it are much smaller and it is a niche market.

I bring it up a lot here, that difference between needs and wants and how that impacts on camera decisions. I mean, we are human, we like bright shiny things. We all have a list of things we wantbut have no use for, may never use it, may never learn how to use it, may not have the space to store it, etc, etc, etc. The things we need though, we need. Like, you need a car, you need to get to and from work and depending on where you live that's the best way. That car does not have to be a hummer, nor does it have to be (insert fancy fast race car name here). Needs - do you have to drive up a mountain, one without paved roads and traverse creek beds and haul whole giant trees on a daily basis? No, then you don't need a hummer. And the opposite end, to get to and from work do you really need to go 1-60 in 2 seconds? Do you really need a max speed of 300 mph when your not gonna be going more than 65mph? The same applies to all those MP's, needs vs wants. I can say that on both ends - do i need more MP's? No, I want them and sure, a few of my clients would notice the difference - but I shoot weddings and I'm more like to want the MP's for my own displays because the vast majority of print orders range from 4x6 - 8x12. Likewise, something like a 1dx is also overkill, like the racecar because at 12 fps yikes - I'd either never shoot at the full frame rate or end up with 10,000 images from each wedding. That is why for my needs the 5d3 and 6d combo do the trick.

Commercial interior work - for sure that is an area that crosses the line of needs and wants - most commercial jobs are big budget clients with lots to spend. But, back to the numbers game, and the real world - just as with weddings you have your i know a guy with a camera jobs and the I will bill you at 10K per day job. Numbers scale, there are a whole lot more small business' out there that get their friends or find a portrait person to do their commercial shots because most smaller fish don't have the budget to afford a true commercial tog. that's why it's a niche - not enough big money clients to make big budget commercial jobs more than a smaller niche. (your basically working for the upper 5%....)

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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 ?

These companies need to make money in order to keep making the products we want right? so they need to make things that sell. They need to make things that don't break their budgets. You can't talk about this without sales figures - because sales figures do tell you what the demand is and right now. Money talks - so yes, sales are a big factor. I mean, why spend a ton of money in R&D and tooling and production to make something that won't sell in the numbers their other products do????

 

[dgatwood]

I don't think anyone here really doubts that there are people who do need more MP's. But from Canon's standpoint, it's a numbers game, and the numbers don't go in your favor - and I think that's the biggest thing people here are arguing - that numbers game - sure there are tons who want more MP's, but those that need it are much smaller and it is a niche market.

I don't think it's a niche market at all. It just requires the right marketing—advertise it as a built-in, optically lossless 1.6x teleconverter.

I suspect that pretty much every single person who carries a separate crop body or a 1.4x teleconverter for reach would prefer to be able to dispense with those. A full-frame camera with the same pixel density as a crop body would let them do so (albeit at a cost in terms of SNR on a per-pixel level compared with a TC). Maybe that's not a huge market, but I wouldn't call it a niche.

If you did it right, you could even advertise it as a low-end step-up camera for crop body owners wanting to move to a full-frame camera without having to replace their lenses all at once. This would, of course, require a slightly more complicated mirror design to avoid hitting the back of certain EF-S lenses, but I can think of several ways that it could be done. And that market would actually be pretty significant.

Of course, all those people would buy fewer cameras and extenders, so it isn't in Canon's best interest to actually provide that user experience....

 

[Aglet]

Some of us would just be happy if Canon fixed its sensor pattern noise and DR and kept the same resolution. Put the current 24MP FF sensor from Sony in a 5D2 or 5D3 or 6D and I'd be a happy camper.

+1
just fix the pattern noise!
low DR is workable but stripes are for tigers and zebras (& cougars in lycra?)

 

[Orangutan]

Some of us would just be happy if Canon fixed its sensor pattern noise and DR and kept the same resolution.

Now, you just need to go out and convince a few million to join your March Against Pattern Noise and Slightly Inadequate Dynamic Range.

Put the current 24MP FF sensor from Sony in a 5D2 or 5D3 or 6D and I'd be a happy camper.

Isn't that a D600? How's that selling?

How much would Sony charge Canon for that privilege? And what's the cost difference between Canon's in-house sensor and a Sony-made sensor? Are you enough customers willing to pay that difference?

 

[100]

DxOMark's P-Mpix values can illustrate this, in part. Comparing the calculated P-Mpix value with the real sensor MP count gives an approximation of resolution lost 'to the system' (lens, AA filter, etc.). With the very sharp 35A, the 5DIII loses 14% of its theoretically possible resolution, the D800 loses 36%. Sharp as the lens is, you're still seeing the diminishing return with increasing MP counts.

It seems so with most current lenses and I’m ok with some extra loss of resolution due to the bigger impact optical imperfections have in combination with high megapixel sensors but I think optics can be made better suited for those sensors so the gain in resolution will be sufficient enough to justify a 30-40mp FF body.

Look at the Sony FE Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 ZA on a Sony Alpha 7r for instance.
It has a score of 29P-Mpix. That’s “only” 20% below the theoretical maximum, but 30% more than the theoretical maximum of the 22mp 5D MKIII.
This is “best case” at the moment (on average lenses are 45% below their theoretical maximum in P-Mpix I believe) but with purposely designed high mp glass on 30-40mp FF cameras we probably get a substantially higher real world resolution compared to the current 20-24mp FF sensors.

It will all depend on price I guess. With the new Pentax 645z medium format camera costing “just” 8k (50mp, weather sealed, 400k ISO, 3fps) a high mp 135 format camera will have to be substantially cheaper so it probably won’t have an 1D-style body. 5D-style and price tag somewhere around 4K might be possible, but we’ll have to see what Canon comes up with if they decide to bring a high mp body to the market. They may very well decide not to because it will be a relatively small market anyway.

 

[100]

For usable resolution it isn't even just about the system (sensor, AA filter, lens, firmware etc), that just gives you a potential resolution in best case scenario situations that most of us practically never shoot in, and require 10x Live View manual focus, optimal aperture for lens sharpness, minimum or base iso (if we take the time and trouble to work out our sensors true base iso), very good light with high contrast, very firm support, cable release etc etc.

Now that list sounds like a landscape and architectural shooters M.O., and I believe they are the only people who will get any remote chance of worthwhile resolution increases when going over 30MP in the 135 format etc. Having said that I do a reasonable amount of higher end real estate work that is regularly used in quality print advertising as well as posters and billboards and I haven't found 21MP to be a serious limitation. Peolpe who use AF, BIF, sports shooters, action shooters, most wedding shooters etc will get practically nothing from a 30+MP sensor over current models.

After some extensive testing I did with the 1Ds MkIII and the 7D (sure things are better now but they are better for both formats) in ideal shooting situations set up to maximise the difference between the 21MP sensor and the effective 46MP sensor that showed minimal resolution differences, I concluded the numbers mean very little, in real world shooting situations where I was using AF and not optimal iso and aperture settings the differences disappeared completely. In truth AF had a far bigger impact on resolution than a 21 or 46 MP sensor.

If I shot landscape 100% of the time I'd use TS-E's on an A7R where the methodology of realising the potential resolution wouldn't impact my shooting, but I don't, I am a generalist and need AF, a range of ISO's, apertures, and shutter speeds, zoom lenses, etc etc.

In conclusion, I am not saying, and never have, that a higher MP sensor doesn't resolve "more", it does, but the rule of diminishing returns kicks in for virtually all real world shooting scenarios and makes the difference so small as to be imperceptible most of the time. Having something because it has a higher number is a game I stopped playing long ago, I look very closely at what it can actually do for me, so far the disadvantages of higher MP sensors in 135 format have not convinced me that Canon don't know far more about this than us and they hit a sweet spot with the 5D MkIII. I am a long time 1Ds MkIII user, if they come out with a true replacement in the 35-45MP range I am not interested, if they come out with a 1DX MkII with a 24MP sensor I died and went to camera heaven.

I shoot architecture/buildings/cityscapes with the TS-E 24 and I shoot macro. Both usually from a tripod with manual focus and 10x live view, so I’d be interested in a FF 135 format camera in the 30-40mp range if they keep the price under 4k. If it’s 6-8k the Pentax 645z is probably the way to go.
I think with glass specifically designed for high megapixel sensors the increase in resolution will be substantial enough, but you are right it’s only useful for specific situations. For everything else a 20-24mp FF body will do just fine.

 

[Loswr]

I shoot architecture/buildings/cityscapes with the TS-E 24 and I shoot macro. Both usually from a tripod with manual focus and 10x live view, so I’d be interested in a FF 135 format camera in the 30-40mp range if they keep the price under 4k.

If that's what I primarily shot, I'd be giving serious consideration to a Sony a7R with a Metabones adapter to use the Canon TS and macro lenses...

 

[100]

I shoot architecture/buildings/cityscapes with the TS-E 24 and I shoot macro. Both usually from a tripod with manual focus and 10x live view, so I’d be interested in a FF 135 format camera in the 30-40mp range if they keep the price under 4k.

If that's what I primarily shot, I'd be giving serious consideration to a Sony a7R with a Metabones adapter to use the Canon TS and macro lenses...

It’s certainly an option but where I live the Sony with the Metabones will cost me over 2500 euros (about 3500 USD) on top of my Canon gear because I do shoot other things too for which my 5DIII is the best tool. At the moment it’s not worth it to me and I would like to see if Canon comes up with a 30-40mp body within the next 2 years. The price of the 7R will drop probably so I might still end up with one.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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 ?

Similar questions were asked in Nikon forums prior to them using Sony's 36MP sensor and Nikon folks used all of the same arguments here that Canon guys do about why they didn't need it.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that Canon have been working down a different path for sensor R&D in the belief that their current design pattern for full frame sensors was good enough and that Sony's advances with the 36MP sensor caught Canon by surprise.

I don't know about that --- the focus on improving glass says to me that they do have bigger sensor plans, but, want the correct infrastructure in place first and want to get it right the first time (LOL, yeah, that means no here's a d800, and a d800e, oh now here's a new body thats just the 2 old bodies together...). Patience, make all that kick ass glass. In the meantime, we will all be updating other pieces of the puzzle (like our computers, or computer components - big mp files transferred on usb3 takes minutes where as if your still on usb2, well, hope you have other things to do cause that transfer will take a long time).

Either way, I do think that all these lens updates are the prelude to the big mp body launch - which will make the big mp body actually worth it.

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
In 1999, My First Semi-DSLR = Olympus C2500L = 2.5 MP( $ 2,000 with all accessories) with My First 128 MB. Compactflash card ( $ 200 US Dollars ?)---And That was one of the Best camera that I ever have, Better than Sony Mavica = 0.8 MP with 3 1/2 inches Floppy disk.
Now We have 22 MP. still not happy, want 36 to 42 MP DSLR, in 2014.
Just Dream, Near future dreaming.
Surapon.
PS the White house photo below = from Olympus C2500L 1999

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I don't think anyone here really doubts that there are people who do need more MP's. But from Canon's standpoint, it's a numbers game, and the numbers don't go in your favor - and I think that's the biggest thing people here are arguing - that numbers game - sure there are tons who want more MP's, but those that need it are much smaller and it is a niche market.

I don't think it's a niche market at all. It just requires the right marketing—advertise it as a built-in, optically lossless 1.6x teleconverter.

I suspect that pretty much every single person who carries a separate crop body or a 1.4x teleconverter for reach would prefer to be able to dispense with those. A full-frame camera with the same pixel density as a crop body would let them do so (albeit at a cost in terms of SNR on a per-pixel level compared with a TC). Maybe that's not a huge market, but I wouldn't call it a niche.

If you did it right, you could even advertise it as a low-end step-up camera for crop body owners wanting to move to a full-frame camera without having to replace their lenses all at once. This would, of course, require a slightly more complicated mirror design to avoid hitting the back of certain EF-S lenses, but I can think of several ways that it could be done. And that market would actually be pretty significant.

Of course, all those people would buy fewer cameras and extenders, so it isn't in Canon's best interest to actually provide that user experience....

Maybe it's just me but I still think it's a niche market, filled with people who want it more than need it. Again, Need means your business will suffer and lag behind because of it. Want means, I want it, it's pretty and shiny. Need means I feed my family.

The problem here is this - the market in question is niche because ---- there isn't as that much $$$ in it to make it worth it to spend thousands to achieve marginally better results.

LOL - your arguing for a big MP body not for the big files but as a cheap work around to longer focal ranges - why because big tele's are pricey and teleconverters are a trade off for fstops ----why do these types of togs need work arounds? Because there just isn't on a whole that much $$$ to be made on this type of photography - which means it's a hobby budget. That leads us to this weird place where there are pro's looking for por gear for pro reasons and hobby people lobbying to gimp pro gear so that it helps them more for their hobby? And unlike landscape work which there are other options for getting more mps out of current systems by using adaptors and stuff - animals generally need kick ass AF, so even with 36 mp's on that a7r that a7r won't be the king of the jungle.

As others have pointed out ---- part of why the 5d3 is outselling the d800 is because it's a general purpose body. The general user isn't looking to get 600 mm or FOV out of a 300mm lens by cropping.
As this guy here says -

hello world.

RIGHT OR WRONG?
i think that´s not the question.

many of you (like me) want a highmegapixel camera from canon!
as a studio and architecture photographer i would appreciate
more megapixel than 21...(21MP is quite enough but i would welcome
about30-40MP), because i (hope to) know how to use it, and I have the fantatic TSe lenses.
but, i hope i won´t be more than 50MP because that would
be way too much for the small sensor and best lenses used with perfect aperture.

@neuro: i really love to read your posts but sometimes
so please.... not every photographer is doing weddings, sports or events!!
and sure does the 5diii outsell the d800, because its an allroundcamera!!
and to be honest the company canon is a little bigger than nikon...
cheers.

the thing with this is --- wedding photographers are actually the perfect people to target for a general purpose camera. A wedding tog has some action to contend with (dancing and such), they have detail work, they have fashion style work, they have studio level work, they have dimly churches to shoot in, then off to shoot in a bright field, then back to a dimly lit reception - wedding togs are shooting at longer ranges, and at wide ranges ----- so in reality, the average wedding photographer will encounter a very broad range of technically challenging situations --- so yeah, a wedding tog is kind of the perfect subject to design an all purpose camera for.

Back to the idea of niches--- an all purpose camera occupies several niches, where a niche camera is just that --- nikon did mess that one up - they had the d700, widely regarded as a great all purpose camera and turned it into a landscape camera that can also do other things.

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

 

[unfocused]

Back to the idea of niches--- an all purpose camera occupies several niches, where a niche camera is just that --- nikon did mess that one up - they had the d700, widely regarded as a great all purpose camera and turned it into a landscape camera that can also do other things.

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

Chuck, most of what you've written is music to my ears. I've been trying to explain the same thing for quite some time. Canon produced a 5DIII with a definite market in mind. Nikon produced the D800 to win a title (higher MP than Canon). Their marketing department failed them – they didn't have a clear customer base in mind and once the pent-up demand from their existing customers had been met, they didn't have anywhere to go.

I don't want to quibble too much with your post except that I think you have the profitability of business needs and hobbyist needs reversed. From everything I've read, the really lucrative market is hobbyists -- people who buy what they want without being constrained by things like return on investment.

But, I still agree that high megapixel is a niche market. Just as there are very few professionals who can benefit from a high megapixel body, there are few hobbyists who really care about higher megapixels right now. There are some vocal advocates, but they are a small minority.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Back to the idea of niches--- an all purpose camera occupies several niches, where a niche camera is just that --- nikon did mess that one up - they had the d700, widely regarded as a great all purpose camera and turned it into a landscape camera that can also do other things.

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

Chuck, most of what you've written is music to my ears. I've been trying to explain the same thing for quite some time. Canon produced a 5DIII with a definite market in mind. Nikon produced the D800 to win a title (higher MP than Canon). Their marketing department failed them – they didn't have a clear customer base in mind and once the pent-up demand from their existing customers had been met, they didn't have anywhere to go.

I don't want to quibble too much with your post except that I think you have the profitability of business needs and hobbyist needs reversed. From everything I've read, the really lucrative market is hobbyists -- people who buy what they want without being constrained by things like return on investment.

But, I still agree that high megapixel is a niche market. Just as there are very few professionals who can benefit from a high megapixel body, there are few hobbyists who really care about higher megapixels right now. There are some vocal advocates, but they are a small minority.

agreeed...but hobbyists coverthe spectrum too...and the laws of haves and have nots still come into play. Hobbyists may not have to govern their purchases based on ROI like pros do, but - you just can't get around the base economics of it - the middle class is shrinking and expenses keep going up. So yeah, you have your top 10 percent that will buy whatever shiny new thing is out there but until there is more disposable cash in the hands of the middle class we just won't see these shiny things move off the shelves as much. Mid to low level gear will still sell like hotcakes, which ensures that there will be a steady Pros market because they have needs and need to make sure their work is a few notches ahead of the uncle bobs....

 

[unfocused]

Back to the idea of niches--- an all purpose camera occupies several niches, where a niche camera is just that --- nikon did mess that one up - they had the d700, widely regarded as a great all purpose camera and turned it into a landscape camera that can also do other things.

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

Chuck, most of what you've written is music to my ears. I've been trying to explain the same thing for quite some time. Canon produced a 5DIII with a definite market in mind. Nikon produced the D800 to win a title (higher MP than Canon). Their marketing department failed them – they didn't have a clear customer base in mind and once the pent-up demand from their existing customers had been met, they didn't have anywhere to go.

I don't want to quibble too much with your post except that I think you have the profitability of business needs and hobbyist needs reversed. From everything I've read, the really lucrative market is hobbyists -- people who buy what they want without being constrained by things like return on investment.

But, I still agree that high megapixel is a niche market. Just as there are very few professionals who can benefit from a high megapixel body, there are few hobbyists who really care about higher megapixels right now. There are some vocal advocates, but they are a small minority.

agreeed...but hobbyists coverthe spectrum too...and the laws of haves and have nots still come into play. Hobbyists may not have to govern their purchases based on ROI like pros do, but - you just can't get around the base economics of it - the middle class is shrinking and expenses keep going up. So yeah, you have your top 10 percent that will buy whatever shiny new thing is out there but until there is more disposable cash in the hands of the middle class we just won't see these shiny things move off the shelves as much. Mid to low level gear will still sell like hotcakes, which ensures that there will be a steady Pros market because they have needs and need to make sure their work is a few notches ahead of the uncle bobs....

Good point. Reading this forum, it's easy to forget that the t3i remains the best selling DSLR out there. You are correct, most consumers are never going to spend even $1,000 on a camera.

 

[3kramd5]

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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 ?

Yep, and how many of Nikkor lenses can even come close to the resolution capacity of the D800? Not many, curiously Canon have more and are releasing more every year. We have also heard from Canon in the past that they were upgrading their lens catalogue to match the new breed of sensors currently in development.
So it's reasonable to assume that a 36+mp sensor is n the way but there is little point at the moment as there isn't the lens support for such a camera. i don't think that Canon were suprised by Nikon's premature 36mp camera. I think they saw it as foolish and rather premature. Current DXO stats show that in the real world, the 5DIII often out resolves the D800 becuase of the optical resolution still exceeds the sensor resolution, where as a lot of Nikon's lenses are really really old designs (pre digital) and can't keep up with the new sensor.


Similar questions were asked in Nikon forums prior to them using Sony's 36MP sensor and Nikon folks used all of the same arguments here that Canon guys do about why they didn't need it.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that Canon have been working down a different path for sensor R&D in the belief that their current design pattern for full frame sensors was good enough and that Sony's advances with the 36MP sensor caught Canon by surprise.

I don't know about that --- the focus on improving glass says to me that they do have bigger sensor plans, but, want the correct infrastructure in place first and want to get it right the first time (LOL, yeah, that means no here's a d800, and a d800e, oh now here's a new body thats just the 2 old bodies together...). Patience, make all that kick ass glass. In the meantime, we will all be updating other pieces of the puzzle (like our computers, or computer components - big mp files transferred on usb3 takes minutes where as if your still on usb2, well, hope you have other things to do cause that transfer will take a long time).

Either way, I do think that all these lens updates are the prelude to the big mp body launch - which will make the big mp body actually worth it.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

Ok, what of the huge amount of D700 users who wanted a D3 lite replacement?
The D700 was Nikons best performing DSLR in terms of sales by a long long way and far out sold the replacement D800. There was literally half the wedding market selling all their Canon kit and going with Nikon because of that particular camera. When the D800 was released, their only option was to buy a mint S/H D700 or pay nearly double ($4K) for the D4. These buyers genereally need two DSLR bodies...that's $8K!!! There were a lot of really irratated pros and semi pros who no longer had a viable replacement path...they were effectively abandoned by Nikon. The D800 was a fine camera but certainly not a D700 mkII.

Meanwhile back in Canon land, the 5DIII was released keeping all their existing user base happy with a clear and logical replacement plan. Which left a lot of Nikon users pretty green with envy and angry / frustrated with their brand choice. Some even migrated back again. Most pros / semi pros have a three year cycle of camera buying. After which the DSLR is in a pretty shabby state (most nikons have all the rubber falling off by then) and need to be replaced on the reliability factor alone. One of my 5DIII's is up for renewal early next year. If I bought a 1DX, i'd move that camera to a 5 year cycle instead of three.

 

[3kramd5]

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....

meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.

Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.

Waiting for the next best thing in the electronics industry is a losing game.

Buy what you need/want/can afford when you need/want/can afford it, and don't worry if x months down the road there is a better version, because that's a near guarantee.