Um... is there a 30mpix camera on the way and when?

[JR]

Yesterday I had a chat with a friend who is working for CMJ (Canon Marketing Japan). So far there is no plan of releasing any 30mp+ full frame camera within this year but if D800 sells very well, there could be a surprise. He cannot tell me any more than that because of NDA of course.

I am not surprised by your comments. I always thought if canon goes high mp it will be only in 2013...

 

[ZEROrhythm]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

You forget this is the digital age. You have many people that are in graphics. You have work stations that can push out 36mp like nothing.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.

Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.

 

[Axilrod]

Maybe the up coming 24 & 28mm f2.8 are a hint too.
Why would they add an IS to those?

Sharper handheld images, ability to shoot with longer shutter speeds, more stable video. On an APS-C sensor the 28mm is approaching 50mm so it definitely wouldn't hurt.

 

[barton springs]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

You forget this is the digital age. You have many people that are in graphics. You have work stations that can push out 36mp like nothing.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.

Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.

So you're saying you are in the business of graphic design and that is your area of expertise? .... and you also are saying you need photographers to submit files (enormous RAW files of course) from a 30+ megapixel DSLR as a preference? Or would you rather have files submitted from a medium format camera more typical in high-end graphics. If I was in that position and my workflow allowed for those type of file sizes I'd seek out the medium format highest end 5-star photogs.

The bodies such as what I use (Mark IV's) at 16.1 megapixels should work for anything. I had to check how many megapixels I have just now since it is so much more than what I need. It's the other features that I care about not megapixels. I quite caring once it got over 10. No matter how many megapixels a camera has people somewhere will always have an argument for why they (or somebody else) could need more.

Re-read Phil's post. It is right on the mark. Do pros really need to investment in a newer 30+ megapixel body? Do they know how to effectively use the technology they already own?

In that vain right now I'm wrestling with having to maybe replace my Mark IV bodies with the newer Mark X at over $6600 a piece. Canon has priced me out of doing this at least on the short term. How about a 200-400 for $11,000? Nope.

IMO these new high megapixel bodies such as the Nikon D800 will be mostly purchased by avid amateur's but they won't use it at "full power" once they see how much time it takes to deal with those file sizes... unless they have a personal assistant that doubles as a photo assistant/photo editor ;-)

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I suppose another way of looking at this, as a pro, is "I have $5000 to spend out of my turnover that is just sitting there doing nothing".

As a business (that's what a pro - or semi-pro - is) you need to look at ROI. I could spend that $5000 on:
* Photography training
* A new lens or two or three
* Marketing
* Sales training
* New admin systems
* Sample albums for venues
* A new body from Canon
* A switch from Canon to Nikon
* A new website

As a pro, you can't have everything. That's the point of a business - once the money is gone, it's gone. Which of these things will get the pro the best ROI? I'm not here saying it's this or that, but the pro should be looking at their own weaknesses *as a business*, and not specifically as a photographer.

A pro photographer is a *business* that sells photographs. It's not that different to a business that sells other products in that they need various functions to stay upright: product, admin, accounting, marketing, sales. If any "leg of the stool" that makes their business up is "shorter" than the others, the stool will topple.

I know we all like kit - we wouldn't be here otherwise - but when people say "think of the possibilities you could get with 4 stops more DR" I'm sitting there thinking "think of the extra turnover I could get if I was more effective in sales" or "think of how much happier my customers would be if I was totally on top of my admin". Boring but true.

I also think "Think how much happier *I* will be when I know my camera is focussing at the level I want it to without taking 20 shots to be sure" and "Wow - won't my customers look great with that 135f2" and when I bought LR4 "Great! I have control of my highlights now so I won't have to underexpose and push the shadows!". I've decided to get a 1dx since it'll work for me for years and I need a focus system that works just anywhere in any conditions, but it was a struggle to decide to spend that much.

But what I'm most MOST certainly not thinking is "Wow! I'll be able to print 25% larger with this new body if I throw $5k at changing systems".

What I do know for certain is that the UK's highest paid wedding photographer shoots with a 1d3 (or 1d3s - I forget) and in JPEG.

YMMV

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.

Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.

I understand. If you can come up with an AMAZING marketing plan for using all of those MP or all that DR that you have, that can give a business an edge.

If not it's just slightly bigger prints. Slightly cleaner shadows. Stuff my clients will never notice. Stuff that even my photographers friends won't notice.

(and I do a lot of beauty editing, so I know it's easier to edit on larger images: www.phildrinkwater.co.uk . However, I think the 25% difference on the d800 will not make a large difference to editing ability).

**Hmm.. the more interesting post was on the previous page. Don't you hate it when something ends up on the previous page **

 

[ZEROrhythm]

I've been a pro sports photog for over 10 years and it's rare I or my colleagues ever need files that are maxing out the bodies as far as megapixels. We all use 1D series or Nikon D series pro bodies. If we provide the clients with images that are *sharp and *in focus that is what matters and knowing your settings backwards and forwards and being able to make changes fast without having to think about it is key.

It's not about megapixels. If it is then make the jump to medium format now don't wait.

I do agree with you.

However, I'm also aware that the demands of different markets are different. I'd say that sports just doesn't need more MP. I'd also say weddings (which is my key market) doesn't need more - in fact I'm going down in res from a 5d2 to 1dx this year. Fashion and beauty ... some people need more and some don't - I've certainly not needed more in the past 3 years. Landscape photographers who print large need as much as they can get. And so on.

What concerns me is that people don't seem to understand some of the basics:
* How do I determine if I need more resolution?
* What is the real difference in resolution between 12, 22 and 36Mp?
* (for pros) How will my business be affected by having or not having more Mp?

I'll give an example. One of my friends in London said 4 years ago that, to be a fashion photographers, he needed more MP and he dropped about £25K on a MF system. It got him nowhere. Another of my friends had a 5d2 and ran it for years and years. Once he was getting noticed and was getting paid regularly, he upgraded to MF and since has been doing very well. Another of my friends in more commercial markets took a "leap of faith" and fortunately he's done OK. However, was it the MF or his business knowledge which has got this for him?

What I think annoys pros when I suggest they don't need more MP is that they think I don't understand their technical needs, but my point is that, I can see you might need it technically and you might know how to judge that *but does your business need it*. That's what you have to be really careful with.

You forget this is the digital age. You have many people that are in graphics. You have work stations that can push out 36mp like nothing.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to see the other side of the spectrum and the possibilities that comes with it.

Having high mp in the right censor will give you so many real estate to play with. Makes editing images a lot easier to modify. Also it will make sampling images a lot cleaners. There are so many possibilities if you open your mind and willing to learn to utilize what's out there.

So you're saying you are in the business of graphic design and that is your area of expertise? .... and you also are saying you need photographers to submit files (enormous RAW files of course) from a 30+ megapixel DSLR as a preference? Or would you rather have files submitted from a medium format camera more typical in high-end graphics. If I was in that position and my workflow allowed for those type of file sizes I'd seek out the medium format highest end 5-star photogs.

The bodies such as what I use (Mark IV's) at 16.1 megapixels should work for anything. I had to check how many megapixels I have just now since it is so much more than what I need. It's the other features that I care about not megapixels. I quite caring once it got over 10. No matter how many megapixels a camera has people somewhere will always have an argument for why they (or somebody else) could need more.

Re-read Phil's post. It is right on the mark. Do pros really need to investment in a newer 30+ megapixel body? Do they know how to effectively use the technology they already own?

In that vain right now I'm wrestling with having to maybe replace my Mark IV bodies with the newer Mark X at over $6600 a piece. Canon has priced me out of doing this at least on the short term. How about a 200-400 for $11,000? Nope.

IMO these new high megapixel bodies such as the Nikon D800 will be mostly purchased by avid amateur's but they won't use it at "full power" once they see how much time it takes to deal with those file sizes... unless they have a personal assistant that doubles as a photo assistant/photo editor ;-)

No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.

I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.

I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market.

I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.

I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.

Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.

Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.

 

[briansquibb]

No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.

I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.

I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market.

I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.

I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.

Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.

Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.

I am trying to get my head round this one - but calling someone clueless when they have a different opinions is not a good way to get consensus.

Would I be right in thinking that you want to take pictures and extract parts from them, using mp to keep the IQ up?

You see I believe that the majority do print and view the images so that is the 'normal' requirement, so the need to have large mps cameras will limited to a very small section of people. The manufacturers aim their products at the largest market segment to get the maximum profit - that is the reality of the situation.

Now it is possible to get very large mps MF bodies and I dont see why you dont use those rather than 35mm DSLRs. However if being an amateur there is a budget constraint then you may have to adopt a different approach to resolve your issues, for example, getting closer and taking many closeups, or buying longer lens, macro lens etc

I do agree with you in that more mps are useful for cropping to different paper sizes, but for that about 25mps is all that is needed for native printing on A3.

 

[barton springs]

No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.

I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.

I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market.

I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.

I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.

Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.

Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.

I am trying to get my head round this one - but calling someone clueless when they have a different opinions is not a good way to get consensus.

Would I be right in thinking that you want to take pictures and extract parts from them, using mp to keep the IQ up?

You see I believe that the majority do print and view the images so that is the 'normal' requirement, so the need to have large mps cameras will limited to a very small section of people. The manufacturers aim their products at the largest market segment to get the maximum profit - that is the reality of the situation.

Now it is possible to get very large mps MF bodies and I dont see why you dont use those rather than 35mm DSLRs. However if being an amateur there is a budget constraint then you may have to adopt a different approach to resolve your issues, for example, getting closer and taking many closeups, or buying longer lens, macro lens etc

I do agree with you in that more mps are useful for cropping to different paper sizes, but for that about 25mps is all that is needed for native printing on A3.

Zero I don't want to continue a debate or discussion once I see a person isn't understanding ours posts and worse than that saying I'm clueless. There isn't much a person in my position doesn't understand about picture taking. You don't know me so I'll give you a pass on that but there are other pros that speak the same language as I do and vice versa that know what I'm talking about. With the present day level equipment such as Mark ll or especially the newest Mark lll someone just like you should have the results you need if the *professional* *knowledgable* photog using that body is using it correctly... correct lens, tripod, settings, etc. Again I'll point out the data issue. If a person is using that new Nikon D800 or any future body with 36 megapixel capability we are talking about a workflow that will require dealing with files over 200+ megs. It would seem to me that the graphics folks that want that or have the time to deal with that would be using medium format as a solution and want the very best. Or on the other hand you'll have avid amateurs who will always feel the need to have the most megapixels money can buy but for all the wrong reasons.

The only thing people think they know about cameras is megapixels. "Hey that's a nice camera you have there. I have one just like it. How many megapixels does yours have" If I have a nickel for every time that happened.......

 

[takoman46]

No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.

I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.

I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market.

I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.

I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.

Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.

Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.

I am trying to get my head round this one - but calling someone clueless when they have a different opinions is not a good way to get consensus.

Would I be right in thinking that you want to take pictures and extract parts from them, using mp to keep the IQ up?

You see I believe that the majority do print and view the images so that is the 'normal' requirement, so the need to have large mps cameras will limited to a very small section of people. The manufacturers aim their products at the largest market segment to get the maximum profit - that is the reality of the situation.

Now it is possible to get very large mps MF bodies and I dont see why you dont use those rather than 35mm DSLRs. However if being an amateur there is a budget constraint then you may have to adopt a different approach to resolve your issues, for example, getting closer and taking many closeups, or buying longer lens, macro lens etc

I do agree with you in that more mps are useful for cropping to different paper sizes, but for that about 25mps is all that is needed for native printing on A3.

Zero I don't want to continue a debate or discussion once I see a person isn't understanding ours posts and worse than that saying I'm clueless. There isn't much a person in my position doesn't understand about picture taking. You don't know me so I'll give you a pass on that but there are other pros that speak the same language as I do and vice versa that know what I'm talking about. With the present day level equipment such as Mark ll or especially the newest Mark lll someone just like you should have the results you need if the *professional* *knowledgable* photog using that body is using it correctly... correct lens, tripod, settings, etc. Again I'll point out the data issue. If a person is using that new Nikon D800 or any future body with 36 megapixel capability we are talking about a workflow that will require dealing with files over 200+ megs. It would seem to me that the graphics folks that want that or have the time to deal with that would be using medium format as a solution and want the very best. Or on the other hand you'll have avid amateurs who will always feel the need to have the most megapixels money can buy but for all the wrong reasons.

The only thing people think they know about cameras is megapixels. "Hey that's a nice camera you have there. I have one just like it. How many megapixels does yours have" If I have a nickel for every time that happened.......

... I wouldn't be pressing max bet on the mega bucks every time I'm in vegas hoping and praying that I'll hit it and be set for life!

 

[ZEROrhythm]

No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.

I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.

I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market.

I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.

I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.

Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.

Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.

I am trying to get my head round this one - but calling someone clueless when they have a different opinions is not a good way to get consensus.

Would I be right in thinking that you want to take pictures and extract parts from them, using mp to keep the IQ up?

You see I believe that the majority do print and view the images so that is the 'normal' requirement, so the need to have large mps cameras will limited to a very small section of people. The manufacturers aim their products at the largest market segment to get the maximum profit - that is the reality of the situation.

Now it is possible to get very large mps MF bodies and I dont see why you dont use those rather than 35mm DSLRs. However if being an amateur there is a budget constraint then you may have to adopt a different approach to resolve your issues, for example, getting closer and taking many closeups, or buying longer lens, macro lens etc

I do agree with you in that more mps are useful for cropping to different paper sizes, but for that about 25mps is all that is needed for native printing on A3.

Zero I don't want to continue a debate or discussion once I see a person isn't understanding ours posts and worse than that saying I'm clueless. There isn't much a person in my position doesn't understand about picture taking. You don't know me so I'll give you a pass on that but there are other pros that speak the same language as I do and vice versa that know what I'm talking about. With the present day level equipment such as Mark ll or especially the newest Mark lll someone just like you should have the results you need if the *professional* *knowledgable* photog using that body is using it correctly... correct lens, tripod, settings, etc. Again I'll point out the data issue. If a person is using that new Nikon D800 or any future body with 36 megapixel capability we are talking about a workflow that will require dealing with files over 200+ megs. It would seem to me that the graphics folks that want that or have the time to deal with that would be using medium format as a solution and want the very best. Or on the other hand you'll have avid amateurs who will always feel the need to have the most megapixels money can buy but for all the wrong reasons.

The only thing people think they know about cameras is megapixels. "Hey that's a nice camera you have there. I have one just like it. How many megapixels does yours have" If I have a nickel for every time that happened.......

I do understand where you are coming from, but it's really one side. You're not trying to grasp the reason why a person would need a high mega pixel camera, you are really fixated on your ways of thinking.

You have no clue what my work flow is , and yes I do have a 5d mark 2 with L lens and I don't want to jump ships cause of my gears. Why the heck would I need a medium format camera? I don't need to lug it around . I don't do studio shots . I don't have special lighting( all my lighting are virtual anyways). All I need is a high mp camera cause I get more real estate to play with. Yes I'm really happy with mark 2 it take beautiful pictures, but the need for more Mp is always there because of the flexibility I have with more.

My 3d projects can fill 100gb with in a day work with all my PS files and 3d mesh. 200 mb files wouldn't hurt my work flow.

I'm not out there to take wonderful photos, I just take photos of random things like rust , garbage , human skin, eyes , so on and on. I don't need anything other than a high end camera that I can walk around with, to build my library.

Having clear images with high mp means, I can go back to those photos and take anything out of those images for my art.

there always a market for that, that's why the d800 is such a big success, it's out selling the mark3.

If you're satisfied with what you have that's great, but you can't say that for everyone else. Blaming people and calling them amature cause they need more Mp doesn't make you any better.

 

[briansquibb]

Why the heck would I need a medium format camera? I don't need to lug it around . I don't do studio shots . I don't have special lighting( all my lighting are virtual anyways). All I need is a high mp camera cause I get more real estate to play with. Yes I'm really happy with mark 2 it take beautiful pictures, but the need for more Mp is always there because of the flexibility I have with more.

- MF cameras go to at least 80mp
- MF are not only for studios and they dont need special lighting

You need to get your head round the fact that high mp = MF

If you have to stick with DSLR then try getting less in an image - 20mp of a image 1m square is the equivalent to 80mp taking an image of 2m square. Take multiples and stitch them - try googling panorama. Landscape shooters often stitch several together getting well over the equivalent of 100mp

 

[skoobey]

Boy oh boy many people haven't got a clue.

Not everything is a business, some people are ARTISTS, and yes we do live from selling our art, but we would continue to do so even if we couldn't afford it.

And also, while I do understand that most people here thinks that photo taken on a wedding is as good as it gets, there are simply other things out there.

MF are clunky, expensive, and you do not want to take it with you int a rainforest, or in the warzone, or in the most locations, 35mil is just so much more reliable.

Also, for me it is not economical to go MF just for the sake of the MF, I was just gathering information weather or not higher MPs are on Canon's agenda.

 

[briansquibb]

Boy oh boy many people haven't got a clue.

Not everything is a business, some people are ARTISTS, and yes we do live from selling our art, but we would continue to do so even if we couldn't afford it.

And also, while I do understand that most people here thinks that photo taken on a wedding is as good as it gets, there are simply other things out there.

MF are clunky, expensive, and you do not want to take it with you int a rainforest, or in the warzone, or in the most locations, 35mil is just so much more reliable.

Also, for me it is not economical to go MF just for the sake of the MF, I was just gathering information weather or not higher MPs are on Canon's agenda.

I tell you how to get round the issue, giving you 2 different options - and you call me clueless.

I am an amateur so I dont treat photography as a business. I guess that makes me an artist - just not the kind of artist you seem to be

 

[ZEROrhythm]

Boy oh boy many people haven't got a clue.

Not everything is a business, some people are ARTISTS, and yes we do live from selling our art, but we would continue to do so even if we couldn't afford it.

And also, while I do understand that most people here thinks that photo taken on a wedding is as good as it gets, there are simply other things out there.

MF are clunky, expensive, and you do not want to take it with you int a rainforest, or in the warzone, or in the most locations, 35mil is just so much more reliable.

Also, for me it is not economical to go MF just for the sake of the MF, I was just gathering information weather or not higher MPs are on Canon's agenda.

I tell you how to get round the issue, giving you 2 different options - and you call me clueless.

I am an amateur so I dont treat photography as a business. I guess that makes me an artist - just not the kind of artist you seem to be

so you are saying I need to go out and spend a lot of money for higher mega pixel cause I need a MF camera? Which would make it so bothersom to use for my needs.

Canon can't release something like the d800?
Wow, you're logic is messed up.
I rather spend my money on my comp for faster render time. And like I stated before I'm. Not going to jump ship, I love my canon lens. I guess I will happy with my 5d mark 2 a little longer.

 

[briansquibb]

so you are saying I need to go out and spend a lot of money for higher mega pixel cause I need a MF camera? Which would make it so bothersom to use for my needs.

Canon can't release something like the d800?
Wow, you're logic is messed up.
I rather spend my money on my comp for faster render time. And like I stated before I'm. Not going to jump ship, I love my canon lens. I guess I will happy with my 5d mark 2 a little longer.

If you had read my response then you would have spotted TWO options

1. A MF body that gives you the high mp you asked for

2. Create a virtual high MP body by stitching several images together.

And you call us clueless

 

[moreorless]

I understand. If you can come up with an AMAZING marketing plan for using all of those MP or all that DR that you have, that can give a business an edge.

If not it's just slightly bigger prints. Slightly cleaner shadows. Stuff my clients will never notice. Stuff that even my photographers friends won't notice.

To be fair not all photography businesses are the same and how sucessful they are doesnt nesserally denote how much they need extra megapixels.

A semi pro landscape photographer being able to put a tack sharp 30 X 20 inch print on the shop wall rather than say a 24 X 16 print is going to potentially create more impact and charge more.

 

[Kernuak]

I understand. If you can come up with an AMAZING marketing plan for using all of those MP or all that DR that you have, that can give a business an edge.

If not it's just slightly bigger prints. Slightly cleaner shadows. Stuff my clients will never notice. Stuff that even my photographers friends won't notice.

To be fair not all photography businesses are the same and how sucessful they are doesnt nesserally denote how much they need extra megapixels.

A semi pro landscape photographer being able to put a tack sharp 30 X 20 inch print on the shop wall rather than say a 24 X 16 print is going to potentially create more impact and charge more.

A 30x20 inch print from the 5D MkII would be output at 187 pixels/inch. On the wall of a shop, I very much doubt that any customers walking in would see any visible loss of sharpness at that resolution. You would need to start looking up close to have any chance and even then, I doubt many would notice. Lens quality would have a much bigger impact and realistically, when it comes to landscapes, provided it is acceptably sharp in the first place, the colour and composition has a much bigger impact. Uneven sharpness (either due to corner lens softness or insufficient depth of field) is much more noticeable than slight, even softness across the frame.
Very few customers are discerning enough to take a forensic level look at whether an image is critically sharp, in fact many of our rejects would probably sell just as well as some of the images we actually put up for sale. I expect most pro or semi-pro photographers (and alot of amateurs/hobbyists fall could easily put their work against pros and semi-pros) are over-critical, as that is what constantly drives improvement.

 

[skoobey]

No, but I do take many photos for my 3d work for textures and samples many of my photo library for many things.

I have nothing against you, but you are clueless to why people will need a high MP camera. Not every one that takes photo for prints and stills.

I use a lot of my photos for my art stuff from my 3d work to photo manipulation, and building my library for my creative needs when i need them. Space is cheap, and I have more than enough power in my comp to edit anything in the market.

I swear people are so close minded now a day. Photography has gotten huge since it went digital. You don't need to be a pro photographer to need a high end equipment.

I never stated I'm a great photographer or can produce stunning images out of my camera. I just want a camera that can give me a lot of mega pixels I can play with because that's is my main needs. It might not be yours, but it's mine.

Sometimes I look through my library of photo and sigh that I want to use something out of photo, and realized I can't sample from them cause the mega pixel aren't enough to make a clean image.

Anyways to each there own. It's the end production that counts.

I am trying to get my head round this one - but calling someone clueless when they have a different opinions is not a good way to get consensus.

Would I be right in thinking that you want to take pictures and extract parts from them, using mp to keep the IQ up?

You see I believe that the majority do print and view the images so that is the 'normal' requirement, so the need to have large mps cameras will limited to a very small section of people. The manufacturers aim their products at the largest market segment to get the maximum profit - that is the reality of the situation.

Now it is possible to get very large mps MF bodies and I dont see why you dont use those rather than 35mm DSLRs. However if being an amateur there is a budget constraint then you may have to adopt a different approach to resolve your issues, for example, getting closer and taking many closeups, or buying longer lens, macro lens etc

I do agree with you in that more mps are useful for cropping to different paper sizes, but for that about 25mps is all that is needed for native printing on A3.

Zero I don't want to continue a debate or discussion once I see a person isn't understanding ours posts and worse than that saying I'm clueless. There isn't much a person in my position doesn't understand about picture taking. You don't know me so I'll give you a pass on that but there are other pros that speak the same language as I do and vice versa that know what I'm talking about. With the present day level equipment such as Mark ll or especially the newest Mark lll someone just like you should have the results you need if the *professional* *knowledgable* photog using that body is using it correctly... correct lens, tripod, settings, etc. Again I'll point out the data issue. If a person is using that new Nikon D800 or any future body with 36 megapixel capability we are talking about a workflow that will require dealing with files over 200+ megs. It would seem to me that the graphics folks that want that or have the time to deal with that would be using medium format as a solution and want the very best. Or on the other hand you'll have avid amateurs who will always feel the need to have the most megapixels money can buy but for all the wrong reasons.

The only thing people think they know about cameras is megapixels. "Hey that's a nice camera you have there. I have one just like it. How many megapixels does yours have" If I have a nickel for every time that happened.......

I do understand where you are coming from, but it's really one side. You're not trying to grasp the reason why a person would need a high mega pixel camera, you are really fixated on your ways of thinking.

You have no clue what my work flow is , and yes I do have a 5d mark 2 with L lens and I don't want to jump ships cause of my gears. Why the heck would I need a medium format camera? I don't need to lug it around . I don't do studio shots . I don't have special lighting( all my lighting are virtual anyways). All I need is a high mp camera cause I get more real estate to play with. Yes I'm really happy with mark 2 it take beautiful pictures, but the need for more Mp is always there because of the flexibility I have with more.

My 3d projects can fill 100gb with in a day work with all my PS files and 3d mesh. 200 mb files wouldn't hurt my work flow.

I'm not out there to take wonderful photos, I just take photos of random things like rust , garbage , human skin, eyes , so on and on. I don't need anything other than a high end camera that I can walk around with, to build my library.

Having clear images with high mp means, I can go back to those photos and take anything out of those images for my art.

there always a market for that, that's why the d800 is such a big success, it's out selling the mark3.

If you're satisfied with what you have that's great, but you can't say that for everyone else. Blaming people and calling them amature cause they need more Mp doesn't make you any better.

EXACTLY!

 

[moreorless]

A 30x20 inch print from the 5D MkII would be output at 187 pixels/inch. On the wall of a shop, I very much doubt that any customers walking in would see any visible loss of sharpness at that resolution. You would need to start looking up close to have any chance and even then, I doubt many would notice. Lens quality would have a much bigger impact and realistically, when it comes to landscapes, provided it is acceptably sharp in the first place, the colour and composition has a much bigger impact. Uneven sharpness (either due to corner lens softness or insufficient depth of field) is much more noticeable than slight, even softness across the frame.
Very few customers are discerning enough to take a forensic level look at whether an image is critically sharp, in fact many of our rejects would probably sell just as well as some of the images we actually put up for sale. I expect most pro or semi-pro photographers (and alot of amateurs/hobbyists fall could easily put their work against pros and semi-pros) are over-critical, as that is what constantly drives improvement.

Of course the megapixels alone are not going to makeup for any other weaknesses but why not give yourself that extra strenght? seems more logical than buying a 5D mk3 that offers high FPS and ISO performance you'll probabley never use.