Why a high MP camera?

[tron]

I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...

Similar but not the same or even close. 12 -> 21 is a much bigger jump in system resolution than 22 -> 36, taking into account all other factors for resolution.

+1 Plus, it's the combinations of Cameras and Lenses that count so the difference of 22Mpixel Canon with top Canon lenses and 36Mpixel Nikon with top Nikon lenses is not so much according to DxO if I recall correctly. Sure D800 wins but not by much.

There are Nikon lenses equal good as Canon, there are lenses from Sigma, Tamron etc
Put a good lens on a d800 and I guarantee that you will se a difference, the same difference IF Canon had a 36Mp camera today

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/886/%28lens2%29/175/%28brand1%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/795/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792

I was thinking of the above DxO comparison:
Canon 5D3 with Canon 24-70 2.8 II and Nikon D800 with Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

 

[Jay Khaos]

5DIII owners are arguing this point as if they are Macgyvers of photography who get the job done with the bare minimum... lol

There are plenty of uses for infinitely high megapixel counts. Maybe not for weddings or casual shooting... but in general, you might accomplish the same shot with a cheaper/sharper lens and still have the freedom to frame what you want after the shot. Working in advertising, I often reuse the same image for different purposes—some cropped in extremely close. With retina displays coming on to the scene, high resolution isn't just for big prints.

Also, for stock photography photos are priced by size (at least on istockphoto). Not to say that most people NEED those big sizes... but as long as they will pay, I am a fan

 

[AlanF]

Just visiting St Petersburg (full of Canon 70-200mm f/2.8) and thought that this from the The Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood (Russian: Церковь Спаса на Крови) illustrated nicely the effects of not having enough MP (taken with SX50 at 600mm equiv, iso 1250, 1/20s f/5.6).

 

[tron]

5DIII owners are arguing this point as if they are Macgyvers of photography who get the job done with the bare minimum... lol

There are plenty of uses for infinitely high megapixel counts. Maybe not for weddings or casual shooting... but in general, you might accomplish the same shot with a cheaper/sharper lens and still have the freedom to frame what you want after the shot. Working in advertising, I often reuse the same image for different purposes—some cropped in extremely close. With retina displays coming on to the scene, high resolution isn't just for big prints.

Also, for stock photography photos are priced by size (at least on istockphoto). Not to say that most people NEED those big sizes... but as long as they will pay, I am a fan

1st. You are being both rude and ignorant of the fact that not everyone needs a high megapixel camera. Your needs are NOT everyone's needs. The mere fact that you laugh at people who are satisfied with their 5DIII camera is ... funny to say the least... Especially since NO ONE said there shouldn't be a high megapixel camera.
2nd. You ignore the fact that lenses cannot resolve "infinite megapixels" Take a look at DxO for a change...
3rd. A cheaper/sharper lens. Mmmm interesting. With a few exceptions cheaper and sharper are mutually exclusive properties.

 

[Faxon]

I am not a pro still photographer. I am a pro video shooter (tv news), so I like fine equipment. The best part of the high resolution wars is the fact that guys like me can buy a beautiful 10 MP 1D Mk III for a fraction of it's original price, and get the world's best resolution five years ago. The rapidly evolving MP wars has it's benefits for bargain hunters.

My 8 MP 20D still makes beautiful macro photographs, and my "new" 1D will do the same, with all the enjoyment of using a top grade piece of equipment and getting comfortable with the best, without having to spend $6000.00. I will NEVER print anything larger than 8x10 and simply don't need more camera. Low light? That is why I might buy a 5D MkIII when the price drops in December.

Some classic film cameras are real cheap now as well, wonderful for the "perfect shot" type of measured, crafted photography, which I can certainly appreciate. Film Leicas, the unobtainable, will they EVER drop in price? I would not buy a digital Leica. Why would anyone? The MP count keeps passing them by.

 

[strykapose]

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr

 

[Loswr]

it shows that the Canon lens is better, nothing else
put a sigma 35/1,4 or a nikon 85/1,4 etc on a d800

Yeah, but that's a pretty significant something. A 24-70/2.8 is a very popular lens for a lot of good reasons, and a prime just doesn't cut it in a lot of situations. The fact that the D800 + Nikon 24-70/2.8 doesn't offer a whole lot more real resolution than a 5DIII + Canon 24-70 II is just one example of diminishing returns with increasing resolution. Plus, of course, there's more to taking a picture than system resolution.

It will be interesting to see if Nikon comes out with a new 24-70, and how the Canon 24-70 II will perform on a future (hypothetical) high MP body from Canon.

 

[Loswr]

I do not use the 24-70 from Nikon, I use lenses who can reproduce the higher mp

So, say you were shooting an event and needed a zoom lens covering the general purpose range of moderate wide angle to short tele, and an f/2.8 aperture for subject isloation and low-light use. What lens would you use on your D800 to give you the full benefit of the higher MP?

 

[RLPhoto]

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr

How about that d700 replacement?

 

[Daniel Flather]

Because the d800 was released.

Because more is better. The new truck model will always have more HP, not less.

 

[RLPhoto]

Because the d800 was released.

Because more is better. The new truck model will always have more HP, not less.

Exactly, why do they make diesels? After all,they make such terrible HP compared to gas trucks. Perhaps a different use in mind?