At dpreview somebody talked about workflow in relation to MP count. According to the photojournalists the 1Dx would provide fast workflow, so the nikonians hope for a D4 at 18 MP.
What is the wedding photographer's perspective on MP count vs workflow concerning the 5D3?
Here's an excerpt from the thread over at dpreview:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=39927496&page=5
"bobn2 wrote:
ScottMac wrote:
Obviously, from canon's 1DX spec, 18 Mp is the max (currently) for high iso IQ.
For Canon, very possibly, but they have different constraints.
I do agree if the D4 was 24 MP and 1080 HD, and the high iso IQ was as good or better than thr D3s, it would bury Canon and bury the 1DX. But it's not going to be 24 MP and even in a dreamworld it would never be 2 to 4k, it would be $8,000+.
There is no evidence or reason behind those statements. Since 24MP will 'bury Canon and the 1D X' that's a very good reason for Nikon to do it.
Bob, generally, I agree with most of what you are saying about the D800, but there is one sidepoint where I disagree somewhat: D4.
I was talking to a group of fellow PJ shooters just about a week ago (during a longer break in a TV show). Usually among those people there is very little gear talk (and if so, most often about things like better batteries for flashes or some useful cabin bag for hauling around your gear). But we ended up talking about the announced 1D X. Mind you, over here, almost all of the bigger magazines and agencys working with news and/or sports photography has switched to Nikon in the past three years. While freelancers on a budget for the most part has remained with Canon - switching is expensive.
Of those (two) present using Canon, they were happy for the transition to 24x36 in the 1D X, was longing for Canons 200-400 (Nikons 200-400 is a beloved lens among sports and PJ shooters) - and were more or less relieved that Canon had not upped the MP count any further (they both had 1D Mk4 with 16 MP). And among the (five, aside from me) present Nikon shooters several expressed worry that Nikon would go overboard in the MP departement, the common ground seemed to be that 18 MP was a nice number. And these people were not (as so many in these forums) worried about noise levels - it was all about workflow. I have said several times before, and I am aware I am a small minority in this, but I personally would actually prefer a 12 MP D4 for that reason alone ... One of the others sort of agreed to that, but 16-18 MP seemed to be where the others felt was a good level. I mentioned 24 MP and that evoked very little enthusiasm, one guy said (and he does not follow rumour sites ) he rather had "a high res small body, like a 5D on the side" - this seemed to match others opinions pretty well. After that the discussion drifted away for a anecdote about a 5D dropped into the ice of a nearby hockey rink while rigging roof mounted cameras - PJ shooters never tire in telling such stories
Ok, this was a small group of photographers, and I am aware there are other audiences for a D4 then people like these, but ... I am not all that convinced a 24 MP D4 really would be such a 1D X killer - at least for that particular reason. Other things seem to weigh heavier on press photograpers minds: One of the features of the 1D X which received most attention during our chat - and this I have heard from more working photographers - is the Ethernet socket. That is a feature which seem to capture the interest of PJ photogs a lot more then higher MP count. (It sure captures my interest!)
The other big issue discussed was if Canon finally would include the in-camera image editing Nikon has had for a while, and how this functionality could be improved. Many people send images straight from the camera these days. Again, it is so much about workflow, that truly is the big issue in this world. One recurring subject among pro sports or PJ shooters is the frustration - and there is a lot of it - about the clunky WIFI solutions - this summer I heard one Mark III shooter exclaim in pain and frustration that he did not care one bit (ok, he used other, non-Dpreview-compatible words ...) about a new camera, just give him a smoother, more reliable and more useful WIFI setup ...
I have no problem seeing a 36 MP D800. I was sceptical of that rumour at first, but after thinking it through, it started to make a lot of sense to me. But as for MP count in a D4 - I for one really do not want it to be a 24 MP camera. Possibly 18. Actually rather 16. And quite frankly I would be very happy with 12. And this from workflow alone! It is not about noise, I have no doubt a 24 Mp camera could be as good or somewhat better then a D3s, but I really, really, want a fast workflow. The main stress of todays sport and press photographers is not image quality constraints, it is workflow constraints, or simpler put: stress connected with delivering images fast enough.
Things like in camera editing, camera connectivety weighs heavy on many photographers minds. Imgage quality in general is of course important, but most often even there from a workflow point of view - one recurring opinion about the D3s I have heard is applauds of its "workable" files. Many love it because you can get so much IQ out of those files with so little post processing effort - resulting in a fast workflow."
What is the wedding photographer's perspective on MP count vs workflow concerning the 5D3?
Here's an excerpt from the thread over at dpreview:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=39927496&page=5
"bobn2 wrote:
ScottMac wrote:
Obviously, from canon's 1DX spec, 18 Mp is the max (currently) for high iso IQ.
For Canon, very possibly, but they have different constraints.
I do agree if the D4 was 24 MP and 1080 HD, and the high iso IQ was as good or better than thr D3s, it would bury Canon and bury the 1DX. But it's not going to be 24 MP and even in a dreamworld it would never be 2 to 4k, it would be $8,000+.
There is no evidence or reason behind those statements. Since 24MP will 'bury Canon and the 1D X' that's a very good reason for Nikon to do it.
Bob, generally, I agree with most of what you are saying about the D800, but there is one sidepoint where I disagree somewhat: D4.
I was talking to a group of fellow PJ shooters just about a week ago (during a longer break in a TV show). Usually among those people there is very little gear talk (and if so, most often about things like better batteries for flashes or some useful cabin bag for hauling around your gear). But we ended up talking about the announced 1D X. Mind you, over here, almost all of the bigger magazines and agencys working with news and/or sports photography has switched to Nikon in the past three years. While freelancers on a budget for the most part has remained with Canon - switching is expensive.
Of those (two) present using Canon, they were happy for the transition to 24x36 in the 1D X, was longing for Canons 200-400 (Nikons 200-400 is a beloved lens among sports and PJ shooters) - and were more or less relieved that Canon had not upped the MP count any further (they both had 1D Mk4 with 16 MP). And among the (five, aside from me) present Nikon shooters several expressed worry that Nikon would go overboard in the MP departement, the common ground seemed to be that 18 MP was a nice number. And these people were not (as so many in these forums) worried about noise levels - it was all about workflow. I have said several times before, and I am aware I am a small minority in this, but I personally would actually prefer a 12 MP D4 for that reason alone ... One of the others sort of agreed to that, but 16-18 MP seemed to be where the others felt was a good level. I mentioned 24 MP and that evoked very little enthusiasm, one guy said (and he does not follow rumour sites ) he rather had "a high res small body, like a 5D on the side" - this seemed to match others opinions pretty well. After that the discussion drifted away for a anecdote about a 5D dropped into the ice of a nearby hockey rink while rigging roof mounted cameras - PJ shooters never tire in telling such stories
Ok, this was a small group of photographers, and I am aware there are other audiences for a D4 then people like these, but ... I am not all that convinced a 24 MP D4 really would be such a 1D X killer - at least for that particular reason. Other things seem to weigh heavier on press photograpers minds: One of the features of the 1D X which received most attention during our chat - and this I have heard from more working photographers - is the Ethernet socket. That is a feature which seem to capture the interest of PJ photogs a lot more then higher MP count. (It sure captures my interest!)
The other big issue discussed was if Canon finally would include the in-camera image editing Nikon has had for a while, and how this functionality could be improved. Many people send images straight from the camera these days. Again, it is so much about workflow, that truly is the big issue in this world. One recurring subject among pro sports or PJ shooters is the frustration - and there is a lot of it - about the clunky WIFI solutions - this summer I heard one Mark III shooter exclaim in pain and frustration that he did not care one bit (ok, he used other, non-Dpreview-compatible words ...) about a new camera, just give him a smoother, more reliable and more useful WIFI setup ...
I have no problem seeing a 36 MP D800. I was sceptical of that rumour at first, but after thinking it through, it started to make a lot of sense to me. But as for MP count in a D4 - I for one really do not want it to be a 24 MP camera. Possibly 18. Actually rather 16. And quite frankly I would be very happy with 12. And this from workflow alone! It is not about noise, I have no doubt a 24 Mp camera could be as good or somewhat better then a D3s, but I really, really, want a fast workflow. The main stress of todays sport and press photographers is not image quality constraints, it is workflow constraints, or simpler put: stress connected with delivering images fast enough.
Things like in camera editing, camera connectivety weighs heavy on many photographers minds. Imgage quality in general is of course important, but most often even there from a workflow point of view - one recurring opinion about the D3s I have heard is applauds of its "workable" files. Many love it because you can get so much IQ out of those files with so little post processing effort - resulting in a fast workflow."
