Richard Nye wrote:
A 36mp sensor would seriously challenge the current lens performance.
It would make better use of current lens performance than lower res sensors - resolution is always affected by both lens and sensor, although there will be diminishing returns when one is improved far beyond the level of the other.
Your post seems to be the most quoted in this thread, so I had to add to the numbers.
@ chez:
Not for me. I do not use or need them. But 70-200 4.0 is worth twice as much as without IS. I tested it. But it is cheaper (as twice).
100 2.8 L is not that much better than the 100mm 2.8. But it is worth the 30% more because of IS. 50mm 1.2 is not having 3 times the 1.4 IQ neither 15 times the 1.8. I still think about it anyway. :-(
Hell! It was just a suggestion, dear CHEZ. And yes, you are right. "Worth" is and will always be a personal decission. And I am the center of my univers. So it is my decission.
I gave it some more thought and I don't think we're thinking like a mass-production company does.
It's cheaper all around to have ONE model line, so what they probably do is place the AA in every camera.
The $300 option is to have techs manually remove the AA. Assuming the camera was assembled with the idea that removing the AA is possible, it's probably easier to remove than previous Nikon cameras, yet Nikon reaps more profit because they now charge $300 for maybe a $100 service.
That's my bet. (also, rest assured Nikon studied how much people were paying 3rd parties to do this AA removal and priced their service accordingly).
It also wouldn't surprise me if some 3rd parties will take an AA-D800 and charge $159 or so to remove the AA, since theoretically it'll be easier to remove than earlier models.
(though, again, if there are extra pieces involved, like shims or whatever to maintain whatever spacing requirements the camera needs...then the 3rd parties are in trouble. This harkens back to Nikon now not selling "repair" parts to non-authorized shops, forcing the 3rd parties to create their own shims).
All just conjecture from me, but I'd be surprised if I were wrong on all counts.
chez wrote:
Yep, blame marketing for everything...engineering can do no wrong...not even the 1d3 misfocus debacle. That was all marketings fault.
If engineering had it's way all the time, they would blow their entire load all at once and have nothing new for the future. Product strategy is key to product success, and that is were good marketing comes to play. The Dumbed down 5d2 was a HUGE success for Canon even though we arm chair quarterbacks like to poke holes in it.
and canon also didn't gain huge share and even lost ground in some areas
and 5d2 also got nabbed by tons of video only buyers
and this time around canon have no high MP + video to fall back on
ok you can't go overboard but OTOH look at the companies who fall into king of the hill and milk current product line for every last fraction of an ounce and compare to companies that try to jump ahead
Man you complain too much, can you just join the darkside, go to the other forum and wreck havoc there please ? .
skibum5 wrote:
and canon also didn't gain huge share and even lost ground in some areas
and 5d2 also got nabbed by tons of video only buyers
and this time around canon have no high MP + video to fall back on
ok you can't go overboard but OTOH look at the companies who fall into king of the hill and milk current product line for every last fraction of an ounce and compare to companies that try to jump ahead
Canon misses out on f/8 AF, has nothing to offer in the high pixel department and shows zero progress as far as low ISO dynamic range (see latest G1X sensor performance) is concerned.
To be fair, Canon has the know-how: see their 14-24 f/2.8L patent and 120 MP APS-H sensor. They are just not flexing their muscles. Maybe they are waiting for their competition to catch up on sales or maybe financially, they are pulling the same trick as Olympus. Whatever it is, it has been quite disappointing so far for Canon supporters.
kewlcanon wrote:
Man you complain too much, can you just join the darkside, go to the other forum and wreck havoc there please ? .
If you are unhappy, get a set of Nikon. You don't have to be loyal to Canon.
thw2 wrote:
Canon misses out on f/8 AF, has nothing to offer in the high pixel department and shows zero progress as far as low ISO dynamic range (see latest G1X sensor performance) is concerned.
How can you make such a statement when Canon has not released the specs of their new body/bodies ... and no one other than Canon employees really know what's being offered?
jcolwell wrote:
Not really. My math shows the 18MPx APS-C sensor has a pixel density of 232 pixels-per-mm (ppmm). A 36 MPx full frame sensor (36mm x 24 mm) would have a pixel density of 209 ppmm. That's not quite as high as the APS-C sensor, but it's pretty close (11%). I suspect that a 209 ppmm FF sensor will show a lot more lens warts (larts) in the corner of a FF image than a 232 ppmm APS-C sensor will show in the corner of an APS-C image. YMMV.
Richard,
I am not understanding your math.
for APS C 18,000,000 pixels / (22.3mm X 14.9mm) = 55,286 pixels/mm2
for FF 36,000,000 pixels / (36 mm X 24 mm) = 41,667 pixels /mm2
Thus the pixel density of the 18mp APS C sensor is 55286 / 41667 = 1.33 more dense than that of the 36mp FF sensor.
skibum5 wrote:
and canon also didn't gain huge share and even lost ground in some areas
and 5d2 also got nabbed by tons of video only buyers
and this time around canon have no high MP + video to fall back on
ok you can't go overboard but OTOH look at the companies who fall into king of the hill and milk current product line for every last fraction of an ounce and compare to companies that try to jump ahead
anyway whatever
The 5d2 is the best selling camera from the prosumer / professional market. Can you please elaborate where Canon lost share in this area.
chez wrote:
The 5d2 is the best selling camera from the prosumer / professional market. Can you please elaborate where Canon lost share in this area.
He said 'in some areas'. He is probably referring to Canon's compact camera market shares. Both Sony and Nikon made gains in this segment at the expense of Canon. Furthermore, this market is shrinking due to the widespread acceptance of phone cameras.
As far as DSLRs are concerned, 2011 was a triumphant year for Canon. Their 600D, 60D, 7D and 5D2 easily outsold the competition. That may explain Canon's complacency.
Canon is not being complacent. With the mark II outselling the D700 they are able to sit back to see what Nikon comes up with (assuming that they don't know all already through espionage). Canon proved with the 5D mark II that they can read what the market wants.
As some have said Canon have been readying themselves for higher pixel camera's by upgrading some key lenses.
ViscaB wrote:
Canon is not being complacent. They are sitting back to see what Nikon comes up with (assuming that they don't know all already through espionage). Canon proved with the 5D mark II that they can read what the market wants.
Even though I think the 5d2 was a home run for Canon...one success proves nothing. I am eagerly awaiting their encore.
