i want 36 MP. its perfect.
no one wants 36 MP, you're stupid if you do.
i dont care about high iso, i shoot landscape and studio.
high iso and AF are the legacy of the D700. nikon is screwing us.
i could never afford a d3x, had to buy a 5dii to tide me over, nikon finally listenned.
i shoot events/sports/BIF at night!
Do not own a d700.Have a d7000.love it .16 mp is fine.but it showed flaws on all my sub par glass.Wish for even better high ISO performance and autofocus ahead of MP. FX or Dx Doug
dpg109 wrote:
being a surf photrographer... i wouldnt mind the extra resolution since i shoot in bright light anyways. 36 mp would give me a lot of creative control with cropping....
Cropping...what's cropping?...I thought everyones photos come out perfect and no need
to crop
.
.
.
It's extremely nice to have the extra MP and be able to crop in and still print large.
Doug Maclean wrote:
Do not own a d700.Have a d7000.love it .16 mp is fine.but it showed flaws on all my sub par glass.Wish for even better high ISO performance and autofocus ahead of MP. FX or Dx Doug
Would it not be advisable to start investing in glass which you do not consider "sub-par" instead?
It takes a lot to be able to do 4K successfully. In the grand scheme of things, people (who are shooting EOS cameras for video) will probably need 4K in 5-10 years. They don't need it now. I hope Canon concentrates on 1080 with higher quality, no jello effects, maybe even higher FPS in while retaining 1080.
kawasakiguy37 wrote:
Lets just hope they magically include 4k out. Dreams
One thing, not at all considered in this thread, is that putting the same sensor in D700 and D3 moved higher volumes of the same sensor. This reduced R&D, manufacturing and peripheral costs/unit.
I don't think this was a negligible decision on Nikon's behalf.
Rodluvan wrote:
One thing, not at all considered in this thread, is that putting the same sensor in D700 and D3 moved higher volumes of the same sensor. This reduced R&D, manufacturing and peripheral costs/unit.
And if they put the D3s sensor in a D700s then the same scenario would apply, they already have the body and the sensor, just marry the two with some new chips, etc. inside and they have another low R&D/high sale item, but sadly there has been no rumor on this; simply that the D800 will replace the D700.
Mescalamba wrote:
Plus I think that if D800 will be 36 mpix sensor, original D700 users wont switch, cause they wont like loosing that low-light performance. If you bought it because its high ISO capability, you wont switch to D800.
They won't loose anyhting. I'll bet D800 resampled to 12Mp will show far better detail and similar noise as D700. Already D3x resampled to 12MP has better IQ and not much different in noise. D800 sensor would be a much better one than in D3x IMO. The problem will come when people start comparing pixel level shots and whinging that D800 is worse than D700 and of course this is not how they should be compared at all. Also at low ISO the D800 will blow D700 away.
The main problem will be many will have to update computers, memory, CF cards to process the massive 48 bit tiffs the D800 will generate ~216MB!
nikt wrote:
I hate this argument since we're not taking into account the loss of dynamic range and colour accuracy.
I hate this argument since we really don't know anything at all for sure about what the future cameras will actually be, nor have we seen any sample images. We're now at speculation being built on top of speculation.
