Nowhere Man wrote:
I think a lot of you were/are missing my point and rightfully so, I posted with a serious lack of detailed conversation. I realize there are more than just ad photogs that need big megapixels, but still compared to the world of photogs, the amount of people needing upwards of 40mp is a pretty damn select crew.
I merely meant to say what gdan stated in much better detail. The megapixel race has reached a level that probably 95% (or more?) of photographers will never need. I agree that technology needs to keep pushing forward regardless of the lesser needs of the majority of photographers, but where the hell is it going? "Oh damn, my 54mp camera is just not good enough anymore. I can't wait until that rumored 72mp comes out." It's laughable, non?
I also agree with gdan about the comment of those amount of people who 'think' they need that many megapixels and don't.
As for gdan's comment about people purchasing gear they don't need, Canon is not exactly making this easy with their increase in pricing. It will be interesting to see how steep their prices remain in the years to come. I still say this new body is going to be upwards of costing $9k. ...Show more →
Yeh, who the hell thought anyone needed more than 640K memory in their computers.
Great photos were made with 6mpix cameras as well as 8, 12, 16 and 22. Things progress and our photography opportunities expand with this progression. What is wrong with that. Extra pixels means better cropping abilities, not just abilities to print larger more detailed photos. Claiming people don't need more pixels is a little closed thinking.
Nowhere Man wrote:
I still say this new body is going to be upwards of costing $9k.
That would make the D800 look more of a bargain. I kind of agree that more than 22mp is not a must have. Coming from a 5d2, I dont like to spend money to upgrade 3 times in 5 years to get something which comes close to the Nikon D800, first better AF, 2. more px, 3. better latitude (this is what I want most.
chez wrote:
Yeh, who the hell thought anyone needed more than 640K memory in their computers.
Great photos were made with 6mpix cameras as well as 8, 12, 16 and 22. Things progress and our photography opportunities expand with this progression. What is wrong with that. Extra pixels means better cropping abilities, not just abilities to print larger more detailed photos. Claiming people don't need more pixels is a little closed thinking.
+1: Exactly. Technology advances, as is the resolution and the sensor size itself. $9K for a high MP FF camera is a big joke regarding what the D800 already has for a lower price than the 5D MkIII! Every time that there was a jump in the MP people claimed always it is too much MP, too big file sizes, it is not needed....and then they all suddenly become silent. I expect a 46 or even more MP FF DSLR to cost not more than $3000 in a 5D body. Everything else is unrealistic.
I doubt any D800 users will regret buying it just because a high MP Canon comes out. For one, even if Canon announces at the end of the year, probably will not be available until spring. In the meanwhile, been shooting on the D800 for months and creating photos. Secondly, even if Canon does come out with a high MP camera, if the 1DX and 5D3 are any indication, the only improvement in IQ will be less noise at high ISO which is a big yawn to studio shooters. Canon has to figure out a way to better or equal SONY's ADC chip technology, something it's yet to do even in its current "flagship". There seems to be absolutely no innovation when it comes to base ISO image quality, just a focus on adding crippled video features, more FPS and high ISO noise reduction.
Sneakyracer wrote:
Rumors are heating up regarding a High MP (around 46MP) Canon DSLR by the end of the year.
So those who jumped into the D800 bandwagon might cringe and regret it when it comes out.
Nowhere Man wrote:
I think a lot of you were/are missing my point and rightfully so, I posted with a serious lack of detailed conversation. I realize there are more than just ad photogs that need big megapixels, but still compared to the world of photogs, the amount of people needing upwards of 40mp is a pretty damn select crew.
You asked "So who here needs 48mp?" and people answered. You stated "Seems a bit ridiculous to me unless you sell a lot of shots for ads on the sides of buildings in NY" and people commented on numerous non-ridiculous uses. So perhaps you are missing everyone else's point?
Look, we pretty much all know that most photographers don't need a huge megapixel camera. For as long as I've been reading these forums, I've never seen anyone advocate that such a camera would be for the masses. And that's why there are so many other camera options out there to choose from. That's why we have Powershots, that's why we have Rebels, that's why we 7Ds, that's why we have EOS-Ms, etc.
These forum discussions can be very myopic sometimes. It's as if we are expecting that once Canon releases a 46mp camera that will suddenly become the only camera they produce and that everyone will be expected to buy it.
I shoot for a living and I have different camera's for different needs. I shoot a lot of sorority houses and the requirements are for, at most, 5x7 prints. I mainly shoot with the original 5D which is more than adequate. For a back up I have the 7D. For other shots I will use the 1DsIII which gives me a little more control. It is a complete waste to use anything different for these types of shots. The main thing is that the clients are really happy with the results.
However, if it is a full blown portrait sitting I will bring out my Mamiys 645AFD which has a 22mp back but produces a 46MP file just to give me the edge on fine detail and smooth transitional colour. I have noticed that files coming out are super sharp and full of detail. It is probably the lenses and sensor size that help along with no anti aliasing filter. There is no real comparison between the two formats and it is like night and day. Medium format is not that expensive to get in only if you want the best of the best and the latest gear.
Brit-007 wrote:
Medium format is not that expensive to get in only if you want the best of the best and the latest gear.
Unfortunately the jump to medium format, especially with a digital back, is still very expensive. We are talking of five numbered amounts just for the camera and the digital back, not even having a lens. Film medium format is a bit cheaper, but you still need to get the lenses which remain very expensive.
retrofocus wrote:
Unfortunately the jump to medium format, especially with a digital back, is still very expensive. We are talking of five numbered amounts just for the camera and the digital back, not even having a lens. Film medium format is a bit cheaper, but you still need to get the lenses which remain very expensive.
Nope. Just don't buy new Leica S2 or Leica lenses.
I actually got my Mamiya with back and lens for $6900. Older unit but brand new with zero actuations. New are aroung 8K. Second hand can be picked up from 4K. I have 3 lenses, all good and the 80mm came with the outfit. 45mm, 150mm both AF and $400 each. This covers the range I need so I am good. Both were in great condition. New lenses are about the same as Canon L prices.
chez wrote:
Yeh, who the hell thought anyone needed more than 640K memory in their computers.
Great photos were made with 6mpix cameras as well as 8, 12, 16 and 22. Things progress and our photography opportunities expand with this progression. What is wrong with that. Extra pixels means better cropping abilities, not just abilities to print larger more detailed photos. Claiming people don't need more pixels is a little closed thinking.
You are only saying this 'cos Nikon has a 36 MP FF camera while Canon appears to be stuck at 22 MP. If the situation had been reversed, you will be singing a different tune now, no?
jcolwell wrote:
Just like I don't regret buying Canon 1DX and 1DIV cameras, just because Nikon has a high MP camera.
1DX and 1DIV are awesome cameras. The 1DX specially is awesome and so is the 5D3. If you dont need extra MP there is absolutely no reason to switch.
But I bet most people who switched to Nikon for a D800/E did so for the increase in MP and the shadow recovery.
There is not a huge difference from 22 to 36mp. Its noticeable though if you have the best glass, perfect technique and and are making very large prints or cropping heavily and are at the limit of the gear. 46MP would be a really good upgrade. Obviously to see huge gains in resolution you need to combine the MP increase with a removal of the AA filter. 80MP is in the realm of what most landscape shooters really want/need since its approaching or even surpassing 4x5 film. But at about $60,000+ for a good tilt shift capable MFDB camera/back rig and lens, the cost now is prohibitive for most.
thw2 wrote:
You are only saying this 'cos Nikon has a 36 MP FF camera while Canon appears to be stuck at 22 MP. If the situation had been reversed, you will be singing a different tune now, no?
No...I would be out enjoying my 36MP Canon camera...but as of today I can only dream.
Brit-007 wrote:
Medium format is not that expensive to get in only if you want the best of the best and the latest gear.
Ain't quite that simple. It depends a lot on what you shoot and how - which you more or less acknowledged earlier in your post. For some things the MF digital systems are wonderful. For some things they are completely the wrong choice. And the determining factor is not a thing quite a simple as "image quality."
The "best of the best" and "the latest gear" seem like poor reasons to select equipment. A better sort of reason is "best for what I do."
By the way, the spectacle of people ranting about the "$9k" price of a camera that is nothing more than a faint rumor lacking any detail at all about price, timing, model-level, or anything else is rather funny. I'm expecting a new thread to start any minute: "I'm outraged by the 9K price of Canon's new 46MP camera!"
I'm expecting a new thread to start any minute: "I'm outraged by the 9K price of Canon's new 46MP camera!"
I am tempted to do this, just to see what the result would be. But I won't -- no need to add to the piles of useless threads already clogging this forum.
gdanmitchell wrote:
By the way, the spectacle of people ranting about the "$9k" price of a camera that is nothing more than a faint rumor lacking any detail at all about price, timing, model-level, or anything else is rather funny. I'm expecting a new thread to start any minute: "I'm outraged by the 9K price of Canon's new 46MP camera!"
;-)
Dan
Dan, it seems like you already put in a preemptive strike by complaining about the complainers before the complainers had a chance to complain. Well done.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Ain't quite that simple. It depends a lot on what you shoot and how - which you more or less acknowledged earlier in your post. For some things the MF digital systems are wonderful. For some things they are completely the wrong choice. And the determining factor is not a thing quite a simple as "image quality."
Dan
This is exactly right. For example, try pricing out a medium format system to do architecture photography where you need wide angle with shift capabilities.
And anyways the latest rumor is that there is no new body coming for Photokina, and the next camera farther into the future will be a "smaller FF camera". I fear instead of threads ranting about the price of a Canon high MP camera we'll be seeing threads about the lack of such a camera at all
