New Nikon dslr -- Still only 6.1 mp

Nikon D50 and D70s

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6465-7712

There are more in the pipeline. Stay tuned.

oh no! only 6.1mp. photography is doomed.

 

r

I can only hope that before Nikon brings out a DSLR with more than 6MP that costs less than $5K, the company further updates its professional 35mm film camera line. Nikon should keep on ignoring the thousands of photographers worldwide who need a DSLR with more than an anemic 6MP, but think it idiotic to spend 2.5X the price of an F5 body to get one. Clearly, Nikon should devote its limited production capacity to fielding an F200 to replace the F100 for the handfull of people who still clamor for such a camera. ;-)

"oh no! only 6.1mp. photography is doomed."

 

This has nothing to do with photography. Nikon is not being very competitive with Canon. The way the market works, people will choose 8mp over 6mp anytime if the price matches and I dont see the D50 being way cheaper than the Canon Rebel XT. All Canon dslr are now 8mp or more.

That server must be in meltdown mode... :)

The assumption that it must compete with the XT is founded on the idea that it will cost

the same as the XT, for one thing.

 

The D70 when it came out was mid-way between the 300D and the 10D, but cost precious

little more. This new D50 is a budget camera _below_ the D70 entry level, so let's see

where they price it before assuming it is doomed.

 

It sounds like they have their upgrade for the D70 in the works as well - personally I doubt

this will be a major upgrade, but given the surprises in the D70 (1/500s flash sync for

example), I am perfectly prepared to be impressed.

 

All in all, why does it matter that much if Nikon choose to take Canon head on, or at an

angle? If you're concerned that Nikon are no longer competing with Canon, do what your

capitalist head tells you, and go Canon. I'm sure there are people here who will buy your

obsolete old cameras and lenses from a commercially doomed company. At a discount

which reflects your fears, of course!

Personally, 6+ MP is fine with me (Canon or Nikon), if they just made the sensor bigger. A 1.3 crop would be more of an improvement to me than an extra 2 MP.

Why is more always considered better? For most applications, 6mp is plenty. If one is making huge billboard size enlargements, then a MF digital would be good, but for weddings, sports, even portraits, 6mp will give you all the information you need. I'd rather see the technology move in the direction of expanding the dynamic range (a la Fuji S3) than in trying to offer the most mp's for the buck.

 

And, of course, there are trade-offs in terms of write times and capacity with the larger mp cameras.

I haven't spoken with any of my contacts at Nikon about this but I wonder if another one

of the upgrades in the D70s over the d70 is a switch in sensors? Or if the Bayer filter sets

in

the D70s now matches match the set in the D2x? I've been shooting with a D2X for about a

week now and flesh tones and color rendition are definitely improved over any other

Canon or Nikon DSLR I've shot with during the past two years. I wonder too if the

histogram display on the camera now can show the individual R,G, & B channels?

"A 1.3 crop would be more of an improvement to me than an extra 2 MP."

 

 

Here I have to disagree with you. While I would prefer full fame, 24x36mm-chipped bodies, I like the fact that all of Nikon's DSLRs have the same 1.5X crop factor. It allows Nikon to make one line of DX lenses for all its DSLRs- including f/2.8 pro zooms like the 17-55mm- and, at least for me, makes the focal length math easier.

 

 

One problem with the Canon DSLRs are that the high-end DSLRs are full frame (1Ds Mark II) or have a 1.3X crop factor (1D Mark II). As cameras like the 20D that have the 1.6X crop factor are considered ametuer, Canon hasn't bothered to make any constant-aperture pro zooms for them. And, of course, you have cameras like the 10D that have the 1.6X crop factor, but won't accept Canon's EF-S DX lenses. I think Canon has a better overall line of DSLRs, but the varying sensor sizes are a mess.

Well put! Canon has not made the transition an easy one.

Ellis wondered:

 

"if the histogram display on the camera now can show the individual R,G, & B channels?"

 

Not according to the user's manual that was leaked. The externally visible differences between the D70 and D70S (according to the manuals) are pretty meager. Perhaps the only true difference in capabilities is that the D70S has a jack for an MC-DC1 remote control cord.

 

--Bill

"the D70S has a jack for an MC-DC1 remote control cord"

 

That's a good move. I use a cable release so much that I couldn't do without one (or an electronic equivalent, like the old N70 had). The current D70 optical remote is a boat sinker for my needs.

Eric, "need"? You mean "think they need", right? What manufacturer has a 12MP model under that 5K of yours? Anything less than doubling is a trivial increase not worth spending money on.

 

Luckily for Canon, people do, though.

Ellis raises a few good points about the "improvements"to the existing D70. Better Bayer filter is certainly needed for the D70 sensor. The current one bleeds through all wavelengths of light ( I like it precisely for this reason to do UV photography). So it is a big problem to get the right color balance and tonality. Any improvements on this front is most welcome.

 

(Even their Coolpix line of cameras have better filters installed!)

Bas, while a 25% increase in pixels may not correlate with a 25% increase in resolution, I appreciate Canon's refining its less expensive DSLRs to 8+MP to increase their resolution. This speaks well for Canon trying to give buyers the most camera for the money.

Eric, that is an incredible short sighted comment if you ask me.

 

You can't do a D50/350D comparison yet, but when both are available the only things that counts are: how does it handle and what do the results look like; both at screen resolution (ie: 600 pixels) and printed in various sizes.

 

The number of pixels don't matter when doing either test, it's the result that counts.

 

As the E-1 proves, 25% fewer pixels doesn't automaticaly mean it has worse performance, if only an insignificant amount. In fact, it regularly outperforms it's 6.xMP rivals in real-life tests.

 

Who is to say the same won't be true here and the Nikon ends op giving more camera for the money even though it has a lower pixel count?

Bas:

 

 

1. You can certainly compare the 20D to the D100. While Nikon is currently subsidising a selloff of D100s, the D100 and 20D have been at a similar price point. The 20D is better-built, reproduces color at least as well and has superior resolution to the D100; ergo a better value for the money. Will the Nikon "D200" be a better camera than the 20D in the same price range? We don't know because a D100 replacement is currently a mirage.

 

 

2. Even someone who might be blindly adoring of Nikon has got to understand at least two things- but for Canon's presence in the market:

 

 

A. Right now, Nikon would just be getting around to rolling out the D1 with a $5K price tag.

 

 

B. None of Nikon's lenses would have AFS internal focus motors or VR.

 

 

Nikon's innovation in DSLRs and lenses is reactionary and is driven by a desparate need to do what is minimally necessary to keep up with Canon.

 

 

3. That you think the E-1 "outperforms" even a D70 would explain your thinking 6MP is all the resolution necessary in a DSLR with an APS-C sensor.

 

 

4. "Who is to say the same won't be true here and the Nikon ends (u)p giving more camera for the money even though it has a lower pixel count?"

 

 

I've got to stop reading your posts while drinking liquids. I laughed and almost spit on my computer screen. ;-)

Eric, your Canon-is-the-only-reason-Nikon-are-any-good argument is specious.

 

The converse is also true. Without competitors to outdo, Canon would not innovate. This is

how competition works, and how monopolies are kept in check.

 

Either you are sitting there typing these comments in Internet Explorer, in which case you

will know what I'm talking about, or you are using an alternative web browser. In which

case, you will know what I'm talking about.

Eric, I gotta stop reading your posts full stop. You just said a camera with a higher pixel count will ALWAYS be better. No matter what the quality of those pixels, the software converting those to an image, the way the the designers decided to calibrate the colours, the way the camera handles and everything else.

 

At the same time you are claiming that one camera you have never seen or seen the results of can't be as good or better as one that you are highly unlikely to have seen or seen the results of. (No, assuming the 350D performs just like the 20D is not allowed)

 

And on top of it all you you base that claim on the fact that the 20D is a better camera than the D100!

 

Please tell me that is an April fools joke.

 

PS: you should stop reading dpreview.com and switch to magazine articles where actual photographers take the cameras they are comparing, make sure they get the maximum results out of them (no, not default settings without photoshopping) and then put the printed results out on a big table and judge them.

Eric, I'm not sure what liquid you were reading when you posted, but I want some.

 

"Even someone who might be blindly adoring of Nikon has got to understand at least two things- but for Canon's presence in the market: A. Right now, Nikon would just be getting around to rolling out the D1 with a $5K price tag."

 

You are aware that, when Nikon rolled out the D1 5 years ago, Canon had zero (that's zip, nada, zilch) "presence" in the DSLR market. Yup, that's right, Canon was reactionary, and driven by the need to keep up with Nikon in a market that Nikon innovated.

 

"B. None of Nikon's lenses would have AFS internal focus motors or VR."

 

Nikon's first autofocus SLR, the F3AF, used internal focus motors, before Canon even brought out the EOS system. Nikon was showing off stabilized lenses long before Canon. Again, Nikon innovated, and Canon was reactionary.

 

Granted, Canon does a great job as a reactionary company. When they see someone open a market, they really pour on the steam and commit a ton of resources to trying to catch up, and then pass, the innovator.

 

But you're right about one thing: there is someone "blindly adoring" of a camera brand in this thread. You have only to check out the closest mirror...

Eric, my apology.

 

I didn't catch Bas's post. Man, you really had me going: I thought you actually believed those wild things you wrote. You stayed in character perfectly through several posts. I never would have suspected that you were pulling an April's Fool joke on us.

 

You got me good...

"Eric, your Canon-is-the-only-reason-Nikon-are-any-good argument is SPECIOUS. The converse is ALSO TRUE." (Emphasis added.)

 

 

Well, which is it? Is my remark "specious" or "true"?

 

 

I'll allow that Canon and Nikon are driven by competition. But Canon has certainly taken the lead in developing DSLRs and lenses with ultrasonic, internal focus motors.

 

 

"You just said a camera with a higher pixel count will ALWAYS be better."

 

 

No, I didn't. I wrote that the Olympus E-1 is not as good as a D70. Having shot both cameras- I've worked part-time in a friend's camera store for more than 20 years- I know that the D70 handles color and contrast as well as the E-1, has higher resolution than the E-1 and can be shot gracefully as higher ISOs due to its larger imaging chip. Olympus firmware is nothing to write home about and its RAW conversion software is mediocre.

 

 

Also, I own two D100s and have shot a 20D. I know that the 20D handles color and contrast as well as the D100 and is capable of greater resolution than the D100.

 

 

"At the same time you are claiming that one camera you have never seen or seen the results of can't be as good or better as one that you are highly unlikely to have seen or seen the results of."

 

 

Nope, again, that isn't what I wrote.

Joseph-

 

 

"You are aware that, when Nikon rolled out the D1 5 years ago, Canon had zero (that's zip, nada, zilch) 'presence' in the DSLR market."

 

 

Huh? In 1995, Canon and Kodak were selling the DCS 460, namplated with Canon and Kodak monikers. In 1998, Canon's Chicago tech rep let us use a Canon EOS-1-based DCS 560. It was a joint Canon/Kodak product, had a Canon nameplate and was marketed by both Canon and Nikon in the U.S. The first DSLR with a Nikon nameplate was the D1, which appeared in 1999.

 

 

"Nikon's first autofocus SLR, the F3AF, used internal focus motors, before Canon even brought out the EOS system."

 

 

Well, not that your argument is on point, but the goofy F3AF appeared in 1983, whereas Canon's goofy FD 35-70mm f/4 AF lens appeared in 1979:

 

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/f3afbasic/index.htm

 

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/3570afzoom.htm

 

 

If you read my posts above, I was talking about ultrasonic or AFS motors. Canon was the first company to introduce USM motors to its lenses.

 

 

"Nikon was showing off stabilized lenses long before Canon."

 

 

Could you please cite to information that backs up this assertion? Canon had started producing IS lenses in 1995. Nikon's first production VR lens, the 80-400mm, appeared in 2000.