Jump to content

When Will Nikon Counter Canon's 5DsR?


25asa

Recommended Posts

<p>I heard rumours Nikon was working on a 54 megapixel SLR using a Sony sensor. Yet Sony just announced a 42 MP camera in the A7RII. So I'm wondering if a 54 megapixel sensor is actually in the works? That said when do you think Nikon will counter Canon's 5DsR camera to reclaim its claim to highest megapixel DSLR?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In the history of this forum, nobody who askes about any rumor has ever gotten any concrete answer. You are better off

asking your source of such rumors. Otherwise, I would like to think the mega pixel race has ended. Back in 2012, I bought

a 36MP D800E, and I notice that diffraction begins to set in at f8 and starts to degrade the images seriously at f11. With

even denser pixels, I am not sure there is much to gain other than some huge image files, and of course bragging rights.

 

Last year I added a 24MP D750 for a bit faster frame rate, better high ISO results and smaller image files. I haven't switched my image printer on for a year. Even 24MP seems too many nowadays.

 

I would rather see how Nikon improves its AF system, which is an area Nikon has fallen behind for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd say : Ask Nikon..<br /> I also know the answer from Nikon already :<br /> "It is our policy to never disclose information about future products or future developments " or some thing like this .. :-)</p>

<p>Sigma does a better job in marketing, Sigma anounces half a year beforehand that they will be announcing a new product or development in the near future, so that all interested people get a wake up call, and start anticipating on and discussing about the future product so that a lot of people really start waiting until it becomes available. this way Sigma creates a market for their products before they are even starting production ...</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When.... Rather ask yourself: do they really need to? Instead of looking at the total megapixel count, see how many real world pixels you actually really gain on the long end and short end, and how that translates into real-world additional printing size. It's neglible. Even disregarding the (correct and valuable!) point on whether lenses actually can keep up, wonder whether ever-increasing resolutions do bring real world advantages. And it seems we're bottoming out - no news, but larger sensors are the only serious answer if you really need to scale up.<br>

Will Nikon respond? Probably yes, as the marketing department has its needs to; but whether all this excess is really bringing something useful to photographers, I have severe doubts. I get excellent 13"x 18" prints from a D700 still; the pixel count really isn't the issue.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lenses can indeed keep up. That's not something to worry about.<br>Perhaps not many of the more recent crop of lenses, that seem to stress the assumed importance of a wide zoom range in a fast lens more than image quality. And which are made knowing that many sensors are too 'dumb' to begin with, and are hidden behind a Bayer pattern and a soft focus filter to boot. So why bother with making a lens good? But lenses used to be good enough, and those oldies that do rather well are still around.<br><br>The worrying bit is that 24x36 mm is too small for that many pixels. Larger sensors (larger area) are what is needed. Get a PhaseOne back and put it on a MF camera if you want or need (and yes, there can be a need for many pixels. I also still scan film and the 120+ MP i get from a 6x9 frame sometimes still are not quite enough) a high pixel count.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I second Michael B, what is missing is better HDR and improved creaminess, even broader ISO without degradation, yes it is technologically more difficult, than just having more smaller pixels; maybe 3 orders of magnitude between resolving a bright sky and the bark of a dark tree in the same shot very hard to capture the full range and tones. i was of the understanding that 35mm velvia resolution was more or less equivalent to a 50MP camera with 16bit color. The new <a href="http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/sony-officially-announces-the-a7rii-full-frame-42mp-mirrorless-camera/">42MP Sony alpha 7R </a>would appear to be moving towards both bigger and better, a very attractive camera, one would expect Sony not to waste the huge investment in tooling up for such a sensor and we should await what Nikon can do with it.<br>

"I will finally be able to take good photos when I get my hands on the next generation of gear"....<em>Ansel Adams (or not)</em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm with Glenn - the A7R 2 sensor - if it can do what Sony claims - is far more interesting than Canon's. It took Canon a very long time to feel that 22MP wasn't enough to compete with 36; Nikon may feel the need to do something for bragging reasons, but remember that the 12MP D700 was the competition to the 21MP 5D2 for a long time (excluding the low-volume D3x).</p>

<p>Nikon's(/Sony's) sensor is already market-leading in terms of dynamic range. I'm not sure how much better we'll get, although the D7200 is impressive given its size. The lack of dynamic range is why the 5Ds sensor has absolutely no interest for me (other than only having legacy Canon gear these days); the dynamic range abilities of the D800 are what sold me on upgrading my D700, not the resolution.</p>

<p>Of course, the A7R 2 sensor would still leave Nikon lagging Canon is the resolution stakes (and I've always felt it a bit unfortunate that you can't buy one camera with the reach of a 24MP DX sensor and FX coverage - not that I suspect Nikon mind selling a D7200/D810 pair). The resolution boost over the D810 is negligible, but it does mean you have enough pixels to shoot 8K video - or, more usefully, 4K video with full colour sampling at each pixel. I suspect that might be behind Sony's sensor development. Nikon and Canon haven't rushed to be at the cutting edge of video in their DSLRs (recently), but I'd really hope they get at least 4K within the next few releases. We'll have to see how good the latest generation of on-sensor AF is - and, generally, how the A7R2 behaves. Sony didn't have an established full-frame body (the A900 barely counts) and selling the D800 sensor to Nikon as an exclusive had to be in their interests; I'm not sure how fast they'll be to hand over the crown jewels now that the A7 series is a little more established.</p>

<p>If we're going to have Canon envy, I'd rather talk about how old the MultiCAM 3500 is, and how it would be nice to have some cross-type sensors a bit farther from the centre (however good Nikon's tracking is these days). Maybe we'll see in the D5, when(/if) such a thing appears. For now, my D810 is a pretty darned good camera, and I don't feel I'd miss much with an alternative.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It depends on what you're shooting. My old D7100 (12 MP) captured very nice portraits but when taking scenics in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, it showed its MP weakness. While a 24 MP D7100 is good for wildlife, it want't quite as good as my D810 in Jackson Hole for capturing detailed scenics. Of course if Nikon introduced a 50+ MP body, I'd be very interested. Then I could stop thinking about a Pentax 645 Z. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If for whatever reason you need 50MP and beyond, a larger sensor area so that you get high-quality pixels is the real

answer. The problem is that sensor cost goes way up along with real estate, and you'll need some medium format lenses.

You'll still need to update that expensive sensor/camera every few years as the technology improves.

 

Meanwhile, with the advent of iPads and other tablets, as well as PCs, images are not printed that much any more. At my

home we mainly read magazines on the iPad and read news on web sites. I think the demand for high quality images is

quickly diminishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'd argue pixel coins are starting to matter

more. On a print-out, you need a huge print to make the

difference between 24 and 50MP obvious, and not that

many of us fill art galleries. On screen, you can zoom in -

all the detail that the sensor captures can be seen. Not

that I'm arguing for Nikon to try to get the resolution

record off the 80MP medium format backs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy to shoot at 16 or 24 mp all day. Normally I'd say it doesn't matter to me whether Nikon makes a 50 mp camera,

but remembering being stuck with the choice between keeping my D700 or upgrading to a D800 with too many mp and

not enough fps, I'm hoping they don't. Maybe in a few years, when I have a new computer with a couple terabytes of SSD

and a 30" retina display, and Nikon is using Sony BSI full frame sensors, and using my 150-600 lens has taught me much

more about keeping my camera stable, I'd be ready to think about more mps, but to me these super high res cameras

don't do anything right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4983522">C.P.M. van het Kaar</a>, Jun 21, 2015; 04:57 a.m.<br>

I'd say : Ask Nikon..<br /> I also know the answer from Nikon already :<br /> "It is our policy to never disclose information about future products or future developments " or some thing like this .. :-)</p>

<p>Agree, this would likely be the outcome. But I find it rather funny when Nikon responded with: "why would you need something like this ?" (not exact quote)....when I asked about any upcoming FF rig when only the D3 was out and the D300....and 5D on the other side. Around two months later D700 arrived. Hello ?<br>

To me, if I need more pixels, I'll rent it. For time being, I can't even get my D610 to perform like a real camera w/o issues (camera is in the shop for oil spots as if was D600). No need for me to derail this thread, but it would be nice that Nikon was more concerned with the product they currently make and enhance that, IMO.</p>

<p>Les<br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"why would you need something like this ?" (not exact quote)....when I asked about any upcoming FF rig when only the D3 was out and the D300....and 5D on the other side. Around two months later D700 arrived. Hello ?</em></p>

<p>They were doing their job, which is to keep the sales of existing products from collapsing. E.g. Nokia's mobile phone business was utterly decimated by a guy who slipped that their existing OS was a burning platform and they would switch to a different OS which would only be available in a year or so. Near total loss of market share and arguably the products that eventually came out were worse in many respects than what they had developed mostly in house (N9). Only companies with no market share (in a given market sector) and nothing to lose pre-announce products well in advance. Notice e.g. that when Canon had an IS 70-200/2.8 already, and Nikon was some time from being able to manufacture theirs, they pre-announced the VR 70-200/2.8 to convince their existing users that they would eventually have a product in this crucial segment. They didn't strive to protect the sales of their existing 80-200/2.8 lenses because at that point probably they had no sales to protect. Same thing with 800/5.6 which was pre-announced an shown in London for testing ... the last 800/5.6 Nikon had had was a manual focus lens of another age. When Nikon <em>does</em> have a competent existing product that is still selling acceptably, there is not going to be any pre-announcement since their legal obligation to their shareholders is to make money instead of intentionally sabotaging their sales.</p>

<p>To me 24MP is close to the golden compromise but I believe the D810's successor will use a 50+MP sensor. I agree with Shun that autofocus improvements are key in realizing better image quality in many real-world situations than even increasing pixel counts. One advantage of higher pixel counts is that the base ISO dynamic range increases (per sensor area) without the need to go to higher bit converters. However for me this is no longer important as the D810 is more than good enough in this aspect and I rarely get to shoot it at base ISO apart from landscape photography on tripod.</p>

<p>I make quite a lot of prints (thousands of) per year but most of them are around 12x18cm or 20x30cm in size rather than the full capacity (A2) of my printer. I do make some large prints for framing on a wall, and to be honest I have no qualms about making such prints from 12MP FX images of old. 24MP and 36MP make the prints a little bit more detailed but this difference requires rather close observation and typically large prints are for mood and decoration and the details are not seen at the typical viewing distances. I do like the 24MP-36MP sensors and the added detail but the benefits mostly are in fine details when viewing the print at close reading distance, and in the flexibility to frame action situations a bit loosely and then crop to finalize the composition (I do this a lot with the D810). This technique is very valuable to me and the main benefit of high resolution sensors. However, 36MP is more than enough and next I would like to buy something faster and a bit better in the high ISO department.</p>

<p>However, I understand there are more picky people who want to maximize the detail in their images and no doubt the D810's successor will move into that direction, although the relative improvement is likely not to be all that great in the real world. I think to make a noticeable improvement over the D810, 100MP would be a good target to go for (the next step 200MP, if anyone cares at that point). However, in practice we know that the camera industry prefers to make small changes and sell them frequently to make more money than they could by introducing only cameras that present large improvements. There is nothing wrong with this approach of course, and no one says that you must buy a new camera every generation (or even every second generation). I would like to see that people use their cameras longer and buy less frequently since that would result in less e-waste. Since the technology of digital image capture has almost reached its theoretical maximum in a given format size (in terms of signal-to-noise), improvements to sell new cameras will likely take place in other areas, such as improved AF and better integration with the online world of communication.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the 'camera industry' is already serving photographers needing more than what the 35 mm format based DSLR users are using. Has been for quite a while, but apparently unknown to most DSLR users. You really do need larger sensors. And that means larger cameras. Leica pumped up their camera to get to what is needed. But the market is still served best with digital backs for (existing or new) MF systems. And those have been available, with high pixel counts, for quite a while. Sony, Canon nor Nikon are driving this through their 35 mm based camera systems. So if you want to see what is happening, what is possible and what is available, don't look at an A7r II or 50 MP Canon.<br>In other words: we do not need them to put 50, 100 or 200 MP sensors in tiny cameras. The industry knows that. Yet (and alas) the industry also knows that people will be paying lots of money for such sensors that make little sense in a 35 mm format based package. So it might happen anyway.<br><br>Shun, we also do not <i>" need to update that expensive sensor/camera every few years as the technology improves."</i>. The thingies work, and will keep working until the day they break down due to being overworked, i.e. wear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It is fairly safe to say that no current Nikon lens challenges the potential of the D810 sensor. On the other hand, the D810 (and Sony A7ii) make Nikon lenses look about as good as possible. When compared back to back on the A7 agains Leica, Zeiss and Sony lenses, Nikon lenses do not fare well.</p>

<p>A rule of thumb is that the lens must have four times the resolution of a sensor to take full advantage of it. At that point, any deficiencies in resolution of the lens constitute less than about 5% of the overall results. We are a long way from that, outside of special laboratory tools and monochromatic light. I have a fair amount of experience using Nikon and Leica lenses on a Sony A7ii, as well as lenses made specifically for that camera. Now that I have more time after to the end of the school year. I will try to assemble comparisons on a practical level, rather than resolution charts.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>we do not need them to put 50, 100 or 200 MP sensors in tiny cameras. The industry knows that. Yet (and alas) the industry also knows that people will be paying lots of money for such sensors that make little sense in a 35 mm format based package. So it might happen anyway.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Irrespective of need, people will continue to buy higher and higher resolution small format cameras. It is what they can afford. True medium format (i.e. full frame 645 or larger) is prohibitatively expensive for most photographers (including professionals) and the crop medium format sensors lack wide angle options. Personally as I've said I would like about 24MP FX as a compromise as that's about consistent with my print needs and practical for handling volumes of images. But this won't stop people from craving more.</p>

<p><em>It is fairly safe to say that no current Nikon lens challenges the potential of the D810 sensor.</em></p>

<p>To see relative performance of lenses, see www.lenscore.org and click "Scores" and then "All lenses". First on the list is 85mm Zeiss Otus, the second is the 400/2.8E Nikkor. Third is Leica 50/2 ASPH, fourth the 55mm Zeiss Otus, fifth Nikon's 200mm f/2G II. Sixth the Canon 400/2.8 IS II. The tests are performed using a high resolution (200MP) custom sensor since so many lenses outresolve current camera sensors. Notice how of the top lenses if you require AF, Nikon and Canon do quite well for themselves; in fact you have to go down to position 22 to find an autofocus lens that is not made by Nikon or Canon. It's not for no reason why these are the top brands.</p>

<p>So, please let me know which Zeiss, Leica, and Sony 200mm lenses beat the current 200/2 Nikkor. I would like a recommendation of one of each. I hope your lens recommendations are autofocus since I prefer to to work with AF when photographing people.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with your short market analysis, Ilkka. With a few notes on being prohibitively expensive though.<br>Yes, MF digital is very expensive compared to 35 mm format based DSLRs. But professionals (usually) do not get stuff because of the wow factor, but because it makes economic sense. If it doesn't do that, obviously no expenditure. Stuff has to pay for itself. And not only for itself, it also has to pay for the bread and butter you live on. Else you are not in business, not a professional.<br>And thoughMF digital is expensive in comparison to even a D810, photography using decent MF digital actually isn't an expensive business to set up compared to other types of business. For instance try starting a simple bakery, with all the apparatus you need for that. Though a digital back may cost as much as a modest new car, it is not that expensive. (Yes, i know that there other types of business that are much cheaper to set up.)<br>The next thing is that it is a growth thing. You (mostly) do not have to start from scratch, pay for everything at the same time, but add what you need when you need it. The beauty of professional MF equipment is that it is modular. If you want to switch over to MF digital capture, all you need is a digital back to add to your existing MF kit. So though that obviously doesn't make anything less expensive, spreading the expenditure makes it all a bit easier.<br><br>Yes, people will be blinded by pixel count numbers and the believe that more and new = better and must-have. This thread's topic is a good example. Instead of asking and discussing when Nikon will catch up and overtake Canon, the thing that must be (and luckily is) discussed is whether anyone would really want or need that to happen. I'd say that 24 MP or 36 MP is not a compromise, but just about the pratical limit of what the type of equipment discussed (those 35 format based DSLRs) can do. More would not make sense for these machines, so if you really need more, you also need a different class/sort of equipment. Hoewever if it serves its intended purpose well, i.e. if there is no need for more/better, there is no compromise.<br>But yes, i agree that people will want to buy a 50 MP Canon anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's true that making a significant difference in resolution requires quite a big jump. A 50% increase in pixel count is significant but not huge - I can see someone preferring to buy a D810 over a D750 because of it, all else being equal, but not so much upgrading from a D750 to a D810 just to get more pixels. On the other hand, the 3x improvement from a D700 to a D800 was extremely visible, especially with the strong low-pass filter on the D700. A 100MP successor to the D810 would certainly have a visible resolution advantage, but a vanishingly small number of my images would significantly benefit from it; on the other hand, my D700's 12MP were actually sometimes a problem.</p>

<p>I maintain that the best justification for a jump in sensor resolution over a D8x0 is to get 4K/8K video. A D8x0 sensor doesn't have the 7680 horizontal pixels needed for FUHD (7680x4320). The A7R II sensor does. Arguably, better than the 5Ds sensor, because it fills more of the sensor area doing so. The ability to do perfect 2:1 sampling for UHD video is arguably more important than FUHD for the foreseeable future. The 5Ds sensor does have enough spare pixels to do cinema 4K (4096x2160) with 2x oversampling, though it wastes some sensor area in doing so; the A7R II sensor can't quite do that. I could understand Nikon making the jump to one of these resolutions once they finally get their act together about shooting UHD video - or just going with the minimal 3:2 7680x5120 (39MP) or 8192x5462 (45MP). A 100MP sensor (let's call it 12247x8165) would actively be worse at FUHD video resolutions due to the non-integer scaling (or reduced area if cropped), and would have uneven colour sampling even at UHD resolutions. 1080p televisions tend to look better than cheaper (and mostly obsolete now) HDTVs because the lower resolution panels tended to be 1366x768 rather than 1280x720 (for historical reasons), and were therefore incapable of regular sampling - or displaying a 720p input signal properly.</p>

<p>So. Don't expect me to be shocked if there's a tiny bump from the 36MP D8x0 sensor in Nikon's future. I'd be a little more surprised if Nikon compromised the sensor in other ways just to chase after the 50MP figure. If they want more resolution, looking at the Hasselblad/Pentax multi-exposure sensor-shift approach gets them some of the way there. A 36MP camera is manageable for consumers, speaking as one. The same is probably true of a 50MP camera, though I think a good argument could be made that most people should stick with the 22MP 5D3. Going significantly higher is well into the realm of diminishing returns for most people.</p>

<p>As for the necessary compromises... well, eventually people are going to start using faster flash storage cards, and prices continue to drop on quantity, but it's still not free. Sony's sensor changes indicate that read-out speed may not be a huge problem with future high-res sensors (though I'm reserving judgement until I see an A7R II tested).</p>

<p>I only ever saw the D800 speed disadvantage compared with the D700 as being a problem to those shooting with a grip (who had the D4 upgrade path too...) - otherwise, the 1.2x crop mode got you back to 5fps and 25MP, and still competitive high-ISO behaviour with the D700. The D810 gets to 6fps with the same trick, which is near enough to the D750's speed that I don't consider the latter to have a significant advantage. I rarely find the need for 6fps, but I realise those spoilt by the "D3 on the cheap" D700 + grip are going to feel otherwise. I'd really hope Nikon can make a speed jump with their next sports camera - the 1Dx always had an on-paper advantage, and there are now a number of consumer cameras that make 11fps seem ordinary (notably the NX1).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The LenScore resolution rankings for Nikon are dominated by focal lengths of 200 mm or longer. Zeiss does not have any offerings in this category, nor Leica or Sony except for SLR (ZA) cameras. We can get a better comparision if we restrict the inquiry to "normal" focal lengths for general photography, say 28mm to 105 mm. On this basis, 8 of the top ten in the LenScore list are Leica or Zeiss, with positions 8 and 9 occupied by Nikon - (Nikon 85/2.8 PC) and (Nikon 45/2.8 PC), respectively. None of the Zeiss or Sony-Zeiss lenses designed for the A7 were listed.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...