Where the heck are Nikon's cheap 18Mpixels cameras?

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020806canoneos550d.asp</p>

<p>Let me add this as well :-)<br>

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital-rebel-T2i/preview/</p>

<p>Why do you need 18MP?</p>

<p>For one thing the difference between 12 and 18MP is not that big, and unless you have excellent lenses and excellent technique, those extra pixels will largely be wasted. Meanwhile, when you cramp more pixels into the same area, each pixel will have to be smaller.</p>

<p>Who cares? If you can't get a good image with 12 megapixels, chances are you won't do any better with 18 megapixels.</p>

<p>The Nikon Rumors prognosticators are predicting an announcement for tomorrow or a week from tomorrow. They don't seem to have a clue what it may be though. Nikon usually answers Canon, for better or worse. It sometimes takes quite a while though.</p>

<p>I think this is an area where Nikon is seriously behind. The only people who don't care about pixels seem to be those that don't have them. Personally, I didn't even consider a 35mm DSLR until there was one that had at least 18mp because I understand what pixels mean and as a pro, what I need to have to deliver the images I feel fit with my needs.</p>

<p>Certainly, pixels don't make better photographs but they do offer flexibility if the pixels create a quality image. I am a Canon shooter only because Nikon didn't offer the pixels, not because I think Canon is better.</p>

<p>At some point, pixel resolution will be too high for the lenses and I think that has happened in certain cases--probably not there quite yet with 35mm, but at the edge--at least with current sensor technologies.</p>

<p>So, certainly for those that don't think pixels are important, remember that is only relative to your use not an absolute.</p>

<p>I expect to see 24mp.</p>

<p>Nikon has generally doubled resolutions, 3, 6, 12, 24mp. The one 10mp sensor (D200, D80, D40x) was largely regarded as a mistake. Doubling mp means you go up in full paper sizes, instead of Canon's "differences that no one can see" policy.</p>

<p>Blah blah blah, it's the person behind the camera, megapixels don't matter, you only ever need 6 megapixels, blah blah blah, ad naseum...</p>

<p>You can argue all you want that "megapixels don't matter", but when Canon comes out with a sub-$1000 consumer SLR that can give you an 18x12 print at 300 DPI ... Nikon really needs to respond with <em>something</em> .</p>

<p>Unfortunately, Nikon seems to have been caught with their pants down: they have no high-end cash-cow from which to grab a high-resolution crop sensor, a la what the 7D is to the T2i. Nikon was too busy shoveling video into the D300s. You want to argue about pointless features? Try starting there.</p>

<p>In the continual game of leapfrog between Canon and Nikon, it would appear that Canon is currently the one leaping.</p>

<p>I also am wishing that Nikon would have a more-affordable higher-resolution camera. When I bought my D2x in 2005, it was the strongest part of my system, the weak parts being the photographer's abilities and my lens array. Today, the D2x is still a very capable camera, but my experience has become greater, and I have a bag full of excellent prime lenses. In October 2009 I decided to buy a Canon 5DII and use it with my Nikon lenses via an adaptor. For what I do, which is slow landscape-type tripod-mounted shots using large flash, involving set-up times measuring in the hours (excellent lenses and technique, as Shun has pointed out), the Canon 5DII is the superior camera. In this type of situation, I can see the difference in 12 vs. 21 mp.</p>

<p>However, I think that you won't see as much of a difference shooting candid-type photos (handheld) with an 18 or 21 mp camera. For daylight shooting, I still prefer the D2x over the 5DII, it is a much more nimble piece of equipment in this application, especially using one of Nikon's excellent zooms such as the 24-70. Having high-resolution is of no use if you miss the shot in the first place. So think about what your shooting situation will be before you drop a lot of money on a new camera.</p>

<p>I print 13x19 from a D70s 6.1 megapixel all the time, they look very good. The only time I see a problem is when I don't focus properly. But that being said, I'm looking forward to moving to a D300 for the better ISO, focus, frame speed, and after those, more pixels.</p>

<p>I'm far more interested in a camera the size of a D90 or smaller with great high ISO performance -- if that has to be DX format and 6 MP, that's OK. So please order fewer MP for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think this is an area where Nikon is seriously behind. The only people who don't care about pixels seem to be those that don't have them. Personally, I didn't even consider a 35mm DSLR until there was one that had at least 18mp because I understand what pixels mean and as a pro, what I need to have to deliver the images I feel fit with my needs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For higher ends, 24MP or perhaps even more can make a difference, but that is not what the OP asked. The original question is about cheap 18MP DSLR cameras (in the OP's words) such as the Canon Rebel line. Those cameras are typically sold with consumer plastic-mount lenses.</p>

<p>If I get 18 or more MP, I want them on an FX sensor, not cramped onto an APS-C type sensor.</p>

<p>Shun, I don't know much about your experience and I do know that different photographers work images differently. For myself, I have been scanning and working images digitally since Photoshop CS4--whenever that was! I have worked files that were 20mb 8bit and files over 200mb (8bit). What I have learned over the years is that the ability to work on a file changes with more pixels (and 16bit is better than 8!), there is more elasticity. I also know that with a 50mb file (8bit) I can do almost anything with it and it will hold up pretty well. Because someone wants a cheap 18MP camera doesn't make them or their needs any less important than someone who can buy an $8000 camera. If I didn't make my living at it, I wouldn't probably buy an $8000 camera either, but I would want the larger file to work with!</p>

<p>Now, as to an aps sensor or ff, I guess I will say that I am not technically qualified to comment on how much difference it actually makes, but I do believe that Nikon and Canon could be offering FF cameras from top to bottom--at least Canon could--at the prices paid for aps sensors. It just wouldn't be the most profitable way to do it!</p>

<p>Shun, "cheap" is of course a matter of definition. What I'm saying is that Nikon doesn't have anything that matches the resolution of the 5D MkII, 7D or now the Rebel 2Ti except the D3X and most people wouldn't call the D3X cheap...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you need 18MP?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's up to the end user to decide.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For one thing the difference between 12 and 18MP is not that big, and unless you have excellent lenses and excellent technique, those extra pixels will largely be wasted. Meanwhile, when you cramp more pixels into the same area, each pixel will have to be smaller.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The difference between 12 and 21 is substantial in my experience. And people who know how to handle a camera well are not rare individuals. It's not like piloting a space shuttle.</p>

<p>Who cares? If you can't get a good image with 12 megapixels, chances are you won't do any better with 18 megapixels.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Who cares? If you can't get a good image with 12 megapixels, chances are you won't do any better with 18 megapixels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Granted, but what if you're one of the many people who CAN take a good 12MP photo. Should the price for greater resolution be unattainable?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think this is an area where Nikon is seriously behind. The only people who don't care about pixels seem to be those that don't have them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I fear that this is true. "That other brand" sells a lot of high-res units.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I didn't even consider a 35mm DSLR until there was one that had at least 18mp.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that I agree with this, though. For photojournalism 12MP works pretty well.</p>

 

<p>"That's up to the end user to decide." doesn't jive with "I'm not sure that I agree with this, though. For photojournalism 12MP works pretty well." I wasn't speaking for anyone else and gave my reasons!</p>

<p>I tested a Nikon D3X extensively, and I found out that I must use it on a sturdy tripod, put some high-end lenses on it and stop down to like f5.6, f8 to really make a difference from the 12MP D3 and D700. Meanwhile you scacrifice low-light capability. I tried hand holding the D3X indoors with a 50mm/f1.4 near wide open; the result I got was worse than what I typically get from the D3 and D700.</p>

<p>To me, it makes very little sense to squeeze 18MP onto an APS-C sensor. The same pixel density means you'll have a 40MP FX sensor. I am afraid that a lot of lenses cannot take advantage of that type of pixel density, especially those consumer lenses that are usually sold with cameras such as the Rebel.</p>

<p>That is why I don't particularly care for the 7D or this new Rebel. What Nikon does not have is a 20+MP FX-format prosumer DSLR similar to the 5D Mark II but with a better AF system. Otherwise, for something like the D300, D90 and D5000, I am perfectly happy with 12MP.</p>

<p>i can see the point of this thread, but it's kind of following a 'grass is greener' path. shun as usual makes several salient points. in his infinite, shaolin monk-like wisdom, he's surely thinking of entry-level geeks who worship at the altar of Megapixels but neglect photographic essentials like technique.</p>

<p>i honestly dont see this announcement as a game-changer. think about it: Canon took a blow with the D3/d300/d700 rollouts, necessitating a comeback with the 7d. its logical then that they would release a lower-end version of that sensor on a prosumer camera.to which i say, so what?</p>

<p>it's a true-ism that you work with what you've got. for Nikon to release a 15mp or 18mp body for under $1k, they would have had to develop that sensor for a high-end body first. but that's not their thinking. right now, their product line is split between 10mp, 12mp and 24mp sensors. this makes sense because the higher you go, you essentially need to double the resolution to see a discernible difference in IQ and then only at low ISOs if you're printing larger than 11x14 or 16x20. in fact, nikon probably should have kept a 6mp sensor in their line.</p>

<p>more megapixels sounds nice, but for DSLRs, the current benchmark isnt resolution but high-ISO performance. that's what makes the biggest difference in real-world usage for most of us. i'd much prefer to have a camera with the high-ISO performance of the D3s than the resolution of the D3x. if i could have that at a d90 price point, i'd be overjoyed. i do think its only a matter of time before we see a 24mp prosumer model similar to what Shun describes but i'd actually rather see a high-end Coolpix which can hang with the LX3/G11/S90 in terms of features and performance, perhaps with an APS-C sensor. and i also dont see the point of using a body with a high-resolution sensor with plastic lenses which can't make use of all those megapixels.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, the one thing that simply has me laugh is the "cheap" in the OP's posting. If someone uses a D3 with the appropiate lenses and switches to D3x for landscape or similar photography, there is a good reason. But cramming 18 MP into a plastic phantastic consumer body: hey, wake up! This is called MARKETING, nothing else!</p>

<p>95% of these cameras will never see anything else mounted on them but the cheap 18-55 lens or similar, a waste of pixels, a waste of high ISO performance, just good enough for big boys to play the "mine is bigger" game. Good for Canons marketing people, maybe good for their bank account. Not good for photography. With Canon stepping back on MPs with the G11, I had hoped for some brain finally being used at Canon. Well, they probably fired the only intelligent employee and went back to their old "more is better" game.</p>

<p>Most of us who really need lots of MP don't need something on a Ti-level, we need a tool. A 7D is fine, as is a D3x. A D700x would be fine too, maybe even a D300x (in addition to the D300s, with the good high ISO performance, not replacing it). But a D5000x or lower... forget it, that's just marketing, not photography.</p>

<p>I do hope Nikon will offer alternatives, but I also do hope they wan't start the stupid race too. High ISO is more important to most serious photographers than lots of MP.</p>

<p>I think the miss in all of this is the fact that Nikon offers no solution to more pixels but an $8000 camera! I mean the next is only 12 MP, something Canon surpassed long ago. Maybe the OP was referring to the new Rebel, but I think the issue is deeper than that--the 5d and the 5dII are both fairly reasonably priced cameras and nothing from Nikon to compete is really pretty amazing--how long ago did the 5D hit the market. And there are plenty of other alternatives right below this FF offering.</p>

<p>Is high iso the thing these days? Maybe, but I don't think high iso has ever been a pro thing. Look at all the MF camera backs--none are very good over iso 200! No, the bottom line as I see it in this thread is just that fact that Nikon hasn't offered any serious cameras with any MP's worth noting other than their flagship camera and I honestly have been befuddled by that for several years now!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"That's up to the end user to decide." doesn't jive with "I'm not sure that I agree with this, though. For photojournalism 12MP works pretty well." I wasn't speaking for anyone else and gave my reasons!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh-oh. Somebody should call Sports Illustrated and tell them to stop accepting those inferior D3/D3s images right away. :-)</p>

<p>That said, more resolution means that you can crop out the "picture within the picture" and print it large with good quality. A photo editor's dream!</p>

<p>Dan, apparently you miss nuance! You said it was "up to the end user" to decide in your first response and then you turn around and say you disagree with my "statement" as to what I did, as an end user. Since I wasn't expressing an opinion at that point, just what I did, not sure there is any disagreement to be had there. And there certainly wasn't any comment that a great image can't come out of a 12mp camera--not the point!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is high iso the thing these days? Maybe, but I don't think high iso has ever been a pro thing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>well, that's debatable. i'm sure some available-light wedding photographers and concert/theatre shooters will disagree there.</p>

<p>what isnt debatable is that high ISO has opened up new worlds of creative opportunities which werent possible with MF. adding more MP to a consumer DSLR isn't exactly as innovative as increasing high-ISO performance, since high-end digital MF bodies like the Leaf and Hassy already offer way more MP for studio and landscape pros. those cameras arent as good at high ISOs for one reason: noise. that's the same reason the D3x is in some ways inferior to the D3s.</p>

<p>if we accept higher MPs (i.e. more than 12) as a "pro" feature, the conceit here is wanting that same level of resolution from a non-pro camera, to the point of demanding it as a god-given right! it's not like those 12mp d300s, d700s, and d3s all of a sudden suck. another conceit is expecting Nikon to immediately answer a Canon announcement within a day of it being made.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>more megapixels sounds nice, but for DSLRs, the current benchmark isnt resolution but high-ISO performance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That depends on the application. For advertising shots with studio lighting or for landscape photography, who wouldn't prefer 24 MP @ ISO 100 over 12 MP @ ISO 3200?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of us who really need lots of MP don't need something on a Ti-level, we need a tool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be willing to bet that under the right circumstances (ISO 800 or less, both cameras fitted with comparable pro lenses, not a hurricane) the new Rebel could produce a better image than a D3s. The client doesn't care that the D3 is more rugged and more expensive. The only care which image looks better. And then there's always the 1080p factor.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the bottom line as I see it in this thread is just that fact that Nikon hasn't offered any serious cameras with any MP's worth noting other than their flagship camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That IS the bottom line, and the people who are disparaging Canon's latest offerings as "cheap plastic" are missing the point. Crop-sensor cameras aside, the Canon sells a whole lot more 5D2's than Nikon sells D3X's. Someone at Nikon needs to steal fire from Mt. Olympus (no pun intended) and bring it to the masses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan, apparently you miss nuance! You said it was "up to the end user" to decide in your first response and then you turn around and say you disagree with my "statement" as to what I did, as an end user. Since I wasn't expressing an opinion at that point, just what I did, not sure there is any disagreement to be had there. And there certainly wasn't any comment that a great image can't come out of a 12mp camera--not the point!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, I'm a dope. Have a nice day.</p>

<p>Regardless whether more megapixels can have more use or not, it is valid to wonder what use they have on the entry-level models. On those, they will typically be paired with lenses that do not come close to resolving this resolution. So yeah, they're wasted and only there for bragging rights and marketing.<br>

And whether more megapixels do make sense, it seems that a lot of people seem to forget the resolution is essentially squared, and not a lineair function. 18 over 12 megapixels does deliver astonishingly little, and I have a hard time believing it makes a serious difference. I find 24 as next stop after 12 making more sense than the 15 and 18 in betweens that Canon delivered so far - it just does not deliver close to enough extra resolution to make it worth your while.</p>

<p>Except for the marketing, obviously.</p>