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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pete_s., Feb 8, 2010.

  1. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020806canoneos550d.asp
    Let me add this as well :)
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital-rebel-T2i/preview/
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Why do you need 18MP?
    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.
     
  3. Who cares? If you can't get a good image with 12 megapixels, chances are you won't do any better with 18 megapixels.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
    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.
    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.
    So, certainly for those that don't think pixels are important, remember that is only relative to your use not an absolute.
     
  6. I expect to see 24mp.
    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.
     
  7. 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...
    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 something .
    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.
    In the continual game of leapfrog between Canon and Nikon, it would appear that Canon is currently the one leaping.
     
  8. 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.
    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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.​
    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.
    If I get 18 or more MP, I want them on an FX sensor, not cramped onto an APS-C type sensor.
     
  12. 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!
    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!
     
  13. 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...
     
  14. Why do you need 18MP?​
    That's up to the end user to decide.
    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.​
    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.
    Who cares? If you can't get a good image with 12 megapixels, chances are you won't do any better with 18 megapixels.
    Who cares? If you can't get a good image with 12 megapixels, chances are you won't do any better with 18 megapixels.​
    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?
    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.​
    I fear that this is true. "That other brand" sells a lot of high-res units.
    Personally, I didn't even consider a 35mm DSLR until there was one that had at least 18mp.​
    I'm not sure that I agree with this, though. For photojournalism 12MP works pretty well.
     
  15. "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!
     
  16. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  17. 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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
     
  18. 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!
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  19. 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.
    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!
     
  20. "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!​
    Uh-oh. Somebody should call Sports Illustrated and tell them to stop accepting those inferior D3/D3s images right away. :)
    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!
     
  21. 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!
     
  22. Is high iso the thing these days? Maybe, but I don't think high iso has ever been a pro thing.​
    well, that's debatable. i'm sure some available-light wedding photographers and concert/theatre shooters will disagree there.
    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.
    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.
     
  23. more megapixels sounds nice, but for DSLRs, the current benchmark isnt resolution but high-ISO performance.​
    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?
    Most of us who really need lots of MP don't need something on a Ti-level, we need a tool.​
    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.
    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​
    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.
     
  24. 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!​
    Yep, I'm a dope. Have a nice day.
     
  25. 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.
    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.
    Except for the marketing, obviously.
     
  26. I think cameras should be regarded as tools. And, in that sense, MP is only one of the infinite variables. I just recently moved from a D40x to a D200. Many people doesn't consider that as an "upgrade" but for me totally is: Better mettering, DOF preview, switches to important settings, mettering with AIS, AF with AF lenses, 0.4 shutter lag, bigger and more durable, better viewfinder, better autofocus system, more FPS... and keep on.
    The issue here is that many people identify the sensor with the quality and is only a part of the whole picture. It is true that 18MP would be nice for Landscape photografers on a budget, but, as stated here a good technique is much more important. Do much of the potential buyers will care about if this camera has DOF preview? A 0.4 shutter or mirrow lock-up? Spot mettering? From what we wrote in the topic it may have all that features but, simply, we are not talking about it. Because it is not the point. Only how many megapixels it has.
     
  27. Canon has not only made an affordable 18 megapixel camera, they've expanded the base ISO to 6400. Regardless whether resolution or low light performance is important to you, Nikon does appear to be falling behind. If neither of those things is that important, Nikon's 12MP/3200 ISO cameras should be fine.
    I'm still using a D80. I'd like better high-ISO performance and a meter that doesn't blow out people's faces in contrasty scenes, but even at 10 megapixels it's more resolution than I need. Unfortunately I'd only just bought the D80 when the D90 was announced, so I'm waiting on a D90 replacement before I upgrade. If Canon's apparent market lead causes Nikon to push out a 12 - 15 MP, ISO 6400 DX format body, I'd love it and be thankful to Canon.
    Someone mentioned they were hoping for a Nikon LX3/S90 competitor. Why wait? Just buy the non-Nikon brand. I have an S90 and am very happy with it. The controls are fine (better on the Canon than any other compact, in my opinion) and the lens is fixed, so brand is unimportant.
     
  28. Who the heck wants an 18mp APS-C camera? This is just the standard point and shoot thinking where more MP's equates to better image quality. Most people know this to be a false statement. I personally think Nikon hit the sweet spot for full frame (as far as resolution and controlling noise) @12 MP and so did Canon with the 5D Mark I. For cropped sensors I think nikon's 6MP D40/D50 and Canon's 30/40D @8-10 MP's sensors gave the best performance . Only a certain group of photographer needs resolution greater than 12mp for everybody else its just wasted information taking up space on the hard drive.
     
  29. I am not a pro but I do agree with Holger Wahl and many others in this thread regarding that I do prefer a camera with very high ISO capability that allow me to shoot crisp and sharp pictures in low light ( of course in combination with a prime lens ) rather than having more pixels capability. Perhaps what I am going to say is not related to this thread but I do not really care about video in my camera. For me that is waste. I would prefer instead that, more ISO capability. I do have a D300 and if my D300 would have the ISO capability of the D3, D700 or the newest D300x, without their video, that will be my camera for the rest of my life. We all want to be able to take pictures and very good pictures in low light not how many pixels you have printed on that picture and we also want more efficient AF like the D3 or perhaps the newest cameras that I hope Nikon will build in the near future.
     
  30. Looks like there's a lots of emotion around pixels. :) Ease up, guys ... it's just pixels. I tend to think that most of us are pixel-challenged.
    Yes, it's the person behind the camera. And, yes, if you can't get good pictures with 12Mpix, you probably can't either with 18Mpix or 24Mpix or ... 50Mpix. But, what makes us think the OP can't get good pictures with 12 Mpix? Why so hostile?
    I always said this when someone tells me it has nothing to do with the equipment: Try making a living as a sports photographer or a wildlife photographer (i.e. 100% of living comes from photography) without a decent long lens. If you can do it within 3 years, I will give me applause. Better still, if you make a living in those 2 fields with a Holga or a Diana, I would you shake your hands and congratulate you. Hey, if you are a highly skilled photographer, you might be the first person in the Guiness Book to make a living as a full-time sports photographer using a pin-hole camera, for crying out loud. Show me ... talk is cheap!


    Equipment are tools and tools are needed for certain applications. Don't sweep that need aside with senseless statements. Take a deep breath and dissipate your envy, if someone else has the $$$ and are looking for better equipment.
     
  31. For advertising shots with studio lighting or for landscape photography, who wouldn't prefer 24 MP @ ISO 100 over 12 MP @ ISO 3200?​
    huh? what? who shoots landscape at ISO 3200? and who shoots with studio lighting at 3200? dont advertising pros use pro-level cameras? and wouldn't landscaping pros benefit more from some really good glass than a MP-stuffed body with a kit lens?
    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.​
    well, gee, isn't the D3s optimized for sports/wedding/concert/PJ shooters who need high ISO performance? and if you fit a new rebel with a pro lens, its no longer "cheap," is it?
    Crop-sensor cameras aside, the Canon sells a whole lot more 5D2's than Nikon sells D3X's.​
    maybe, but those two cameras only compete in terms of MPs. it's worth pointing out that MPs alone do not make a camera. for instance, the 5d2 doesnt have the frame rate or AF system of the D3x. also, the 5d2 isnt exactly cheap, either.
    the people who are disparaging Canon's latest offerings as "cheap plastic" are missing the point.​
    actually, people were referring to the kit lens the new Rebel comes with, which is cheap plastic. speaking of missing the point, several people, including myself, have noted that the resolution bump seems marketing-driven, rather than performance driven, since you have to double the MPs to really see much of a difference. this isnt opinion, but physics.
    no offense dan, but if you have to construct scenarios which are illogical just to make your points, chances are those points defy logic.
    the one valid takeaway is that nikon doesnt have a high-MP camera currently except for the D3x, but expecting one to come down the pipe instantaneously and in the $1000 range to boot just isn't realistic. if you're so impatient you need to switch to Canon right now to jump on the new Rebel, go for it. I'm not stopping you.
    Someone mentioned they were hoping for a Nikon LX3/S90 competitor. Why wait? Just buy the non-Nikon brand. I have an S90 and am very happy with it.​
    being able to use my nikon speedlights would be a huge plus. also, for me, the S90 doesn't quite cut it--the build quality, poor ergonomics, lack of grip, and too easily-jostled rear dial are deal-breakers. i am considering a G11, but i'd rather have a P7000 with a bigger sensor, 10mp, 5x zoom, and usable ISO 800 performance.
     
  32. 6 months ago I bought a National Geographic magazine. There was an article taking about some new theories related with whales migration. Of couse there were, as ussual amazing pictures of whales. The write clearly stated that the fotographer used a Nikon D200 for the photografic sesion of. Usually you never know the equipment but it was just part of the novelated style of the publication.
    So, somebody, a pro photographer, was able to take photos from some whales with a camera that has a "not very good autofocus", with a sensor "that is considered a mistake", with just 10Mp. This guy publish in National Geographic with the same camera that I have. Now I take my camera, take a picture and look at the result. Hey, ussually doesn't look like a National Geographic picture.
    If you don't get good results blame yourself, not the brand, the megapixels or whatsever.
     
  33. (warning: snark alert ) those whale pics would certainly have been "better" had they been shot with Canon's new Rebel, wouldn't they?
     
  34. I shoot sports for a living. I have a couple of very nice long lenses and two D300's I also keep a D2h as a backup. To me for what I do a 5DMKII is useless. Frame rate is way to slow and the AF is to slow for sports. I work with a bunch of Canon shooters (Yes they pick on me about shooting with the dark side) But they are also envious of the Nikon CLS and the fact that my D300 cost less then there 1DsMKIII. They have no interest in the 7D right now they are all waiting to see how the 1Ds MK IV works out. Is it the high MP count that they are interested in? NO!. They are looking for better high ISO and better AF.
    For us shooting 2000 shots in a day is not unheard of. I carry 50 GB of CF cards and I am considered conservative. Good god if I had a 24 MP camera that could handle the frame rates we need I would have to double the CF cards I carry and probably triple the storage space on my computers(Plus backups and all that entails).
    There are times when I wish I had a D3s only for the high ISO ability. I would not like the loss of the cropped FOV. So for me give me a D400 with 12 MP and 11FPS plus the high ISO of the D3s.
     
  35. I think there is a point to the fact that 18mp on a digital Rebel might be overkill! There might be a lot of wasted pixels sitting on the hard drive with nothing to do! But on the other hand, there are probably those who want to create a certain kind of image--landscape, large prints etc that might be able to use more pixels and can't afford the big guns. We can focus all we want on what is important or what glass or whatever, but if you don't have an option it is sort of moot now isn't it!
    I said way up above, that the only people I have ever heard say pixels don't matter are those who don't have them. It would be interesting to see how many of you who say it doesn't matter shoot Nikon. It would also be interesting to know how many of you who say pixels don't matter have actually worked with 60mb(8bit) files or larger(raw or scanned negatives). There is a difference.
    I am not saying that a digital Rebel should have 18MP, but I think saying that 12MP and 18MP are not different bears a little soul searching--and actual practical use of the files! Honestly, since I was invested in Nikon film gear and loved my lenses, I would be shooting Nikon if they had had a larger MP option when I got my DSLR, but they didn't--and still don't except for the top end. So, be honest with your motives for your position, is it that you know more pixels don't matter or that you just do fine with what you have. I really feel like the thread has the stink of a Canon vs Nikon debate rather than an objective view of the fact that Nikon has not kept pace in the MP area--for some reason and it is not that Pixels don't matter or there wouldn't be a 24mp camera at the top!
     
  36. john, pixels dont matter if you dont need them. not sure if you read michael's comment before posting but he makes some key points.
    as for a 24mp camera at the top, well, that's only the top of the pricing structure. for sports/action shooters, the d3s is at the top, for the reasons michael mentioned. diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.
    when i heard last year that Canon was coming out with the 7d, what struck me about that camera being positioned well in the prosumer field wasnt the MP but the better AF and frame rate, which were things missing on the 5dmkII. so that made sense.
    but i dont think one can easily ignore the fact that more pixels = more marketing hype at an entry-level price point. maybe the new Rebel will attract some cash-challenged Serious Landscapers who can't plunk down the cash for a 5d2. but then Serious Landscapers who shoot canon would also be into L glass, wouldnt they? so that price point is a bit of a red herring, because you'd still have to sink a few grand into glass to get optimal results with that body.
    besides the SL cheapies, that leaves punters who will pony up for a new Rebel and be forced to get more HD space and those new 64g cards, especially if they shoot video. and in the end, their pictures wont look much better if at all than the results from a 12mp camera, and will actually be worse if they attempt to shoot low-light at high ISOs.
    so i think nikon has it right by not offering an APS-C camera with more than 12 mp. noise is noise, after all. an 18 mp FF camera? that might be intriguing. but nikon wouldnt introduce that in a prosumer camera at the d90 price point before introducing it in a single-digit D offering. they're certainly not going to alter their philosophy because of this thread. and that philosophy is: high-end tech eventually trickles down to prosumer level. so it's much more likely we'll see a 24mp FF body at a lower price point than the d3x before we see anything like the Rebel t2i from nikon.
     
  37. Eric, I certainly agree that for many the MP doesn't matter and they will never use more (or process an image where they will see a difference it can make); that there are certain cameras that will do certain things better than others and that 12MP probably works fine for those applications. I don't argue the fact that much of what is going on in the 35mm market as well as the huge MP in the MF market is more marketing that practical or even useful stuff.
    The point I am making, and was frustrated with Nikon about, was that I didn't have an option with them and as I watch what has gone on for the last several years am still baffled by their reluctance to have more options in the larger MP arena. I think that is the gist of what this thread is about. We all have different critieria for a camera, but Nikon isn't really giving us choices and Canon is! I would have liked to stay with Nikon, but couldn't because they didn't offer any option that fit my criteria at the time whereas Canon had two available in FF, which was also a criteria--not sure Nikon had any FF cameras when I got my 1dsmkIII either!?! But certainly not the MP I was after.
     
  38. who shoots landscape at ISO 3200? and who shoots with studio lighting at 3200?​
    My point exactly! If you were to choose the optimum tool for either of these applications, would you choose a high resolution camera that works best at Low ISO values, or would you choose a camera that performs well at High ISO values? As you have correctly stated, the High ISO capability is probably not going to be used here, so the hi res camera is more desirable.
    dont advertising pros use pro-level cameras?​
    Yes, they use Medium Format digital systems (for the higher resolution).
    and wouldn't landscaping pros benefit more from some really good glass than a MP-stuffed body with a kit lens?​
    If the MP-stuffed body costs less than a D3X, they can dedicate more of their budget to "good glass."
    and if you fit a new rebel with a pro lens, its no longer "cheap," is it?​
    It's still a lot less expensive than a D3X body alone.
    for instance, the 5d2 doesnt have the frame rate or AF system of the D3x. also, the 5d2 isnt exactly cheap, either.​
    5DmkII: 3.9 fps, $2500
    D3X: 1.8 fps (14-bit FX), $7500
    That said, the D3X has plenty of advantages over the 5D2 and I would never claim otherwise.
    actually, people were referring to the kit lens the new Rebel comes with, which is cheap plastic.​
    Really? See quote below.
    But cramming 18 MP into a plastic phantastic consumer body: hey, wake up! This is called MARKETING, nothing else!
    speaking of missing the point, several people, including myself, have noted that the resolution bump seems marketing-driven, rather than performance driven, since you have to double the MPs to really see much of a difference. this isnt opinion, but physics.​
    I saw a BIG difference between my 10MP D200 and my 12MP D700. Your mileage may vary.
    no offense dan, but if you have to construct scenarios which are illogical just to make your points, chances are those points defy logic.​
    No offense taken! I have full confidence in my logic.
    expecting one to come down the pipe​
    FYI, it's "to come down the PIKE," not the "PIPE."
     
  39. ok john, so for you, your solution was to switch to Canon, which made sense because they had the tools which fit your specific needs. i get that. but now that you've switched, doesnt that make your ongoing frustration with Nikon a moot point?
    if nikon had an 18mp APS-C camera at a $1000 price point, would you sell your Canon gear, possibly incurring a loss, just to return to yellow logo-land?
    in any event, you say you're baffled by nikon's lack of high-MP options. yet the company has obviously made high-iso performance more of a priority, as evidenced by the D3s. maybe that's due to the feedback they got from pros. maybe they wanted back into the sports/PJ market they had all but ceded to Canon before the d3/d700. maybe they didnt have the R&D resources to do that and put out a high-MP camera under 8k within an acceptable time frame for you.
    however, they did release the D3x just last year. so it stands to reason they'll release a less-expensive body with that sensor sometime soon, probably at around the 5d mkII price point.
    my point is this: if you want to stick with nikon, and you want more MP for under 8k, you just have to be patient. if Canon and Sony have what you want now and you just can't wait, then go ahead and get the tools you need.
    not to disparage your specific needs, but the DSLR market is being fueled by entry-level and mid-level buyers. it's interesting that canon is still trying to play the MP game at the mid-level price point, but remember, nikon sold a whole lot more d40s than d3s. and the average d3000 user probably doesnt need 18mp just to take snapshots of family gatherings.
    i personally am pretty satisfied with my d300, except for the low-light performance, which is still a lot better than my previous d80. i dont really need FF right now and i dont need more MP. i dont want to have to sink a few grand into a new body and new lenses just to get one stop of ISO.
     
  40. Until someone creates a camera than can do everything well, the ideal would be to carry one body for superior resolution and a second body for high-ISO performance. If Nikon offered a reasonably-priced high-resolution FX alternative to the D3X (with the bonus of a smaller body), that ideal would be affordable by far more customers.
    To those who recognize that they don't need the extra resolution, more power to you! But for those of us who desire it, the wait is becoming tedious.
     
  41. I saw a BIG difference between my 10MP D200 and my 12MP D700. Your mileage may vary.​
    ok, but you went from CCD APS-C to FF CMOS. those are two different sensor formats. i'm not sure how big you're printing but any difference is due to larger pixels, not more of them. 2mp in and of itself isnt a huge jump in resolution. and, as we've seen with canon's decreasing its MP count in its g11 from the previous model, sometimes less is more (as in less noise).
    FWIW, i dont see that much of a difference, IQ wise, between my 10mp d80 and my 12mp d300. in fact, sometimes i prefer the CCD "look."
     
  42. When I need or want more resolution for my non sports work I shoot MF or 4x5. I have the film drum scanned and have all of the resolution that I could ever need. A well shot and well scanned 4X5 negative out performs any DSLR on the market today. At a much lower price point to boot.
     
  43. Whilst "cramming more pixels" into a particular sized sensor will make noise and IQ worse, everyone seems to be assuming that the pixels are the same pixels. But they're not. Canon has moved to "gapless micro lenses" (whatever the heck that means) with this particular camera. So in some cases in order to get better high ISO performance you also have to upgrade to however many pixels they're cramming onto the sensor. Could they put less pixels on the sensor and get even better performance? Sure, absolutely, but the assertion "more pixels on the sensor means worse pixels" is not always true.
    Eric, if you're looking to use your Nikon speedlights with a portable then you're looking at a different use case to me. I wanted a go-everywhere camera with quality that didn't totally suck and I'm willing to put up with a couple of (quite minor actually) foibles to achieve that.
     
  44. If Nikon offered a reasonably-priced high-resolution FX alternative to the D3X (with the bonus of a smaller body), that ideal would be affordable by far more customers.​
    hmm, you're describing the d700x , which KR already has a page on and expects sometime in 2010. he actually predicts February 20. so the wait may not be as tedious as you think.
    or maybe not. KR has been wrong before, but i'm fairly sure we'll see that camera, or one close to it, sometime this year.
    also, for everyone who lusts after more MPs in a nikon body, there's probably an equal or higher amount of folks who would prefer the D3s' stupid-high ISO performance.
     
  45. Eric, if you're looking to use your Nikon speedlights with a portable then you're looking at a different use case to me. I wanted a go-everywhere camera with quality that didn't totally suck and I'm willing to put up with a couple of (quite minor actually) foibles to achieve that.​
    well, all i said was, it would be a plus to be able to use my speedlights in a compact P&S, since i already have an sb-400 and 600. i almost bought a refurb p6000 when it was on sale at adorama a while back for that reason, even though that camera has worse reviews than the Canon G 10/11, the s90, and the LX3. being able to use CLS in a P&S wouldnt be the only reason i would want one, but if i'm going to spend that much on a compact, it would be nice not to have to also buy another external flash.
    my thoughts on the high-end compact market are, this is an area i'm seriously disappointed in nikon in. i have to agree with thom hogan that the coolpixes lack much of the panache of other manufacturers' current offerings. however, nikon could make me happy with a well-spec'd p7000 with a 1 2/3" (or larger) sensor or even APS-C, 10mp, 5x zoom, clean iso 800. they can leave off the GPS and the ethernet.
     
  46. Eric, the thread was about why Nikon wasn't coming up with cheaper, higher MP cameras, a lot of the rest of what you mention is not really the point. There also quickly became an undercurrent that MP weren't important.
    But beyond that, I didn't wait. And, for the record, I don't know any pro who doesn't change systems from time to time. I went through 5 MF systems in my first 15 years as a pro, holding onto at least 3 different ones at most times--not including my 15 Holgas, Mamiya 330 and Mamiya 7! I also have 6 LF cameras, 8 if you include the 8x10 I rarely use and the old graflex 4x5 slr. You have cameras that fit needs!
    Obviously, for some reason Nikon has not moved in the MP arena, but I don't see them as superior in the high ISO field either. The 5DII I have is extremely good at high ISO, so maybe the sports field is their market?
     
  47. Do you think painters fight over brushes or writers over word processing programs? I'd rather see folks fighting over what makes a good photograph. A pro sports photographer taught me the most valuable lesson ever. At a high level college baseball game he said. "Forget about speed and how fast you are going to move your camera from here to there. Get in tune with the game and pick your spot for the next action. Man on third? Focus on home plate and wait for the runner to slide in." Several games later I landed the most excellent shot of a runner sliding into third with the catcher, ball in hand trying to tag him out. Dust flying, the whole bit. My point? all the equipment in the world can't make up for knowledge.
     
  48. John A [​IMG] , Feb 08, 2010; 07:50 p.m. (report spam ) (edit | delete )
    "...I also have 6 LF cameras, 8 if you include the 8x10 I rarely use and the old graflex 4x5 slr. You have cameras that fit needs!"​
    John, just curious... your posts here bring to mind a question I've had for awhile. As a film photographer who used many formats up to large format, are you wanting a dSLR to serve as a sort of be-all, end-all device to emulate the maximum possible resolution of large format?
    In some cases most of these "I want more megapickles" threads seem pointless. Canon offers an incremental improvement; Nikonistas become neurotic and demand the same incremental improvement; then Nikon comes out with something Canon doesn't have and Canonites suffer through the very same hand wringing. Nothing new there.
    But I'm getting the impression that some folks are looking for a Nikon or Canon camera, still shaped like the 35mm SLR paradigm, to substitute for not only medium format film but large format as well. In other words, something like the dSLR equivalent to the Pentax 67 or 67II behemoth, or the various specialty large format cameras that weren't built on the flexible bellows paradigm.
     
  49. "Do you think painters fight over brushes or writers over word processing programs?"​
    Unfortunately, yes. I quit participating on artists sites years ago for that very reason. Too much blah-blah over equipment, not enough on technique. There were a few exceptions, but the nature of the internet is that forum warriors will eventually dominate any discussion forum and turn it into an equipment obsession forum. If it's not Kolinsky sable vs. anything "lesser", it's whether one particular obscure ancient oil medium was superior to another equally arcane recipe.
    And I well remember many snarky editorial wars between magazine writers about their favorite word processing programs. These were standard features in computer oriented magazines in the 1990s. I also stopped reading that sort of distracting nonsense. What finally relieved me of the burden of worrying about how much computer power was enough and which software was best was learning that Tom Clancy had written some of his blockbusters on the very same Mac I'd bought for $5 at a thrift store, which happened to include a full complement of software including Word.
    I still haven't written my blockbuster novel.
     
  50. Lex, I don't use the DSLR for the same things I use the film cameras or what I use an MF digital for. There are different applications for different cameras. But the sports I shoot is not "event" oriented but advertising work, so I don't need the "sports" camera, most of it I have shot with MF cameras.
    I just finished 30 days on the road on a personal project, I did it all with the DSLR, mostly people and places whereas the first part of the project, as a commission, was mostly shot LF film and certain things MF film. I had the LF film camera with me and only pulled it out once--wasn't pertinent to what I was doing. I am using all LF film on another personal project and combine both MF film and DSLR on another. So, I just use what fits the need and makes sense for the work I am doing.
    But I also print very large and although I have printed 40x50's with the original 5D, the quality is much better with the 5dII and 1dsmkIII. Also, files work better with more pixels, an early lesson! I actually prefer film scans to digital raw, but we can discuss that some other time.
     
  51. For myself, when I fill, that I maybe contracted megapixel bug, I go on photo netโ€™s best picture of the year webpage, most of the guys will mention camera model and guess what, 20D's and D70's still taking great shots.
     
  52. I think Nikon needs an equivalent to the eos MK2. Thats what I'm waiting for.
    More pixels must mean more resolution and better cropping ability, Technique is something else.
     
  53. I guess if you are sloppy with a brush, then it doesn't matter what you pay for it. You are still sloppy.
    Hey is that a famous quote?
     
  54. Are those of us who shoot 6MP D70's even allowed to read this thread?
    scot
     
  55. Still pure marketing BS.
    How cares about a small increment of MP ..... Forget the MPs make the pro-line cameras smaller, lighter, full frame and R&D and next gen. lens (M9) . Want more rez? move to middle/large formats.
    BTW For work I drum scan 4x5, 5x7, 5x8. I use my DSLR for snapshots. lol.
     
  56. Eric, the thread was about why Nikon wasn't coming up with cheaper, higher MP cameras, a lot of the rest of what you mention is not really the point.​
    glad i could be of service to you. :)
    actually, the thread can be boiled down to, "why isnt nikon more like canon?-- because that would suit my specific, individual needs"
    the answer is that nikon follows a specific, somewhat predictable product cycle on their own timetable, not yours. thus, any ebb and flow of supply and demand or response to competition in a market has to fall into that. as far as sales and introducing new products go, most manufacturers tend to pay attention to high-volume products rather than niche products if they want to stay in business. if the 6 and 10 mp DSLRs sell enough units, then they can fund the R&D into something which will satisfy the few, the proud, the medium-formatters and Canon turncoats. (i'm partially joking here, btw.) and i'd much rather that nikon emulated canon's elan (the puns just keep coming) in the upper-echelon P&S market than tried to placate 5d/5d2/1DsmkXX owners. OTOH, its great that nikon's high-end technology has trickled down to the d300 and lesser cameras to some degree, though i can't see them issuing a high-MP successor to the d90 before that camera is due for a replacement.
    my comments might seem pointless to you, but chew on this: as soon as nikon does come out with the 24mp d700x or whatever, then all your gripes suddenly become moot.
    regardless of what you have gotten out of this thread and its alleged excursions into off-topic-ity, i've learned something from the other posters, especially the ones for whom more MP isnt super high on the priority scale. to me the point is to have a well-rounded discussion.
     
  57. WTF? What Nikon's strategy is (do you work for them in marketing?), is not releveant, the topic was. When they come out with their 24mp d700x, the argument might well be moot, so what, I don't see it now nor have I over the last 4 years while Canon was filling this need! It is moot when it is moot, until then, there is a hole in the line up.
    I don't understand why it is a problem to admit that Nikon has some holes. It doesn't make your camera any worse or mine any better, it is just a fact--proven by your own comment on the d700x! I think all you learned here is that Nikon owners are pretty defensive.....
    I do like to argue, so sorry, it really doesn't matter in the final analysis, but in the absolute, pixels do! ;)
     
  58. Sounds like discussion came to question, why Nikon is not Canon. LOL.
     
  59. This thread is deteriorating in an argument over minutiae, which is pointless since it's based on speculation and rumors. Seems like as good a time as any to move along. But it's a useful example of why these types of debates over non-existent equipment, rumors and coulda-woulda-shoulda rarely serve any constructive purpose here.
     

Share This Page