High Megapixel Full Frame Camera

scott_ferris · March 4, 2012

"You don't make very many large landscape prints, do you? :-)"

Around three a week last year at between 16"x24", in house, and up to 24"x36", outsourced, so not as many as some posters here, but probably more than most.

Brad_ · March 4, 2012

>>> Would anyone see a difference in resolution looking at a 16X20 print from the Canon 5D Mark III and

the Nikon D800 or a 45mp camera. Is there really that much difference?

I would be shocked if there was a difference.

OTOH, all of my shooting for the last 6 months has been from a cellphone cam...

JDMvW · March 4, 2012

The only negative comment I have had is that my photos scared someone.

</blockquote>

I can really understand that from looking at the portfolio, I guess; but if it weren't so terribly (terrifyingly?) off-topic it would be fun to pick at that statement for a while ;)

eric_duncan3 · March 4, 2012

I think that Brad's comments, and similar observations by others, help to reset our perspective on how much camera do we really need, for what we require it to do? The many many millions of advertising and marketing dollars spent by Nikon, Canon, and others, have been hugely successful, fueling mass paranoia that our work is doomed to extinction if we do not leap onto every upgrade in the hardware arms race. We are convinced we are dinosaurs if we are shooting with a 'mere' 12-megapixel machine, while the photographer down the street shoots with the just-launched-this-morning 90-megapixel beast controlled by a Cray supercomputer chip, that brushes his teeth while he shoots.

Never mind a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D MkIII, most of us have lost sight of just how capable cameras such as the Canon 5D Mk I, or Nikon D700, or even the Nikon D80 or Canon EOS 20D, really are.

My sister wanted a sunflower decor theme for the solarium in her new house in Maryland, and we happened to have gorgeous sunflowers growing in our garden in England. At the time, I had Bronica ETR-Si and Minolta X700 medium-format and 35mm SLR film cameras, and I was making my first foray into digital with a Fujifilm 3MP bridge camera.

I decided to use the Fuji for a sunflower shot for my sister, exposing for the sky, and using a burst of fill flash to correctly expose the sunflower. I made minimal tweaks to the image in Photoshop 7, but left the file size at its native 3MP, and printed the shot at 19 x 13 inches.

There is no visible pixellation, and ten years later, my sister continues to receive positive comments on the photograph, including one just this year, by an art museum curator friend, who asked her from which gallery did she purchase this beautiful photograph?

And this, an A3 print from a ten-year-old 3MP compact with a tiny 1/1.7 Bayer pattern sensor, anti-aliasing filter, and all!

I will worry about an upgrade when my photographic requirements exceed the capabilities of my current EOS 50D and 7D bodies. I do not expect that to be while the D800 or EOS 5D MkIII, or their successors, or their successors' successors, are current models.

One final thought, what combination would you put your money on, to produce the better photographs: a Kiev in the hands of Patrick Demarchelier or Joe Cornish, or a Hasselblad with an 80MP back, in the hands of the proverbial 'Uncle Bob?' (The relative oft referred to by wedding photographers, with far more money for equipment than photographic ability.) Sorry, Uncle Bob, mine's not on you.

mauro_franic · March 4, 2012

Like I said, Canon will catch up because a 30-40MP camera is less limiting than a 20MP camera for landscapes printed large.

Those who argue to the contrary or have no need for it, can skip the next Canon model when it comes out.

dan_south · March 4, 2012

The many many millions of advertising and marketing dollars spent by Nikon, Canon, and others, have been hugely successful, fueling mass paranoia that our work is doomed to extinction if we do not leap onto every upgrade in the hardware arms race.

</blockquote>

Nikon and Canon have never suggested that my work was doomed to extinction. Internet fanboys, perhaps, but not N&C.

Never mind a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D MkIII, most of us have lost sight of just how capable cameras such as the Canon 5D Mk I, or Nikon D700, or even the Nikon D80 or Canon EOS 20D, really are.

</blockquote>

I agree that the D700 is a very capable camera. My website is full of shots from the D700 and several shots from my old D200 as well. I don't see the need to take any of them down. They're not obsolete; I think they're rather impressive.

However, I owned a 5D2 at the same time that I owned my D700, and I could see a clear difference in resolution. The 5D2 became my preferred body except when I needed the D700's dynamic range. The D800 offers a similar jump in pixels. Why not go for the most resolution that I can afford? Will the D800 product 'better' photos than the D700? No, just files with more detail. Detail that I might be able to find uses for. So, again, why not?

One final thought, what combination would you put your money on, to produce the better photographs: a Kiev in the hands of Patrick Demarchelier or Joe Cornish, or a Hasselblad with an 80MP back, in the hands of the proverbial 'Uncle Bob?'

</blockquote>

You make a valid point, but most of us reading this aren't Uncle Bobs.

g dan mitchell · March 4, 2012

It's far better to focus on improving photographing rather than adding pixels. It's kind of amazing how irrelevant pixel count becomes when one looks at how they can improve their photography rather than their equipment.

</blockquote>

Even better to do both... ;-)

Someone asked if there would be a difference in a 16 x 24 print between the 5D2 and the D800 in terms of resolution. I'm betting that it is very unlikely that a significant difference would be visible at 16 x 24, though a very careful observer might notice something subtle. (That's how I feel about 12 x 18 and the 5D/5D2 comparison.)

On another topic, I'm often amused by the argument that "my computer can't handle the larger files." Maybe, but computers tend to improve, get more memory, operate faster, and have much larger and faster hard drives. You can get bigger and faster everything now for what you paid a few years ago or even at a lower cost.

Dan

ilkka_nissila · March 4, 2012

Why not go for the most resolution that I can afford?

Do you like to eat from the manufacturers' hand? The switcher is the best customer of all. A normal, one-brand photographer buys a system over their lifetime and it's really hard to get those customers to buy lots of new glass when they don't actually need anything new.

Now, what if the CEOs of the two manufacturers went into sauna to drink some sake and decide how to solve the problem. Canon CEO proposes: "What if we take turns with all main types of customers: you can have the sports shooters in this generation (D3s) and we'll take the landscapers. We can the swap roles and in the next generation we will make no significant advances in our landscape camera but offer great high ISO. You can take the landscapers then, and we take the sports shooters. Please, my friend, take some more sake! Four years down the road, you can again take the sports shooters. We sell whole lineups of lenses to everybody every four years!"

Nikon CEO says to that "Let's drink to that!"

(I know you said you have some Nikon lenses left. But you'll be buying new ones for the D800 no doubt.)

ilkka_nissila · March 4, 2012

I'm often amused by the argument that "my computer can't handle the larger files." Maybe, but computers tend to improve, get more memory, operate faster, and have much larger and faster hard drives. You can get bigger and faster everything now for what you paid a few years ago or even at a lower cost.

The key here is that it will all cost more money. I think for example that the D4 would be the less expensive camera for me, in the long term, if I calculate cost of all the extra high-speed storage that I'd need for the D800. Or about the same cost.

eric_duncan3 · March 4, 2012

It is certainly true that most of us who post on this website are not 'Uncle Bob's.' But that was exactly my point -- all the more reason we don't need to hope that up-to-the-minute technology will enable us to produce exciting and highly competent photography. We already do so. But would I prefer that Canon, Nikon, and others stop spending many millions developing and marketing new cameras? No. My previous post was about what we really NEED to produce high-quality, desirable photography. But what we may WANT is a different topic. If we want something, and it is on the market, and we can afford it, then I would agree that there is no harm in being able to buy what we want. But it also does no harm, periodically to reset our perspective on what we actually need.

rishij · March 4, 2012

Haha, Ilkka. But that strategy would make more sense if used lenses didn't still hold so much market value... effectively decreasing the cost of the switch, no?

ilkka_nissila · March 4, 2012

Rishi, true but many switchers have a trait that alleviates the problem you describe: they like their gear to smell new, and feel new.

rishij · March 4, 2012

Haha, OK. Actually, I suffer slightly from that problem but for a different reason: 75% of the used lenses I've ever bought have had decentering or other QC issues... so now I just feel like a lot of the stuff on the used market might be lenses that have been dropped and/or otherwise mishandled.

While this may not be true, my personal experience has been so poor that I tend to buy lenses new nowadays b/c I've been burned way too many times in the past.

rishij · March 4, 2012

But back to the original topic: while I find your sauna scenerio amusing, I'm not sure I'd give the companies so much business-astute credit :) For one, market research for each camp probably showed that each camp wanted what the other had because 'the grass is always greener'.

Furthermore, I question Canon's business-astuteness for a couple other reasons:

<ol>

<li>Do they really think people are going to go for the C300 just b/c they crippled uncompressed HDMI out on their 1Dx & 5D III when people have the option of shooting true FF 35mm uncompressed HDMI video on a Nikon D4 (if they're trying to save some $$)? Or on a cheaper RED that accepts EOS lenses? C300 already has other huge differentiators-- e.g. log gamma, cranking, and other stuff someone can explain better than I could.</li>

<li>Allowing for 5D Mark III pre-orders before 1Dx...</li>

</ol>

Those just seem like bad ideas to me from a marketing perspective for Canon. -Rishi

dan_south · March 4, 2012

I'm often amused by the argument that "my computer can't handle the larger files."

</blockquote>

I've never understood the logic behind that one. Ditto: "Those big files will fill up my hard drive." Uh, buy another hard drive.

rishij · March 4, 2012

I've never understood the logic behind that one. Ditto: "Those big files will fill up my hard drive." Uh, buy another hard drive.

</blockquote>

photo.net really needs a way to like, or super like for that matter, posts. :)

Spearhead · March 4, 2012

Someone asked if there would be a difference in a 16 x 24 print between the 5D2 and the D800 in terms of resolution.

</blockquote>

That's not really relevant to whether or not it's a great photograph. For the techies, this is obviously important, but for those people more interested in photography, it's a minor detail.

dan_south · March 4, 2012

Do you like to eat from the manufacturers' hand? The switcher is the best customer of all.

</blockquote>

I'm the customer of several manufacturers: Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Schneider, Rodenstock, Adobe, Fujinon, Ebony, Elinchrom, Lee, Singh-Ray, Gitzo, Kirk, Really Right Stuff.

I own a set of Nikkor lenses that I've built up over a decade. Every one of them will work on a D800 body. I don't have to divorce myself from Canon in order to take advantage of the D800's features. Likewise, I have a handful of Canon L lenses. I can continue to use my 5D2 or upgrade to a 5D3 without a whole lot of soul searching. If I want the look of Velvia or B&W film, or if movements are important to what I'm doing, I can shoot 4x5. I can dust off my Pentax 67 for a trip down memory lane.

It's the brand-loyal zealot, the person who will never switch but who wastes hour after hour worrying about what the other camp does, who "eats from the manufacturer's hand." I just use cameras to make photographs.

rishij · March 4, 2012

The bickering back & forth about what is more important in photography is itself indicative of the nature of art: it's subjective.

For example, for some an image reminding them of a particular memory, despite low resolution & posterization in the tones of the sky around a setting sun, will still evoke the intended feeling... and therefore they will love it.

For another, the clarity & resolution of viewing a high-quality, high-resolution capture, print of a rather ordinary composition of a wheat field at sunset without mountains in the background, lit by 5000K Solux bulbs viewed behind Museum Glass to minimize reflections, printed on pearl paper that gives just the right contrast and blacks without too many reflections or glossiness to detract from reality, will take him/her back to a fond childhood memory... immediately creating a connection with the photograph.

Neither becomes a lesser piece of art to the viewer because of the shortcomings.

So let's all just agree to disagree.

Personally, I printed my Seattle Sunset at Rizal Bridge (you can see it in my portfolio), captured by a 5D, at 24" x 36" and was somewhat disappointed because up close, upon close inspection, it fell apart (even with Genuine Fractals up-sizing, proper output sharpening, printed on an Epson 9900). The people I sold the print to, and my friends, had no idea what I was talking about. But I cared. I, again personally, enjoy viewing prints from pretty close, to almost fill my field of vision, so I can imagine myself there. In this case, I'd wished I'd had a 5D Mark II when I'd shot that image (which I have now). Or my 645 film system. Though, capturing the dynamic range of that scene on Velvia would've been a different matter.

Similarly, since the D800 is almost the same resolution bump compared to the 5D Mark II as the 5D Mark II was compared to the 5D, one may wish for that resolution bump on the off-chance that he/she wishes to print larger than 24x36 (or some other size limit that we can argue about to death... remember there are people that are only satisfied by contact prints from sheet film!) There's nothing wrong with that. Doesn't mean he/she will always print large. But on that rare image where one wants to print large, the information will be there.

-Rishi

g dan mitchell · March 5, 2012

I wrote, in part:

Someone asked if there would be a difference in a 16 x 24 print between the 5D2 and the D800 in terms of resolution.

</blockquote>

To which someone replied:

That's not really relevant to whether or not it's a great photograph. For the techies, this is obviously important, but for those people more interested in photography, it's a minor detail.

</blockquote>

If you are the sort of photographer who, uh, makes prints... this is not a minor detail. Besides, I wrote it in answer to a question someone asked earlier in the thread.

I suppose that if you are the sort of photographer who just uploads jpgs it would not be relevant, but really...

Dan

ilkka_nissila · March 5, 2012

But on that rare image where one wants to print large, the information will be there.

The data will be there, 76MB of it, but whether the lenses resolve 100lpmm with high contrast is another matter entirely. In most cases the images will be blurred at the level of individual pixels. If you really want a high resolution image, medium format digital would seem to be a much better option than trying to squeeze the last little bit of detail out of a small format camera. It's like shooting technical pan or Ektar 25 vs. a medium format or large format camera ... sure, there were some users, but whether the small format is the right way to go for high-resolution imaging has to be questioned. For someone with a budget, why not, but those who can afford a plethora of different camera systems with lenses, it would seem they don't have much of a budget limitation.

danielleetaylor · March 5, 2012

The data will be there, 76MB of it, but whether the lenses resolve 100lpmm with high contrast is another matter entirely. In most cases the images will be blurred at the level of individual pixels. If you really want a high resolution image, medium format digital would seem to be a much better option than trying to squeeze the last little bit of detail out of a small format camera.

If we haven't exhausted lenses with crop sensors yet, then we still have a ways to go with FF. My 7D files are a bit softer than FF files, but the detail is there and easy to sharpen in post. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that 18 MP is the limit for a crop sensor given existing lenses, that still puts the limit on FF at 45 MP.

I don't think that's the limit. All things being equal MF digital might always be able to offer more. But a 45 MP FF sensor would yield excellent 36" landscape prints and very good prints into the >40" range. A DSLR like that means that even most landscape photographers don't need to spend the extra money for a MF system and lenses. (For the record, I think the D800 is the first in this range, and I hope Canon has a response.)

rishij · March 5, 2012

Good points from both of you above, but even with lenses being more limiting than sensors, you're still going to up the resolution of the system by increasing the resolution of either component.

MF points well taken... I have a 645AFD III, with a set of lenses, ready to go digital when those sensors become remotely affordable. But another thing to consider there: are the quality of those MF sensors, from Phase One e.g., on par with the quality of Canon/Nikon/Sony sensors? Given that the market is so small, I wonder how much R&D MF sensor manufacturers can pour into their products. It's already been shown that in some previous generation MF sensors, noise crept in at higher ISOs much faster than equivalent generation Canon/Nikon sensors. In which case you'd be losing some of the advantage of the theoretically higher attainable SNR with larger pixels...

But resolution-wise, yeah MF digital would have to be better... you're projecting a larger image on to the sensor, after all.

dogbert · March 7, 2012

I doubt Canon has an immediate response the the Nikon D800. They have pushed the 5D MarkIII as an alternative pro level camera to those who don't want a 1 series by putting pro AF in it. My geuss is the next upgrade will actaully be the 7D which will go full frame, but at a lower fps and worse AF than it currently has. It will be like the 60D to 50D: a mixture of fowards and backwards compared to the current model and priced around the $2k mark.

Sign In

High Megapixel Full Frame Camera

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in