Will Canon resist or succumb to the pixel peepers?

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p> However, there are those among us who would not be very happy at all if camera manufacturers spec'ed cameras that were only sufficient for the average user.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually I said the vast majority of users, not the average user. I suspect that the vast majority, and by that I mean maybe 95%, of users, never make prints large enough to reveal image degradation due to a lack of pixels in the sensor.<br>

<br>

The last thing I hear "the vast majority" of high end DSLR users clamoring for is higher resolution. Given 24MP cameras and a choice or lower noise, higher dynamic range, lower cost and higher resolution, I suspect "higher resolution" would be the last item on most photographer's list of choices.<br>

<br>

The Nikon D800 might be chosen over the 5D MkIIby some photographers is probably because it's cheaper, has higher dynamic range at low ISO and has a built in flash that can act as a wireless controller. The fact that it has more pixels is just an added bonus!<br>

<br>

The main reason why photographers might crave higher resolution is not that they particularly need or want it, but that someone else has it and they don't. Even if they got it they'd better have really good lenses and really good technique if they expect any actual benefit from it.<br>

<br>

</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Could someone post sales figures for the D800 and the 5D Mark III? Canon's marketing department would consult such figures before deciding whether a higher resolution body would be worth it.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, more is better as far as pixels are concerned. That said, as the owner of both bodies mentioned above, I have come to rely them for different features - the Canon when AF, ISO, and speed are of primary importance (events, street photography), and the D800 when I can take my time and capture as much resolution as possible (landscapes, cityscapes, portraits). </p>

<p>Would I buy a higher resolution Canon? It depends on the price, but I would certainly be tempted. I love using Canon bodies and lenses, and my trusty TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is waiting patiently for a muscular new playmate to move into the neighborhood. Let's just hope that they don't try to market a $7,995 dud like the D3X.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Bob, your points are well taken, and I can't say that I "crave" higher resolution, but I would get a camera that provided it. I'm not typical though, since I'm dealing with resolution in fine art prints at large sizes.</p>

<p>I suspect that in many ways we would agree more than disagree - certainly we're on the same page about the notion that the average DSLR shooter needs "more megapixels." </p>

<p>But still... for those who do print and who shoot carefully, there are fine reasons to welcome higher MP counts on cameras whose performance is undiminished in other ways and especially so if the trend of providing such performance improvements at roughly the same price point continues.</p>

<p>Just to be careful and to avoid misleading folks who think they have to have "the best" for reasons that go no further than "the best" - unless you are making fairly large prints and working fairly carefully, there is virtually nothing to be gained for your photography by going from 21MP to, say, 36MP. If one is sharing photographs online or perhaps running of an occasional letter size print, there is probably little or no reason for most folks to even worry about full frame.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>Actually I said the vast majority of users, not the average user. I suspect that the vast majority, and by that I mean maybe 95%, of users, never make prints large enough to reveal image degradation due to a lack of pixels in the sensor.</blockquote>

<p>That may be true who knows?<br>

I rarely make very large prints, but I do sometimes and more pixels gives me options. More pixels are also useful for heavy cropping, for example, sometimes with macro work. So I am probably an example of someone who most of the time doesn't need more pixels but still wants more pixels in a camera for the times that I do.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I shot a lot of MF and 4 x 5 for commercial use, including 30" by xx posters. I am still impressed with posters that size from my lowly 1DsIII's 21.1 mpx, relative to film, so much so that I forget to worry about more megapixals. Must be the extra .1 mpx Canon tossed in really made the difference.</p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>As I understand it, pixel peepers is a derogatory term assigned by self-appointed artistes, to people who favor the ability to do large blow ups and/or have concern for the technical quality of their work, etc.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely why I have a problem with the way the OP and some of the responses linked a preference for (or at least an appreciation for the benefits of) high pixel density, with pixel peeping.</p>

<p>It demonstrates a fundamental lack of even the most basic knowledge of what goes on beyond their own cozy, undemanding little photographic comfort zones.</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>Actually I said the vast majority of users, not the average user. I suspect that the vast majority, and by that I mean maybe 95%, of users, never make prints large enough to reveal image degradation due to a lack of pixels in the sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First: I used to be a Nikon shooter, and I will not go back, ever. Canon gave me cheaper prices, more natural colors and the ability to use the best lenses, regardless of the manufacturer, and the last alone for me is a deal breaker (I can use Contax, Leica, Nikon, Pentax etc., other than Canon of course).</p>

<p>I need the ability to make very large - meters/feet - fine art prints, when needed. And, maybe because in my film days my medium of choice was 25 iso film on Hasselblad for medium format and on a Linhof 13x18cm with Schneider lenses for large format, I'm a sucker for quality!</p>

<p>I still routinely stitch from 3 to 6 frames with a 5D mk II, or if I'm in a hurry I use a software called PhotoAcute that with multiple shots - of the same frame - gives you a boost in resolution. And I almost never use the Canon at anything over 100 iso (I use the 5d mostly as a landscape camera, for reportage and available darkness work I use more portable solutions, like the X100 or a Nex).</p>

<p>So yes, when Canon will produce a 100 bazillions megapixels camera I will be one of the first in line to buy it! :)</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Until Canon come up with a FF camera with the pixel density of the 7D or thereabouts I don't think they have fully utilised the resolution potential off their lenses. Afterall many shooters prefer APS-C for the reach factor.<br>

A higher pixel FF gives you this reach through cropping, without having to buy/carry a second body.<br>

This is another area where Nikon seems to have done it better by maintaining compatibility between FX cameras and DX lenses.</p>