Thinking of more MP?

[denisbergeron]

 

<p>I’m a owner of a lot fo Canon EOS DSLR and lenses: Including 5d, 5dii, 70d with 500f4, 85f1.2 to name a few. So I had a lot of commitment in EOS.<br>

My main pleasure of making picture is in Landscape, Birds in flight and Portrait.<br>

Recently, I was thinking that should buy, primary for Portrait and Landscape a upgrade the MP in the quest for better IQ and detail in my creation.<br>

Unfortunately, Canon didn’t have alternative to the 5dII for more IQ and MP. Every rumours about next Canon talk about low MP (±20mp) replacement, and not until 2015-2016.<br>

So my long quest for something more gives me 3 choices: A7R, D800 and Pentax 645Z<br>

I’m thinking of D800 more seriously, with this choice, I will get a complete system where I can sell all my Canon stuff and get some Nikon lens.<br>

But, it’s all a move, I always looking people that do the system switching like a bad idea, but again, I'm here today.<br>

What are you thinking about Canon offering in the next year ?<br>

Should I wait? Someone have the same thinking ?</p>

 

[eric_altherr]

<p>I am curious what exactly your current set up doesn't do that you hope more MP will provide?</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

I'm under the impression that Nikon has the megapixels but only a few lenses that really match the sensor's quality where

Canon is first opgrading more lenses before releasing a big megapixel body. And of course the grass on the other side

always seems to be greener.

 

Think of it, 36 MP is only a 30-something % upgrade to 21 MP, linearly. More and better but less than it looks like at first

sight.

[Spearhead]

<p>What are you trying to accomplish? I can print at 40"x60" from a 5Diii with great results. How big are you printing?</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"I'm under the impression that Nikon has the megapixels but only a few lenses that really match the sensor's quality"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Not true. Both companies have nearly identical lens lineups in terms of image quality across the board. Both of their higher end "pro-grade" lenses are pretty equal to all but the most die hard pixel peepers. It's a bit of a myth that 36 mp is out-resolving lenses. It isn't. Even a low end bargain grade lens will give better resolution on a D800 vs. something with less megapixels. The better glass you have the more resolution you will have, but that isn't something new with the arrival of 36 MP cameras. You don't need the absolute best glass to get some of the benefits of 36 MP. Most of that idea has to do with a marketing gimmick put on by Nikon "recommending" certain lenses that they felt worked "best" with a D800. Needless to say almost all of them were in the $1800+ range. Good glass gives better results with any camera and it isn't something unique to a D800. Those same lenses would also give better results D3200 or D610 over a kit lens.</p>

<p>As a side note however I don't think any of this is worth selling of your entire system to go to Nikon. (and I shoot Nikon)</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Resolution does depend on the lens though. I know my 5d mk 1 had better resolution with the 50/1.4 than the 24-105/4L.

But you have to really have good technique and a tripod to take advantage.

[pics]

<p>Yes I agree totally. I'm just referring to the notion that using anything other than top end glass on a D800 effectively turns it into a 16 MP camera (or something along those lines.) The limiting factor is still the sensor and not the lens. Most medium format and LF lenses have lower resolving capabilities than 35mm systems but yet the images still have much greater resolution due to the larger film/sensor size. More MP just means the sensor is coming a little bit closer to what the lens is capable of resolving, not the other way around. It also means it will resolve more abnormalities in the lens. The larger you blow up the image the more prevalent these abnormalities (and fine detail that would fall apart in lesser sensors) becomes. Lower MP cameras didn't show these abnormalities as prevalently because they aren't resolving as much fine detail period. So I guess what I am saying is that any lens will show more resolution on a 36 MP camera as opposed to a lower MP camera, but any uncorrected faults will be more visible as well due to the fact that one can enlarge the image to a greater degree that wasn't possible before. Using the absolute best glass will minimize these imperfections (as has always been the case) but isn't a prerequisite to obtaining images with greater resolution on a camera like a D800.</p>

[peter_mckone]

<p>One of the best bird pictures I've ever seen was taken by an amateur photographer, and he was indeed using a Nikon camera. But the picture was taken about twelve years ago, and the camera probably had a 6 mp sensor. Take a look at old issues of National Geographic, and see if the images look defective. Nobody had 36 mp sensors back then. A long lens and fast autofocus are probably more important.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I too have fallen prey to technical obsession and spent far too much for marginal gain. I might join a support group to recover from gear fixation. So I humbly ask you. Will 36MP make you more money? Will you be able to see the difference on a large print from a normal viewing distance or even see it without a loop? Will it contribute significantly to winning a show?. What exactly would it do for your end product that is more than marginal?. It's like spending the total user conversion cost to get to the last one or two per cent of an approach to perfection. Who would notice the difference besides yourself? Having had a Sony EVF, I would compare your current Canon optical finder to the EVF on the A7R. I don't know the answers to these questions for you. I have been with Canon EOS since 1988 and considering the large amount of gear I bought over that time frame I have come to the conclusion that upgrading is an absorbing obsession but that the real quality (if there is much) of my work product comes from my inspiration, composition and photographic knowledge and not from gear. I too did some of my best work in shows, with wildlife and with a paper and weddings with a 6MP D60, a Bronica ETRSi and an EOS 1n. I can't wait for the 7Dii, however. I swear right now I won't buy it because I know my current 7D does really good job. Yes, but the 7Dii will ----- </p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p><strong>"I'm under the impression that Nikon has the megapixels but only a few lenses that really match the sensor's quality"<br /><br /><br /></strong>"Not true etc" does not change my impression :-)<br>

Of course there is much more to an image than just resolution. Occasionally I still use my 6 MP camera with fine results.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I think that you should rent a D800 and a some good glass for a week. Go shooting with it, see if the improved MP and DR are really worth writing home about - ie. if they really make a difference in your shooting (they certainly <em>do</em> for many shooters), then maybe you should seriously consider switching horses.</p>

<p>As far as rumors go, ironically, I find that rumors of future events are largely governed by prior events (ie, this generation of cameras has same MP as last, so next will too!), regardless of reality.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Coming from the yellow side of the fence, I can just say: you'd be welcome in the Nikon camp, but you won't gain a whole lot. Megapixels become quickly a diminishing return.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>upgrade the MP in the quest for better IQ and detail in my creation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Better IQ honestly means nothing. Image quality isn't quantifiable, and even if resolution comes into play, up to which level does it so really? Does moving from 6000 pixels on the long end to 7000px really make a huge impact? Even in really large prints? Really? (indeed, I seriously do not believe it does have huge impact).</p>

<p>Whether or not Nikon has the lenses to match the resolution of the 36MP sensor (and of course they do, just as Canon does - they're very evenly matched with some great lenses in the red camp, some great lenses in the yellow, and some dogs on both sides as well), it really doesn't matter all that much. It is about the end result: is a D800 with 500 f/4VR going to give you clearly superior images versus a 5D Mk. III with 500 f/4IS? In my view: no, you won't notice the difference in real world images. If I'd have your gear and the money, I'd look at the 5D Mk. III first to have the much improved AF for birds in flight. I think it can have more of an impact than a few million pixels more.</p>

[ruben leal]

Another option would be to keep your expensive lenses, and just add a new higher resolution body to those white primes:

http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape-photography-blog/2014/04/18/sony-a7r/

[Robin Smith]

<p>I personally would think that, if high resolution is really what you need, why not go the Sony A7R route when at least you can use your Canon lenses with an adapter. You can then sell it on when/if Canon produce the mythical high MP body.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I've never owned anything with more resolution than my 5D mark III, so I have no hands-on experience. But I think it would be more helpful for the OP to focus on the less technical question, as Jeff did: how much practical difference would it make? I can't imagine getting any practical gain in portraiture from more MP, unless one is printing poster-sized. In the case of landscapes, would it much matter? My guess is that unless one prints VERY large, the answer is no. Am I missing something?</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I wouldn't upgrade just for more megapixels, not at all. The quality of the lens has more of an affect on IQ than more megapixels. I am amazed when I move my Canon 85 1.2L to my old Canon ELAN 7NE and shoot Kodak Vivid Color film. Just amazing especially when i only paid $150 for the camera. <br>

When shooting on my Canon 5DII the 85 1.2L and several other lenses are fabulous. If I need to print really big I use a program by Alien Skin called Blowup, I also use Exposure fro added color and sharpness.<br>

Works great. Really no need more more MP that just makes image size bigger, take up more disk space and makes it harder for Lightroom and Photoshop to process RAW images.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<ol>

<li>Hardly anyone prints any more.</li>

<li>Even if you do, I would challenge anyone to tell the difference between a D800 print and a 5D3 print at 6ft x 4ft in size.</li>

<li>More disk space</li>

<li>Longer transfer times</li>

</ol>

<p>Also, I still don't buy the "out-resolving the lens" crap. People have been saying that since the Nikon D2x came out. Each new increase in MP count brings out the same panic in certain people.<br>

The cameras that are the most demanding on optics are not the D800s, they are the 25MP crop DSLRs and nobody complains about those.<br>

I hope Canon go the opposite way... a nice 12MP DSLR with great dynamic range and high ISO performance. Far more useful than 36MP silliness.</p>

<p>As an aside, the only benefit I can see from a high MP DSLR is the ability to crop heavily.</p>

 

[w_t1]

<p>Denis, please answer Eric and Jeff's questions. I too want to know what is lacking with your current gear. You may be afflicted with the magic bullet syndrome "if-only"....wish I could get a vaccine against it myself....</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Dennis,<br /> I can understand your need of upgrading to more megapixels. For me the most important thing is feel comfortable with the camera. That's why I agree that before investing to a D800 or a Sony A7R, try to rent the equipments and see for yourself. If for any reason you feel happier with the results i.e. of a D800 and you enjoy shooting with your new lenses, then you're ready for the "jump". Otherwise stay where you are. And yes, a 36 mpx camera, unless you're using it for web only, will give you better detail and crop options than a 21 mpx camera. My humble opinion! Cheers!</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"Also, I still don't buy the "out-resolving the lens" crap. People have been saying that since the Nikon D2x came out"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Agreed. Using a film camera as an example, a LF or MF camera with a 30-40 year old lens designed with lower grade technology (less resolution) is going to out resolve 35mm no matter what Canon "L" lens or Nikon Nano-coated glass you are using. Now put an equally well designed lens on the LF or MF camera and it will look even better, but clearly the lenses aren't going to be holding you back from achieving the better resolution that a bigger/better film format or digital sensor provides.</p>

<p>I also don't really think that the resolution differences between 24 and 36 MP is anything to loose sleep over or dump a system for. It just seems like there is a lot of misinformation out there (some of it industry generated) over the need to spend a boatload of money on lenses just because a camera has 36 megapixels.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I can understand your need of upgrading to more megapixels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

What is that need based on? How large do most people need to print?</p>

[dan_south]

Have you spent time shooting a 5D Mark III with good lenses? I have shot it side by side with my D800E. In terms of

resolution, sometimes I can tell the difference and sometimes I can't. The 5D3's autofocus is far superior. The D800 has

better dynamic range and more accurate auto exposure. They're both excellent cameras, and the differences are

relatively minor. I speak from the position of someone who has shot thousands of frames on both.

 

A7r - intriguing, but poorly supported in terms of lenses, and even the lenses that it has have quirks with edge sharpness.

No comprehensive speed light system a la Canon and Nikon. I have been disappointed with Sony's AF in the past, but I

haven't tried it on this camera. Do you need a full functioning DSLR, or do you need a miniature novelty camera that can

mount others brands of lenses if you want to bend over backwards to make it all work?

[dan_south]

I'll add that if you do audition a D800 or E -

 

- Use the best lenses available. For Nikon lenses, I would recommend avoiding any lens that doesn't have an N on the

barrel, as those have the best glass.

 

- Take time to micro fine tune any lens that you intend to use, as it will make a noticeable difference in the detail that you

capture when using standard phase detection autofocus.

 

- Use a sturdy tripod with a custom body plate or L bracket as often Asa possible.

 

- Use live view with contrast detection auto focus whenever you can for the ultimate in precise focus. This will work better

than phase detection AF even if you have fine tuned your lenses accurately.

 

- When shooting hand held, use fast shutter speeds. I find that results suffer when I shoot hand held slower than 1/320s.

VR will buy you a little bit more speed, but not much.

 

If you are unable or unwilling to do all of the above whenever you use a D800, you won't net the benefits of the boost in

resolution.

[Robin Smith]

<p>Dan. Completely agree about the A7R - it's not really a system replacement - more a stop gap. But it is the cheapest high resolution alternative if someone feels they really need it - it does take all the Canon lenses (via Metabones) at least which means there is no need to sell off the Canon lenses and get Nikon. The sensor is very good.</p>

<p>Like others, I too wonder why the high resolution is such a requirement: it is a sort of marketing-led itch that many seem to feel the need to scratch.</p>

 

[owen_omeara]

<p>Jamie.</p>

<p>There is a big difference, trust me'</p>

<p>-O</p>