Canon Announcement

[ilmilco]

<p>The recent Canon anouncement on the new 50MP camera's has made me very curious on the counter anouncement that could be expected from Nikon.</p>

<p>It should be a real beast and at the same time a wonderful instrument for the professional photographers !!!!<br>

I hope the anouncement from Nikon will follow in short time.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Don't expect it too soon. The D810 is not all that old really. It has taken 6 years for Canon to truly improve their best sensor and it took them 5 years to introduce a slight upgrade to the 7D. Now Nikon has been moving much quicker over the past 6 years but I think it will be at least a couple of years before they reply to this one.</p>

<p>I switched back to Canon three years ago and have been anxiously waiting for a reply to the D800/e/810...finally. I did not think they had it in them.</p>

<p>Competition is good.</p>

<p>P.S. Now I have to ponder the idea of selling my Nikon 8/2.8 in favor of the just released Canon 11-24mm f4 L. I still regret selling my 200/2 AI and I don't think I can stomach losing this extraordinary lens!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Do we really need more megapixels, still?<br /> I see the Canon announcement as a counter to Nikon, with a serious delay and the strange oddity that they make the split D800/D800E again that Nikon abandoned with the D810 (and Nikon's decision does make sense to me). Given that 36MP is already too much for most photographers, I doubt whether Nikon needs to be in a hurry to respond. Most photographers do not seem to be that desperate for more megapixels anymore.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nikon has a 4-year major professional DSLR body update cycle with (optional) 2-year midterm revisions. The D4 and D800(E) were introduced in spring 2012 because of the tsunami and earthquake. According to the normal schedule, they would have been introduced late in 2011. I would expect both the D810 and the D4s to be replaced with new models during winter 2015-6.</p>

<p>The 5Ds ® is priced quite high especially in Europe and I suspect this tells us that Canon is targeting the same market that the 1Ds series and D3X were made for, i.e. high end portraiture / product / fashion photographers who are not very price sensitive. For me the 36MP of the D810 is already a pain. A 16-bit TIFF with two layers is 400MB; from 51MP each file with edits would be about 570MB (and fashion and portrait photographers sometimes use a lot more than two layers). If I were to make most of my photos with controlled lighting I wouldn't have to shoot as many frames and in such circumstances I can understand the desire for the most information at capture stage. Retouching results in a better quality result if the original is very high resolution. The 5Ds ® seems to a specialist tool for the most part.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Cramming 50 MP in a 24x36 mm space is pushing it quite a bit. Even in these digital days, size (not quantity) matters.<br>I rather have a PhaseOne high pixel count digiback of decent size than a 50 MP 35 mm based DSLR.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Right, Q.G., but a full frame medium format (645 or close) digital camera costs about 30000€ just for the camera ... and lenses can be extraordinarily expensive as well. Of course it has an advantage in image quality but the price class is totally different. And cropped medium format (i.e. Pentax 645Z, Leica S etc.) is just a tiny little bit larger than FX but such cameras either have a poor wide angle selection because the lenses are designed for 645 full frame (Pentax, Hasselblad) or are astonishingly expensive (Leica S).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Cramming 50 MP in a 24x36 mm space is pushing it quite a bit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's still a lower pixel density than 24MP on DX; the Nikon FX equivalent in density is 54MP. Or the other way around - the DX crop of a 50MP Nikon FX camera would be 22.2 MP (on Canon with the 1.6 crop factor it's 19.5).</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The thing about high pixel counts is that they would promise more image quality, and not just more pixels. 50 MP on 35 mm format (and indeed 24 MP on DX format) is too much and though pixel count obviously does, image quality will not go up.<br>I wholeheartedly agree that the MF offerings are still far too expensive. But thingies like the PhaseOne backs do offer enough real estate to each of those many pixels, and it shows. You do get something extra for that extra money.<br>The direction 35 mm based DSLRs are moving in will combine the too high costs with too little real estate to have going that direction make sense. A dead end street, unless as Leica did, there is a change to bigger formats. But then everyone will need new lenses too. So i really think we hit the end of the road as far as pixel count in 35 mm format DSLRs is concerned, with Canon now trying to push against a hard stop that will not budge. More pixels, sure! More money too. Not more quality.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>It's still a lower pixel density than 24MP on DX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But in DX, you only use the center, higher quality area of the image circle. On FX, you have a lot more edge and corner areas.</p>

<p>When Nikon introduced the D800 and D800E twin three years ago, I tested them very thoroughly and concluded that the difference between the two is almost negligible: <a href="/equipment/nikon/D800/d800-vs-d800e-which-to-choose/">Nikon D800 vs D800E, Which to Choose?</a><br>

Moiré is rarely a concern, but it can sometimes be a problem on both the D800 and D800E alike. Apparently Nikon has come up with the same conclusion so that the D800/D800E was updated to just one D810 without the AA filter. There is no more D810/D810E separation.</p>

<p>Personally I have had a D800E for almost three years and also got to use a D810 quite a bit. (Actually two D810, but the first one had image file corruption issues.) With 36MP on FX, diffraction begins to set in around f8. Images are less sharp at f8 compared to f5.6. At f11, diffraction becomes serious. Therefore, if you want to take full advantage of 36MP, you are pretty much left with f5.6 or maybe f4 and f8 to choose from. 50MP will only be even little more extreme although the difference between 35MP and 50MP is rather minor. Any advantage is more in marketing and internet bragging rather than any real difference.</p>

<p>From my point of view, it is a little strange that Canon in 2015 is doing what Nikon did back in 2012. I still own my D800E, but my latest body is the 24MP D750 partly because I want fewer, not more pixels and a faster frame rate. Even 24MP is plenty.</p>

<p>If you want more pixels, I agree with <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> that you need a larger sensor area so that you have larger, higher-quality pixels. However, very few people need 36MP, let alone more. There is never going to be any economy of scale to produce medium-format digital, which will remain a super expensive, niche product for a few pros and the super rich.</p>

<p>For Nikon, the main issue is AF, as the Multi-CAM 3500 has been around for close to 8 years and is now dated. I expect Nikon to produce a D5, as a successor to the D4/D4S, and Canon to produce a successor to the 1DX (1DX Mark 2??) about a year ahead of the 2016 Rio de Janeiro summer Olympics. Hopefully the D5 will have more modern AF, which will trickle down to the successors for the D810 and D750. (The Multi-CAM 3500 debut with the D3 and D300 on 23rd August, 2007, roughly a year ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Or the other way around - the DX crop of a 50MP Nikon FX camera would be 22.2 MP (on Canon with the 1.6 crop factor it's 19.5).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe that's <strong><em>exactly</em></strong> why they've 'chosen' 50MPix, because the DX crop is pretty much the same pixel count as a DX camera?</p>

<p>There's been a trend for lenses to be super sharp in the middle and the edges kinda soften quickly. So it now makes more sense than before to put a DX lens on an FX camera and not loose anything.</p>

<p>It means Canon might not sell so many crop sensor bodies, but no-one said this was a good idea!</p>

<p>EDIT. Crossed with Shun....I Agree!</p>

<p>Maybe they'll have a newer variant of SMALL RAW that does some clever downsampling at the RAW stage and give a very low noise 24MPIX image??</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>So it now makes more sense than before to put a DX lens on an FX camera and not loose anything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon equivalent of DX lenses is Canon EOS EF-S lenses. You cannot use EF-S lenses on full-35mm-frame Canon bodies. The mirror may hit the rear-end of those lenses.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Thanks Shun, that's something about Canon's I'd never ever have guessed! Makes us Nikon users a happier bunch!</p>

<p>Can they mount OK....but then the electronics force a lock-up?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Canon came up with the idea of EF-S a bit late. Therefore, those EF-S lenses not only cannot fit full-35mm-frame bodies, they also cannot fit some early APS-C Canon DSLRs, such as the D60 (not to be confused with the subsequent 60D) and 10D, etc. See Bob Atkins' article about modifying those EF-S lenses: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html</p>

<p>That is the Canon equivalent of some weird modification such as filing off the extra tab on the Nikon TC-nnE teleconverters to use them with old, non-AF-S lenses.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Why settle for a measly 50 Megapixels when you can have a <strong>rea</strong>l camera with 3200 megapixels? <grin><br>

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0224203550/3-200mp-lsst-camera-gets-construction-approval</p>

<p>It's a tad pricey, though. :-)</p>

<p>Unless the new cameras cause Canon to drop the price of the 5D Mk III significantly, I doubt Nikon will respond with a price cut in its line (drat).<br>

</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Used D800 are now around $1500 or so. I still don't see why a new D810 should cost twice as much. I know Nikon already has a $300 rebate on the D810 to bring that down to $3000, but the D810 is mostly a three-year-old camera dated back to the introduction of the D800 three years ago. With the falling yen and more competition, I can see further downward pricing pressure on the D810 and D750, until the D810 gets a more "significant" upgrade, after the D4S gets updated first for the Rio Olympics.</p>

<p>I would imagine that Nikon wants to have a full year to iron out any possible wrinkles on the future D5 before the Olympics.</p>

<p>Needless to say, the 5D Mark III is literally three year old (unlike the D800 that has an incremental update to the D810). It is difficult to maintain anything close to its initial high price. The technology is older and there is plenty of competition from its own used market.</p>

[andylynn]

I thought my D800 had too many pixels and that Nikon should have made it 24mp. I can't see 50mp as being useful for

most photographers, especially when a really good 22mp version is already established on the market. But I'm sure there

will be enough gear heads buying it for the wow factor to supplement the small number of pros who have a real use for it

and make it sell reasonably well.

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Do we really need more megapixels, still?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, this is just another example of the "war without battles, only victims" that has been going on since the Canon EOS-1 challenged Nikon's hegemony. Wouter's comment used to be said by Nikonistas when Nikon only had 6MP, and then was said by Canonites when Canon only had 24MP.<br /> For a long time, Canon has seemed to lag momentarily, then released something to trump the Nikon advance.<br /> I think we are doomed to go on repeating this forever.</p>

<p>As I've said before, and will say many times again, for the usual demands of photography, 12MP was probably plenty good enough. Even 6MP, for that matter.</p>

<p>The best proof that the MP race is irrelevant is probably that the battlefield now seems to have moved on to low ISO performance....</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Whether you need it or not high pixel count certainly has some advantages along with some disadvantages. I don't think Nikon will offer the counterpart very soon. I think they would wait and see how well the consumers take it. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I, too, doubt that Nikon will rush, and see this as Canon responding to the D800. Like Shun, I think Nikon's biggest current problem is the MultiCAM 3500 - but it's still holding its own quite well against the 7D2 in tests, at least in the D750 form. The software is doing very well - now if only it had more cross-type sensors...</p>

<p>Interestingly (to me), Canon matched the crop sensor resolution of their existing range with the 5Ds at exactly the point they refreshed some of their models to 24MP. So you're better for reach with a crop, even with this body.</p>

<p>Having just bought a D810, I'd vaguely prefer Nikon not to do a major improvement too quickly, but honestly that's the way things are in technology, so I'll have to live with it if they do. I <em>am </em>expecting a D5 with some AF improvements in about a year, from historical timings - but probably not with the current image processor, unlike some rumours (because it's not fast enough to allow much update, I believe).</p>

<p>Unless Canon have fixed their low-ISO dynamic range issues, I have very little sensor envy here. If I did have, I'd have been looking at the 645Z by now. If all Nikon had was the D3x, I'd be concerned, but I really don't think the difference between the D810 and the 5Ds is enough to make many switch - though it may keep a few on the Canon side who might otherwise have switched the other way. If I envy anything here, it's the flicker-sensitive metering/shutter sync and the AF sensor.</p>

<p>If there's a 5D4 that's a more direct successor to the 5D3 (good at what that camera is good at), things may be different - currently the D750 is very competitive with the original (and meets a lot of the complaints of those not happy with the D800/D600, though I won't claim it fixes absolutely everything), and like people who want a "true D700 replacement" I suspect there will be Canonites after a "proper" 5D4.</p>

<p>I'm more interested to see Nikon's response, if any, to the 7D2. Not that I want to buy it, but clearly there are people on this forum who are interested - and I sympathise with them.</p>

 

[andylynn]

Sensor envy is so 2004. Now it's about usability envy.

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>I hope you all have a good enough computer to move those files...if you're working with photoshop and use layers with a significant amount of data, your file size could reach into the low gigabytes...if you're a professional, you might want to make sure your computer has enough of what it needs to power these files...with the type of work I do, file size of a 50MP camera could run about 5gb...a good camera 21mp or under is all I need though...money goes into lenses...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You certainly do something like 48-bit even at 21MP when you really, <em>really</em> need all that information-- or you have humongous hard drives.<br>

I've only got 10 GB HD space, so I rarely go above 16-bit scans of negatives at 4000 ppi. :|<br>

My computers are fortunately up to handling those files, but maybe not for 50MP files?</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>This is a solution in search of a problem. </p>

<p>I would not buy a 50 MP camera unless it did my post processing for me and made crisp bacon. This is puzzling because marketing is the only real reason to do this. It is not like the photographic community has been clamoring for it. </p>

[donbright]

<p>I suppose there are those landscape artisans out there that think 50mp is the answer to moving their massive in size seascapes in galleries across the nation, and that their purchase will get them closer to retirement. Dream on. Upon a lengthy conversation I had with a notable, reputable curator of fine art Photographs, it was brought to my attention that Photographers under the influence of making a living at Landscape Photography in galleries touting the biggest poster size prints, are just that, under the influence of something other than reality. The pixel game is just that, a game, and it is a marvel, no doubt, but its a little silly getting into this envy thing over a number. 50mp is not going to sell a big print. There's nothing about 50mp that will propel ones love for the art into notoriety. I agree competiion is good in many ways, as it gets better stuff within our reach. I'm concerned about what, 'Better Stuff,' is.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>But in DX, you only use the center, higher quality area of the image circle. On FX, you have a lot more edge and corner areas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not necessarily true - compare, for example, the photozone.de test of the Nikon 28/1.8G on DX and FX - the corner performance is markedly worse on DX than on FX (the MTF curve has a "dip" right around the DX edge and "recovers" for the FX edge and corners). http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/750-nikkorafs2818dx?start=1 and http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/751-nikkorafs2818ff?start=1 Admittedly, the 16MP DX sensor put a bit more demand on the lens performance than the 24MP FX one use in the tests. IIRC, there are quite a few lenses with similar "dips" in their MTF curves - whether that's an unavoidable technical issue or intended to "fool FX lens tests" is something for everyone to decide themselves.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's been a trend for lenses to be super sharp in the middle and the edges kinda soften quickly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As stated already, I seem to see more FX lenses that have a performance dip somewhere 2/3rd into the FX frame - which makes their corner and edge performance on a DX camera rather poor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon equivalent of DX lenses is Canon EOS EF-S lenses. You cannot use EF-S lenses on full-35mm-frame Canon bodies. The mirror may hit the rear-end of those lenses...<br>

<br /> Thanks Shun, that's something about Canon's I'd never ever have guessed! Makes us Nikon users a happier bunch!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, yes and no. Yes that we can mount DX lenses on an FX camera without the fear of breaking the mirror. The No is a bit harder to explain. First, Canon's register distance is smaller than Nikon's, and of course for FX lenses to fit on a Canon DX body, the register needs to be maintained. But by making the DX (aka EF-S) lenses incompatible with FX bodies Canon can design those lenses with rear elements closer to the sensor - an advantage, for example, in keeping lenses more compact.</p>