# Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 5, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10881"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10881"></a></div>
<strong>More mentions


</strong>I’ve had two separate comments in regards to Canon entering the big megapixel space. We’re talking 35+ megapixels like the Nikon D800. Both comments mention an announcement sooner than later. No word on whether we’re talking about an EOS-1 or 5D3 style body.</p>
<p>Lots to come in August and September!</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 5, 2012)

I must admit, this really doesn't excite me all that much.

There's more resolution to be had in the 135 format, yes. Probably even up into the 80 megapickle range.

But we're well past the 80/20 rule and firmly into the realm of diminishing returns.

Even theoretically, if you never print bigger than 24" x 36", even if you crop heavily, today's top-end full-frame cameras are more than enough. And, in the real world, those same cameras are just fine up to as wide as you can print on an iPF8100. Yes, a side-by-side comparison with such a print between a 5DIII and a D800 might maybe possibly reveal a bit more sharpness perhaps in the print from the D800...but only if you stand so close to the print that you can't even see the whole thing even if you turn your head.

...which is where the larger formats come into play. If a 5DIII or even a 1DX ain't gonna cut the mustard, then, really, neither is the D800 nor anything else in the 135 format. You'll need at least 645 format, if not all the way to large format, for the kinds of prints where the 5DIII is inadequate.

And let's not forget the cost, in terms of both performance and storage capacity. The new camera sure as Hell won't be 12 FPS, and it ain't gonna be 6 FPS, either. And you better plan on getting bigger and faster cards as well as a new RAID array to support it.

All for...what? 40" x 60" prints that look as sharp as today's 36" x 54" prints? Is that really worth it?

I'm sure, assuming the trend continues, that I'll eventually wind up owning a camera with more megapickles than my 5DIII. But, in all honesty, I don't see that happening until said camera has the non-sensor camera specs of the 1DX. Because, when it comes right down to it, it's not the sensor that's the weak link in today's cameras -- not by a long shot, and it hasn't been for quite some time.

Indeed, it's been that way ever since digital surpassed film, for that matter...which was somewhere around the dawn of the modern DSLR era, as I recall....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## brad-man (Aug 5, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> I must admit, this really doesn't excite me all that much.
> 
> There's more resolution to be had in the 135 format, yes. Probably even up into the 80 megapickle range.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bombsight (Aug 5, 2012)

I know the product isn't out there yet but, it's a shame how Canon holds back on what their loyal buyers want when they (Canon) knows *what* is wanted. 

They claim one body is a flagship (1DX), holding out on what another body has (5DMK3) only to give their fan base what they originally asked for (more megapixels) shortly afterwards. You cant tell me they didn't plan on a higher MP body announcement after 1DX & MK3 sales peak.

I also know that Canon didn't force anyone to buy either one of those bodies ... but lets face it ... Canon plays games with those who keep them competitive in a world of serious competition.

If I were to stop at a Kool-aid stand & buy a hot, watered down glass of Kool-aid from a little kid, only to have them pull out a fresh/cold picture from under the stand afterwards .... that would piss me off!


----------



## Jason Beiko (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> 
> But will the sensor be any better?
> Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
> ...



Exactly! I'm not excited about more pixels but I am hoping the sensor is better WRT dynamic range, etc...

IMHO the sensor in the d800 is revolutionary and I want Canon to have an equivalent, so that I can use my existing glass and accessories. If the new Canon high megapixel camera isn't up to snuff I'm going to make the switch to Nikon.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 5, 2012)

Bombsight said:


> They claim one body is a flagship (1DX), holding out on what another body has (5DMK3) only to give their fan base what they originally asked for (more megapixels) shortly afterwards.



Eh, I don't think Canon has ever targeted any of their bodies to the big megapickle crowd.

Instead, what I see historically and today -- and their bodies absolutely reflect this -- is them targeting the amateur and prosumer crowd with the Rebels and XXD series, and then the photojournalism (especially including weddings) and sports professionals with the XD cameras.

Where the confusion comes into play is that the lower ends of the landscape and studio spectrums dip into the photojournalism realm, and that a photojournalist is going to reach into the lower strata of the landscape and studio worlds. And each of the 5D models has served amply well in those roles...with the obvious understanding that the elite of both worlds never moved away from the larger formats.

Yes, there have been a number of those in the studio and landscape worlds who used to shoot medium format (not large format) and who switched to 135-format digital once it caught up with medium format film. But those're the same ones who're largely leaving 135-format digital for medium-format digital now that that's become an option. And all those complaining about megapickles either should be in that camp or wish they were.

But they've never really been on Canon's radar, at least not in any significant manner. They've been getting by on the coattails of the digital revolution, but that's about it.

With all that in mind, the 5DIII gave Canon's market (photojournalists, especially wedding photographers) _exactly_ what they wanted: save for raw FPS performance, the best camera had made up to the point in time of the release (shortly thereafter superseded by the 1DX, of course).

Note that I wrote, "camera," _not_ "sensor." Yes, the 5DIII's sensor isn't better than the 5DII's by leaps and bounds, but the camera as a whole is hugely improved. So much that, save for the maximum burst framerate and the lack of a built-in grip, it would have been the flagship 1-series model of any time in the past.

Which is _exactly_ what the targeted market segment had been screaming for -- and got!

Cheers,

b&


----------



## JR (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> 
> But will the sensor be any better?
> Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
> ...



+1 !

I really hope a new high MP body will also come with much improved dynamic range. If not then I have no interest. Shooting with both the 1DX and the D800, I am just amazed at the dynamic range of the D800. It really DOES make a difference in several shooting conditions, like outside in the sun, inside when a window is in the composition, etc.

I never thought I cared about DR until I tried the D800. Now when lighting is perfect, it is still no match for the 1DX to my personal taste , but then again those are two very different cameras...


----------



## akclimber (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> 
> But will the sensor be any better?
> Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
> ...



+1

I own a 5D2, 5D3 + D800e (and just sold a 7D). The sensor on the D800e lives up to the hype. It produces amazing files. I won't be buying another Canon DSLR until they greatly improve their sensor tech. In the meantime, I'll continue to use my 5D3 for fast action and with the amazing 24 TSE MK II but the D800e will be used for everything else (and I'll also be selling my 5D2).

Cheers!


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2012)

If canon releases this in a 1D body. It will flop big time.

If canon releases this in a 5D body, it will need to stack up to the D800.

If it surpasses or just evenly matches the D800 in RAW IQ. Alot of 5d3 users will be quite angry at canon. (Me Included)

This can't turn out well. :-\


----------



## Pompo (Aug 5, 2012)

*Re: if true I should have waited*

...and bought a high mpix 35+ camera pluse 1dx to get best of both worlds high res and fast fps...I guess I will sell the 5d Mark 3 if that happens....


----------



## EchoLocation (Aug 5, 2012)

This camera sounds like the D800, but without the DR. I imagine the hardcore Canon crowd will be happy to have a high MP offering available, however I don't see this turning out well for Canon unless it is priced around 3k.
I know some of the fanboys will buy this for 3500 or even $6k, but for those who are not heavily invested in glass, this will just be another slap in the face unless it is priced competitively with the D800. I am tired of Canon offering similar or inferior products to Nikon and pricing them significantly higher.
the 5DIII was the first that hit home, then the 24-70 II, and now, if this is any more than the 800, it will simply be similar MP(lesser sensor quality, unless there's a miracle) but at a much higher price.
Sounds like Canon fanboy material only to me.
If it is going to be more than $3k, it should be insanely good, total pro style, no holds barred.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 5, 2012)

Yep. The 1Ds3 sort of flopped too, but that was after the release of the 5D2. Everybody, even pros, began buying the 5D2 instead. I can see this turning out like the 1Ds3/1D4 pair. Studio/sports. 1DX is really the sports camera and right now the 5D3 and 1Ds3 are still the studio cams. The 1DX does not render like the 1Ds3 therefore I do not consider the 1DX to be the true merged 1Ds/1D lines. It's just not quite there. The 1DX did not do worse than the 1Ds3 with regard to detail, but it also did not improve it either.

I like the 1DX, but I'm still keeping a 5D3 because I like the 22mp. If a higher MP cam is released, it will be well less fps and render nicely, much like the 1Ds3 I'm guessing. Anybody guessing yet as to the model name?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 5, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> I am tired of Canon offering similar or inferior products to Nikon and pricing them significantly higher.



...you mean, like featherweight Big Whites, the TS-E 17 and 24 II, the MP-E 65, the built-in radio flash ETTL triggers, the entire Cinema line, the 12 FPS 1DX...?

Get a grip, man. Nikon's got a marginal advantage on one aspect of one feature of their cameras -- one that even comes with far more substantial image quality problems than it "solves" (color balance problems especially).

Sure, Nikon ekes out an extra stop or two of shadow recovery in scenes with truly miserable light. And if you make your living shooting in truly miserable light and you really need ISO 400-equivalent noise in your four-stops-pushed shadows as opposed to ISO 1000-equivalent noise, then maybe the D800 really is best for you.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that Nikon's making better cameras, let alone a better camera system. The stop or two of "extra" noise in the Canon shadows notwithstanding, the 5DIII blows the D800 out of the water. Color rendition, autofocus speed, autofocus reliability, framerate -- all those things that separate a modern camera from a Brownie, the Canon has the D800 beat hands down.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> I must admit, this really doesn't excite me all that much.
> 
> There's more resolution to be had in the 135 format, yes. Probably even up into the 80 megapickle range.
> 
> ...



I certainly wouldn't say we are *"firmly" in the realm of diminishing returns.* I think Nikon and Sony proved that with the D800's sensor. It not only added considerably to pixel density, it improved the quality of those pixels as well. A 36mp sensor has 4.6 micron pixels, which are LARGER than the 4.3 micron pixels of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensors as well as the new 24mp sensors used in the D3200. Again, Sony and Nikon have demonstrated that a 24mp APS-C sensor, which is _pushing 130lp/mm_ in terms of spatial resolution, is also capable of not only having more pixels, but pixels of higher quality. 

The question is not whether Canon can produce a high MP sensor. The question is whether Canon can compete and produce a high MP sensor with *BETTER QUALITY PIXELS* than any of their current sensors, including the 1D X and 5D III. By eliminating almost all noise in Exmor (there is only about 2-3 electrons worth...not much more to remove), SoNikon have basically set the stage...the only thing LEFT TO DO once you _perfect the pixel_ is *pack more of them in*.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 5, 2012)

I actually know a guy who went from the D700 to the D800. He's regretting it. The IQ isn't any better to him on a computer screen or print, and the file sizes are insane. The camera doesn't have time to shoot mRAW or sRAW. So you're stuck.


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > I am tired of Canon offering similar or inferior products to Nikon and pricing them significantly higher.
> ...



I wouldn't say Nikon is beating Canon in only one area. They seem to be making consistent improvements in the area of AF (Nikon's new 51pt AF system still performs extremely well against Canon's 61pt AF, and not only do they keep f/8 AF, they have NINE f/8 AF points! Canon seriously dropped the ball there, and its hurt their reputation with birders and wildlifers, as well as anyone who used TC's with the supertele whites.) Nikon also seems to have a very superior sensor in their mirrorless cameras, both in terms of DR and AF capabilities. Metering is another area where Nikon is ahead of Canon, and have been for years. The 1D X's RGB meter would be the only real competition, and its yet to be seen if it is as accurate and capable. Its also relegated to that one camera...iFCL is used everywhere else, and its good, but quite lacking compared to Nikon's 3D full-color metering.

When it comes to lenses, I think Canon definitely wins hands down these days...their lens technology has always been on the cutting edge, and with nanocoating on all their lenses, featherweight whites, 4-stop IS, DO lenses, and spatial resolution up the wazoo they are kicking the crap out of all the competition. I think they are solid competition with Zeiss lenses, and with the advent of SWC nanocoating on their lenses, are far superior to Zeiss' T* multicoating. I don't think anyone surpasses Canon in terms of lens options and variety either, especially with the variety of specialty lens options like the MP-E. Their new flash system is pretty amazing, too. I'm not much of a flash user, however I moderate a photography forum, and people seem fairly excited about the new line of flash equipment. 

Canon's only real weak area is their sensor fabrication. They had to cut corners with their latest AF sensor, and they effectively "cheated" to get the SNR of the 1D X and 5D III sensors "up to snuff" by weakening the CFA color filters for red and blue pixels. I would also be willing to bet that Nikon is leveraging their relationship with Sony to build AF sensors that have very low read noise, which is probably how they managed to break through the f/8 AF barrier and have multiple f/8 AF points. Canon excels everywhere else...it really is time they put some more R&D into their CMOS sensor tech, not just image sensors but ALL of their CMOS sensor tech. Its time to eliminate noise, and move into the modern era. Canon seems to have patents for a layered (Foveon-esque) sensor design as well. If they could develop a layered sensor with the same pixel pitch as the 1D X, that might propel them back to the forefront, and really turn some heads. 

A 35mp+ layered megapixel monster (105mb, by Sigma's counting standards) would be the kind of game-changer Canon really needs. ;P I highly doubt the rumored high MP camera from Canon will actually be a layered RGB design, *but it would certainly peak my interest. *


----------



## cbphoto (Aug 5, 2012)

I would love:

A 36+ Mp camera body from Canon
In a 1Dx-style body
The best dynamic range delivered at the lowest ISO values
Deliver more pixels rather than higher frame rates
Provide the best Live View focus/framing possible, in lieu of 60-point autofocus tech
Target the still-life/landscape/studio photographer, not the PJ or sports guy
Eventually eliminate the flapping mirror and provide an eye level HD video finder


----------



## lola (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> 
> But will the sensor be any better?
> Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
> ...



It's obvious isn't it? Respectively; no, yes, yes, yes.

And don't forget about how ridiculously Canon will price it...


----------



## marinien (Aug 5, 2012)

jrista said:


> I certainly wouldn't say we are *"firmly" in the realm of diminishing returns.* I think Nikon and Sony proved that with the D800's sensor. It not only added considerably to pixel density, it improved the quality of those pixels as well. A 36mp sensor has 4.6 micron pixels, which are LARGER than the 4.3 micron pixels of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensors as well as the new 24mp sensors used in the D3200. Again, Sony and Nikon have demonstrated that a 24mp APS-C sensor, which is _pushing 130lp/mm_ in terms of spatial resolution, is also capable of not only having more pixels, but pixels of higher quality.
> 
> The question is not whether Canon can produce a high MP sensor. The question is whether Canon can compete and produce a high MP sensor with *BETTER QUALITY PIXELS* than any of their current sensors, including the 1D X and 5D III. By eliminating almost all noise in Exmor (there is only about 2-3 electrons worth...not much more to remove), SoNikon have basically set the stage...the only thing LEFT TO DO once you _perfect the pixel_ is *pack more of them in*.



Waw, after you, *pixel quality* = *pixel size*  ? Do you know that the sensor of your 7D have a pixel density equivalent to a 46MP FF sensor?


----------



## pakosouthpark (Aug 5, 2012)

well i think they should first take care of the entry level FF camera and then pay attention to this one towards the end of the year!


----------



## Ricku (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> 
> But will the sensor be any better?
> Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
> ...



+1!
I was just about to write this, but you beat me to it.

If Canon's high MP camera doesn't deliver in the IQ department (Dynamic range, read noise, no bandning, e.t.c) they won't get my money.

Not to be a pessimist, but I think it will be 3 - 4 more years before Canon can produce a sensor like the one in the D800.

And even if Canon could do it right now, they will hold back because they are afraid to anger all the 5D3 buyers. Especially the ones who pretends that they don't care about improved DR.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 5, 2012)

Ricku said:


> If Canon's high MP camera doesn't deliver in the IQ department (Dynamic range, read noise, no bandning, e.t.c) they won't get my money.
> 
> Not to be a pessimist, but I think it will be 3 - 4 more years before Canon can produce a sensor like the one in the D800.



I am more optimistic - in 2007 Canon produced the 1DS3 whose sensor delivered performance than only now has Nikon been able to surpass - and then in not all areas

If Canon could produce such a sensor *5 years ago* then I can see no reason why they cant do it again


----------



## Mr Simpleton (Aug 5, 2012)

Browsing the comments... it seems Canon will fail big time no matter what they do!

Seriously... if they do get the sensor to perform like the 1Dx and with twice the pixels it sound like a winner! Compare this with the new focusing system with the superb repetability (see lensrentals blog) it will be one sweet camera.


----------



## greenlimabeans (Aug 5, 2012)

For those who doubt the value of more megapixels, a very interesting read:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html

Personally, the focusing on my 5dii is just adequate for me, so there's no reason to lust after a 5diii with indistinguishable sensor quality at reasonable ISOs.

I'm pretty much locked into Canon by my lenses, plus my familiarity with the controls layout, but I do lust after the image quality and lack of vertical banding when pulling dark areas, huge DR and lovely, even noise of the d800. 

Canon, please just buy the Sony sensor and make a d800 clone but with decent live view. And while you're at it, update the 50mm f1.4 to do it justice. Then I'll have no choice but to throw $4500 or so your way.


----------



## Ricku (Aug 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon's high MP camera doesn't deliver in the IQ department (Dynamic range, read noise, no bandning, e.t.c) they won't get my money.
> ...


So why does it seem like most of their sensor development has come to a halt? ..Just look at the 5D3 sensor. I admit that the 5D3 is a fine camera, but the sensor is quite underwhelming. No bump in resolution, no DR improvement at normal ISOs. And yes, it even inherited vertical lines of pattern noise from the 5D2! 

I too like to believe that Canon's sensor devs still knows how to innovate and improve, but it sure doesn't look like it.



Mr Simpleton said:


> Browsing the comments... it seems Canon will fail big time no matter what they do!
> 
> Seriously... if they do get the sensor to perform like the 1Dx and with twice the pixels it sound like a winner! Compare this with the new focusing system with the superb repetability (see lensrentals blog) it will be one sweet camera.


Dear Simpleton. I am not seeing what you are seeing.

The general consensus among the comments is simply that Canon needs to step up it's sensor development and release a high MP sensor with more DR and no banding.

There is nothing wrong with that, because Nikon / Sony (Canon's main competition) are already way ahead in terms of sensor tech.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 5, 2012)

Roll on the 120mp APS-H sensor Canon produced in 2010


----------



## DzPhotography (Aug 5, 2012)

I smell Nikon fanboys


----------



## Canon-F1 (Aug 5, 2012)

a 30-32 MP body with better DR and better shadow noise then the current 22MP sensor would be nice. better quantum efficiency of canon sensors. a sensor that closes the gap to sony.

but canon would make more money with a below 2000$ FF camera i think.
and no.. i don´t want to buy 4 year old tech.... and i don´t really see the 5D MK2, as good as it is (i have one ), as competition to the coming D600. 

i don´t want a 1D body as it will only make the camera more expensiv... i never broke a rebel so why would i need a 1D body? weather sealing yes but it does not need to be magensium alloy body.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Roll on the 120mp APS-H sensor Canon produced in 2010


Agreed they should just release this and tell everyone to stfu


----------



## XanuFoto (Aug 5, 2012)

When the Camera is released its to plug the gap in the line up. Many small studio people used the 5D with a few lenses and could move D800 quickly. Just give them a high MP body to stay from moving. That said I am pretty sure they did sell alot of 5D MK III.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If it surpasses or just evenly matches the D800 in RAW IQ. Alot of 5d3 users will be quite angry at canon. (Me Included)
> ...



It's not that the 5d3 is a good camera. It's the best camera I've ever shot with. 

It's that canon could have done better but chose not to. Instead recycled tech to make more profits and then releases another camera we really wanted with a sensor superior to the 5d3 for around the same monies. 

Digital cameras rot, an unfortunate truth but a reality. If this new camera is equally priced to the 5D3 with equal IQ to the d800, expect 5D3 prices to plummet.


----------



## XanuFoto (Aug 5, 2012)

RPLPhoto

This is the way I look at it. If you are able to make money with the 5D MKIII then you should be happy. If you believe you can make more money using a higher pixel camera you could either move to Nikon or wait for Canon to release their high MP camera. The choices are still there and I love the fact the choices are still there. When the D700 did not have video and people wanted video they moved to the 5D. When the D700 guys wanted just video and not high MP they really did not get what they wanted. The point I am making is we do not control what marketing decisions these pick companies make. What I know is these guys cannot ever satisfy every customer. The only thing I can control is to go out the and shoot the best images I can using the best equipment that works for my budget and business. You look at the photographer galleries at the London Olympics and they still seem to be dominated by Canon gear. These guys make money from their trade. And if Canon has kept them happy then I guess someone in their marketing has got it right. JMHO.


----------



## EchoLocation (Aug 5, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > I am tired of Canon offering similar or inferior products to Nikon and pricing them significantly higher.
> ...


No one is arguing that Nikon has a more complete system than Canon. Heck, I bought in to Canon's system by choice just a few years ago.
If I needed tilt shift or exotic zooms I'd most likely get Canon at this point. However, I am simply an amateur enthusiast who wants some competetively priced awesome performing fast primes, zooms and the occasional new body.
The new Canon primes aren't particularly fast(2.8: 24mm, 28mm, 40mm,) and 2/3rds of these are extremely expensive for what they are. The new Nikon primes have been 1.8 and similarly priced if not cheaper(no pancake.) 
I like the 5DIII, but I think it is very overpriced. I love the 24-70 II, but I think it's very overpriced as well. The 1DX is 800 dollars more expensive than the D4 and I'm not hearing many people with a D4 complaining. 
The D7000 kills any APS-C Canon camera in terms of image quality and DR, and it is much cheaper than a 7D. 
I know there are other variables than what I have mentioned, but for me, a person who travels constantly, shoots for fun, likes to save money and travel as light as possible, the last year of following Canon has been a lot of bad news. 
Anyone talking about exotic glass, tilt shifts and 1DX's obviously is pretty deep in whatever system they have chosen and are likely to not be a candidate for switching to the dark side. A high priced, high MP camera is made exactly for a person with these lenses and fully entrenched in the system. But I am very skeptical of Canon being able to make a sensor better than the current Sony sensor in the D800. If the price ends up being where it is rumored to be at now(i remember hearing 4K, or north) then it will just be another in a string of products which are more expensive than competitors. I hope this trend doesn't continue.


----------



## XanuFoto (Aug 5, 2012)

EchoLocation,

Canon and Nikon will sell and price their cameras at a point where they can sell. As long as you have reached a point as a photographer where your skill level can overcome the equipment deficiences you should not have any problems with either. Nikon and Canon are the top 2 companies now and even year of two one of them will be in a slight lead. Don't let minor diffrences get in the way of you photography.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2012)

XanuFoto said:


> RPLPhoto
> 
> This is the way I look at it. If you are able to make money with the 5D MKIII then you should be happy. If you believe you can make more money using a higher pixel camera you could either move to Nikon or wait for Canon to release their high MP camera. The choices are still there and I love the fact the choices are still there. When the D700 did not have video and people wanted video they moved to the 5D. When the D700 guys wanted just video and not high MP they really did not get what they wanted. The point I am making is we do not control what marketing decisions these pick companies make. What I know is these guys cannot ever satisfy every customer. The only thing I can control is to go out the and shoot the best images I can using the best equipment that works for my budget and business. You look at the photographer galleries at the London Olympics and they still seem to be dominated by Canon gear. These guys make money from their trade. And if Canon has kept them happy then I guess someone in their marketing has got it right. JMHO.



I could make money with a d30 if I wanted too. I prefer the usability of newer tech but that's another conversation for a different thread. 

Canon used to innovate and deliver the best they could in the 1Ds days. Now it seems they've been listening too much to accountants than photographers in not doing there very best. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## mathino (Aug 5, 2012)

XanuFoto said:


> EchoLocation,
> 
> Canon and Nikon will sell and price their cameras at a point where they can sell. As long as you have reached a point as a photographer where your skill level can overcome the equipment deficiences you should not have any problems with either. Nikon and Canon are the top 2 companies now and even year of two one of them will be in a slight lead. Don't let minor diffrences get in the way of you photography.



You are right. They price it at point that makes sense for them to have such a product.

I like Canon mainly because of control layout and menus etc - its more user friendly and quicker to adjust/learn. I had a chance to shoot with some sort of Nikon (lower end DSLR) and all button placement and menus were so unnutural to me (I was not able to access 2nd curtain sync on flash and via menu). But, it was on location and I havent got chance to study manual. For me - working with Canon DSLRs feels just more fluent.

And...If you know your equip and its limits (how to overcome them) then brand is not important because you can get your desired result with both.

_My 2 cents to *more DR/more MPx/5D Mk III* discussion:_

as far as I can remember, complanis about 5D Mk II were mainly in regard of its AF and maybe slow burst rate - nothing about not enough reoslution and dynamic range - so Canon responded to complains upgraded AF to best and gived us 6 fps and all-in-all better all-around camera
5D Mk III - seems to me like more 1Ds Mk III replacement in smaller package - higher FPS, +- same MPx etc with video
5D-X or whatever it will be - true studio oriented camera, I think that Canon is developing 45-47 MPx sensor for it, probably 4 fps at most, ISO to 6400 and better DR to addres it as D800 competitor, priced around 4 k
pricing of 5D-X - 4k becasue I think that it will be better then D800 (+- same DR), maybe even 4K video - and Canon users will pay for it
last thing - no way you get 45-47 MPx from Canon cheaper then 5D Mk III, if price for 5D Mk III falls to 2500 USD then maybe 5D-X would be around 3500 USD


----------



## Bosman (Aug 5, 2012)

I'm going to have to take issue that anyone was screwed by Canon or this rumored high mp camera. I use my 5dm3 with complete satisfaction cept some niggles like focus point viewablity. 
The other i take issue with is that people think the 5dm2 stole the ground from the 1dsm3, like that could happen. Canon made it for those who need the build and durability and those who did got what they wanted, they didn't buy a 5dm2 instead. Seriously, Canon isn't hurt by you not buying a 1d series. They made it for the hc pro's and anyone who wants to plop down the money.
I don't feel sympathetic to anyone in the 1dx camp, those who bought it bought it with full knowledge of what it was made of and put their money down. Theres nothing to feel remorse over, you got what you paid for. Its no slouch at that either. If you didn't buy the 1dx because it didn't help you much then you don't upgrade, if you did then you prob just had money to burn for the latest tech. No one can blame Canon if their gear is obsolete to the purchaser when you knew what you were agreeing to when you bought it. I'd say if the 5dm3 or 1dx doesn't fit your upgrade path then wait, or swtich to Nikon for the d800. I never believed Canon would only have the 1dx, i figured they had to come out with something with major resolution and it doesn't have to be called a 1d. It can have the build and size of the 1d but it doesn't have to be. When they claim to have merged the line it didn't mean they didn't have something more exotic planned.
Some will never be happy and i feel sorry for you.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 5, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I'm going to have to take issue that anyone was screwed by Canon or this rumored high mp camera. I use my 5dm3 with complete satisfaction cept some niggles like focus point viewablity.
> The other i take issue with is that people think the 5dm2 stole the ground from the 1dsm3, like that could happen. Canon made it for those who need the build and durability and those who did got what they wanted, they didn't buy a 5dm2 instead. Seriously, Canon isn't hurt by you not buying a 1d series. They made it for the hc pro's and anyone who wants to plop down the money.
> I don't feel sympathetic to anyone in the 1dx camp, those who bought it bought it with full knowledge of what it was made of and put their money down. Theres nothing to feel remorse over, you got what you paid for. Its no slouch at that either. If you didn't buy the 1dx because it didn't help you much then you don't upgrade, if you did then you prob just had money to burn for the latest tech. No one can blame Canon if their gear is obsolete to the purchaser when you knew what you were agreeing to when you bought it. I'd say if the 5dm3 or 1dx doesn't fit your upgrade path then wait, or swtich to Nikon for the d800. I never believed Canon would only have the 1dx, i figured they had to come out with something with major resolution and it doesn't have to be called a 1d. It can have the build and size of the 1d but it doesn't have to be. When they claim to have merged the line it didn't mean they didn't have something more exotic planned.
> Some will never be happy and i feel sorry for you.



I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.


----------



## mathino (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> mathino said:
> 
> 
> > as far as I can remember, complanis about 5D Mk II were mainly in regard of its AF and maybe slow burst rate - nothing about not enough reoslution and dynamic range - so Canon responded to complains upgraded AF to best and gived us 6 fps and all-in-all better all-around camera
> ...



True, Im not denying that. But D800 was announced on 7th of February and 5D Mk III month later. What Im trying to say is that 5D Mk III development could have ended months before D800 announcement so no possibility to respond.

I think that Canon is aware of DR/high MPx problem and they make sure that their response would be equal/better in terms of DR with even higher MPx count - and they would ask for it more dollars than D800. Sure, new high MPx wont be for new comers - but 5D Mk III is not for enthusiasts too (in terms of price). D600 and 6D (entry level FF) would be for people entering FF world. Then from 6D you can upgrade either to 5D Mk III, high MPx body or 1D-X - depends on needs and profitability of such investment.


----------



## mathino (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> If the leaked image of the D600 LCD panel is anything to go by then it will have DPS, 51 point focus, WiFi support and HDR.
> 
> How many of those features will be in the next FF Canon DSLR?



Well, if you check D800 manual (pages 10-12 I think) you will see its exactly the same informational screen as D800. So its rather a good hoax - nothing more. On Nikon rumors it is stated that this comes from some facebook page of Thailand photographer (who has a lot of D800 pics in his albums).

But, its strange that its quiet about both "entry level" FF from Canon and Nikon.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Now the D800 exists so that is now the yard stick by which every other DSLR of that form factor will be measured when it comes to IQ.



Only if you're shooting Nikon factory-approved test targets in a controlled studio setting.

Out in the real world, the D800's second-rate lenses and third-rate AF pretty much offset any IQ gains the sensor is theoretically capable of producing...


----------



## jthomson (Aug 5, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Now the D800 exists so that is now the yard stick by which every other DSLR of that form factor will be measured when it comes to IQ.
> 
> 
> > I find it strange that one of Nikons biggest fanboys says "The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is the world's best digital SLR. It easily lets us create smooth, clean, beautiful and colorful images in any sort of light."-Ken Rockwell


----------



## photosites (Aug 5, 2012)

There is all the saying about how much ahead Sony sensor is vs Canon and that the 5D3's sensor has not improved from the 5D2.

Firstly, the 5D3 sensor uses a gapless microlens design which was not used before. Numerous test have shown that it has improved over the 5D2 by at least 1-2 stops. So it is quite unreasonable to say that the sensor has not improved.

Secondly, I noticed that most of the test showing the D800 having a better noise performance than the 5D3 often involved downscaling or upscaling the image to the same size... When showed at exactly the same size, it is often obvious that the D800 is noisier than the 5D3. When downscaling is involved, even the Nokia Pureview 808 showed remarkable improved noise performance. Now, is this purely due to sensor technology?

Given Canon's 18mpx APS-C sensor technology, they can produce a 46mpx FF sensor without having to do too much. At the noise level of the 60D and if one were to downscale the 46mpx image to 36mpx (or 22mpx), I am very sure the noise level will be very comparable to the D800 or better. Shadow noise is a real concern for Canon however. Hopefully they can start putting in an on-chip ADC soon.

Thirdly, DR. Perhaps someone can show me proper photos showing what those 3-4 EV advantage that Sony sensor supposedly boasts as compared to a photo taken with a Canon camera. I would be convinced then. Right now, all I hear is 'scientific' tests with a bunch of numbers. A proper set of photos would convince me what advantage a Sony's sensor has in terms of DR. So far, all I have seen is a bunch of numbers.

Lastly, the whole point of all this megapixel. In DPReview's tests, they admitted that getting that observable resolution advantage from the D800/D800E required a lot of care and effort. Only in lab condition and at very specific lens type and setting can they achieve that resolution advantage. All this while, one has to carry around that extra bits of file size and run out of drive space consistently.

If we look at the AF speed comparison on imaging-resource.com, it is very obvious that the 5D3 focuses almost 2x as fast as the D800 and do not suffer as badly from delays in buffer clearing, etc. That in itself makes the 5D3 a much more usable all-rounded camera.

So Canon should make a high mpx camera, by all means. Landscape and studio photographers would love that. It would definitely not affect the target market of 5D3 - People who need an all-rounded camera.


----------



## jrista (Aug 5, 2012)

marinien said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly wouldn't say we are *"firmly" in the realm of diminishing returns.* I think Nikon and Sony proved that with the D800's sensor. It not only added considerably to pixel density, it improved the quality of those pixels as well. A 36mp sensor has 4.6 micron pixels, which are LARGER than the 4.3 micron pixels of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensors as well as the new 24mp sensors used in the D3200. Again, Sony and Nikon have demonstrated that a 24mp APS-C sensor, which is _pushing 130lp/mm_ in terms of spatial resolution, is also capable of not only having more pixels, but pixels of higher quality.
> ...



Sure I know that. It would actually be a 47.6mp FF sensor, to be exact. 

The D800 proved that you DO NOT have to drop *pixel quality* along with *pixel size*. The D800 proved that when you have very little electronic noise, even a tiny 4.6 micron pixel can produce great images. Once electronic noise reaches a practical floor, the only thing left to really worry about is quantum efficiency. (I would say the best we could do is reduce electronic noise down to 1-2 electrons/pixel during read...Sony is down to 2-3 in the D800, so they'll probably wrap up the noise problem for good within another generation.) I think the D800 has Q.E. of over 55%, which is one of the best on the market.

With increased quantum efficiency comes increased SNR, and that remaining 1-3 electrons worth of read noise becomes a less and less significant factor of the signal as Q.E. continues to improve. I'm not sure how high we can get Q.E. in consumer-grade sensors, however with BSI thermoelectric cooling (peltier effect) scientific grade CCD's reduced to -35°C nearly eliminate thermal inefficiencies and reduce dark current by as much as 200x, achieving Q.E.s higher than 80%. Combine that technology with Sony Exmor, and we could be looking at nearly 100% Q.E., which would be a thing of wonder.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 5, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.



A lot of 1DS3 were sold - but to a relatively small market niche

However the 5D2 filled another market and sold like hot cakes. Some pros bought it purely from a ROI point of view rather than for IQ.

Whilst the 5D2 had the same mps it lost out significantly on fps, colour rendition and AF.

There are a lot of 1DS3 on the used market now - showing that it did sell


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with everything you said except, The 5D Mark II actually DID steal ground from the 1Ds Mark III. That is a well-known fact. I even bought the 5D Mark II instead back then, because it was cheaper and had the same resolution. Most of the pros I knew from 2008-current never owned a 1Ds3 simply because of the 5D Mark II.
> ...



I agree it sold. It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded. The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2. Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3. However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera. Ultimate.


----------



## mathino (Aug 5, 2012)

photosites said:


> Given Canon's 18mpx APS-C sensor technology, they can produce a 46mpx FF sensor without having to do too much. At the noise level of the 60D and if one were to downscale the 46mpx image to 36mpx (or 22mpx), I am very sure the noise level will be very comparable to the D800 or better. Shadow noise is a real concern for Canon however. Hopefully they can start putting in an on-chip ADC soon.



Sure, they can, but I think they have a proper reason for not announcing it. Maybe they are dealing with DR or something else ? Maybe they want to bring out fully operational product (with no AF flaws like D800) ?



> Thirdly, DR. Perhaps someone can show me proper photos showing what those 3-4 EV advantage that Sony sensor supposedly boasts as compared to a photo taken with a Canon camera. I would be convinced then. Right now, all I hear is 'scientific' tests with a bunch of numbers. A proper set of photos would convince me what advantage a Sony's sensor has in terms of DR. So far, all I have seen is a bunch of numbers.



I want to see it too. Same location, same setup (lens, aperture, ISO, RAW). Then I can tell if there is so big difference.



> If we look at the AF speed comparison on imaging-resource.com, it is very obvious that the 5D3 focuses almost 2x as fast as the D800 and do not suffer as badly from delays in buffer clearing, etc. That in itself makes the 5D3 a much more usable all-rounded camera.



Yes, 5D Mk III is more all around camera. Aimed mostly on pros, wedding shooters, photojournalist that require fast and precise AF and decent FPS.



> So Canon should make a high mpx camera, by all means. Landscape and studio photographers would love that. It would definitely not affect the target market of 5D3 - People who need an all-rounded camera.



And I agree, there is market for high MPx body. It wont hurt 5D Mk III sales. Like you stated.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 5, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> I smell Nikon fanboys



That's got to be the kinkiest fetish I've ever heard. Your mother would be ashamed.

On a separate note, yesterday as I glanced up at the sky I was sure I could see a dead pixel. Should've taken a picture to prove it... :-\


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 5, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I agree it sold. It was too specific though, whereas the 5D2 was well rounded. The problem with the 1Ds3 was it was much harder to shoot weddings thoroughly vs. the 5D2. Almost every wedding photographer I knew 2008-current got the 5D2 and passed on the 1Ds3. However, I feel that the 1Ds3 is the ultimate landscape camera. Ultimate.



I guess the low light capability of the 5D2 was what made it more usable for weddings


----------



## Bosman (Aug 5, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to have to take issue that anyone was screwed by Canon or this rumored high mp camera. I use my 5dm3 with complete satisfaction cept some niggles like focus point viewablity.
> ...


Like i said though it was made for people who require that level of build, just because you didn't buy it or many pro's didn't doesn't mean it didn't fulfill its purpose, that being for those who require that level of build who shoot in extreme environments. If anyone chose the 5dm2 it was because they never required it.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 5, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 5, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.



The 1DS3 is better than the 5D2 as an all-round camera until you wanted to shoot over iso800. Even the 1Ds2 is better to iso800.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > Given that i have the 5d1 and the fact that the focus system on the 5d2 was identicle, id say i would shoot a wedding with a 1dsm3 way before the 5dm2 for focus points alone. Saving time composing with center point and then re-composing would be worth it alone. On another note the 1dsm3 had a higher level of sharp detail hence why it is an incredible landscape camera.
> ...


Well theres that. Typically i used flash which didn't require over 800 iso at the time though. With the 5dm3 that i have now i feel more liberty to shoot high iso no flash photography. I have shot 3200 iso with the 1dm3 and if exposed properly it will render pretty well but if underexposed by 1/2 even 1/3rd stop it can start getting ugly. I just shoot dark receptions with flash anyway so no need for iso above 400. 
The 1ds2 was better than the 1ds3 at iso 800? I never knew that! Being that it was geared toward studio was the low iso cleaner on the 1dsm3?


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 5, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The 1ds2 was better than the 1ds3 at iso 800? I never knew that! Being that it was geared toward studio was the low iso cleaner on the 1dsm3?



Sorry - I meant the 1Ds2 is better that the 5D2 to iso800

It gives very different colour rendition than the 1Ds3 - probably I would guess as it is only 12 bit. Of course the 1Ds2 is only 16mp, but then so is the 1D4


----------



## Caps18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I would rather see a high dynamic range, without the HDR time delay of taking multiple exposures.

However, I think Canon should come out with a medium format camera.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 5, 2012)

A. CRs 35+ MP slower fps
B. 1D X Super fps
C. 5D III little of both
D. All of the above and put them into 1 body with price tag $10K plus

QA: Which body is right for you???

For me, I still take 5D III  Why? AF + high ISO + decent fps


----------



## mathino (Aug 5, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> I would rather see a high dynamic range, without the HDR time delay of taking multiple exposures.
> 
> However, I think Canon should come out with a medium format camera.



...would you buy new expensive lenses for medium format ?  I think that image circle of current lenses is too small to support medium format.


----------



## steliosk (Aug 5, 2012)

its simple

If you shoot 
- landscapes, get 5D X (when it comes out, if it comes out)
- weddings get 5D mark 3
- birds get 7D
- low budget 600D (not 650, way too expensive for nothing...)
- video get a f**ckin video-camera!

i'd like to see a cheap FF DSLR 

and some better dynamic range in RAW mode, so much invest on jpeg.. never understood why
some new features like an articulated screen in a FF camera.

I get the feeling canon waits for nikon to make a huge step and then just follow.. and that just gives me the creeps cause i support Canon for years!!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 6, 2012)

Bosman said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



You'd shoot a wedding with a 1Ds3? Haha, ok, good luck. Better bring a ton of portable lighting.


----------



## Sh1n1ng Forc3 (Aug 6, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



+1


----------



## M.ST (Aug 6, 2012)

There will be no big megapixel camera coming soon from Canon. It´s a joke.

First we see a entry level full frame camera.

Canon tested full frames with 26, 28, 30 and 40 megapixels in the last years, but decided against an put th 18 and 22 megapixel sensor on the market.

If you want to shoot landscapes use the 1 DS Mark III, it beats the D800E. Second choice for landscapes is the 5D Mark III. 

If you have long lenses and want to shoot sports, action and wildlife get the 1D X.

If you dont want invest in longer lenses use the 1D Mark IV.

If you want a multipurpose camera for all (but in all not the best) get the 5D Mark III.

Concern if you talk about big megapixel cameras that the photographer is it who gets the shot. Most of the world famous photographers do their job with a 1 Ds Mark III and get outstanding pictures.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 6, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> You'd shoot a wedding with a 1Ds3? Haha, ok, good luck. Better bring a ton of portable lighting.



In the UK flash is fine for weddings, except during the actual ceremony. Coming back down the aisle afterwards makes for a classic 2 stand picture

I always shoot with flash, and yes the 1DS3 works very well. But of course the backup body needs to be good in low light for those times. Flash is needed both for sunny and dull days

I did my last wedding with about 80% 1DS3 and 20% 5D2. The 1Ds3 AF point metering really makes a difference in reducing the number of missed exposure shots.

I think having a 1DX as the main body and the 1Ds3 as the backup/portraits will make a great pair


----------



## kirillica (Aug 6, 2012)

If Canon do splitting (once again) between pro-journalists and pro-studio shooters and produce 35+ Mpix camera, then:
- if it will have improved noise, DR and priced up to 1DX price - then I'll buy one
- if it will be 5Dm2/3 only with small pixel size - no matter the cost - I won't buy it


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 6, 2012)

I just hope they release something. Luckily, it will bring down the price of 5DIII (even second hand) to my "acceptable" level (dependent on my pocket).


----------



## nicku (Aug 6, 2012)

How about this post regarding a big megapixel camera.....


http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-canons-medium-format-camera-tidbits-and-maybe-no-pro-i/


Medium format camera using EF lens....


----------



## Canon-F1 (Aug 6, 2012)

dilbert said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > How about this post regarding a big megapixel camera.....
> ...



FF crop mode.
nikon can do it with DX on FX bodys... so sure canon could do it with a MF body.

they only write you can use EF lenses on that MF body.
not that EF lenses are the prefered lenses.

so i guess it will be a new EF-MF mount that CAN take current EF lenses.


----------



## CanonFanBoy (Aug 6, 2012)

I really hope Canon is not coming up a camera this time just packing more pixels into the 35mm die with its existing technology ... what Nikon has really stolen the show this time is setting a new trend by providing Studio/FineArt/Fashion/Landscape photographers a very cheap alternative to entry level digital Medium Format camera ... which caught the world by storm! 

So ... whatever Canon is coming up ... Canon needs to make a camera that excels in all Quality Aspects ... that is in terms of Dynamic Range (> 15 stops), Colour Fidelity (16bits), and very Low Noise ... and ... of 'cos plus all those 5D mkIII features .... in order to compete!!!


----------



## lopicma (Aug 6, 2012)

I thought we were over the Pixel Wars? There must be a market for this sensor, or else why bother. I would settle for a full frame 15-20Mpix that can shoot in the dark at say... 500,000 ISO. I think most consumers (90% guesstimate) and many professionals (70% guesstimate) would be satisfied with this sensor spec.

There is more than just the sensor to consider. There is the glass, storage, file handling just to name a few big ones. Not being a physics pro, I do hear there is a light wave issue with small apertures resolving onto large sensors - in that you waste space on the sensor. (_I will let a more knowledgeable person explain it._)

I would bet the driving force for these high pixel counts can be traced to asteroid mining (LOL - _don't get me started_). I guess you would need these pixels for cropping and isolating a subject/target without loosing detail. If NASA or any other space program can put good glass in front of this sensor, they could pull down some great space shots. I think it's use is questionable for us terrestrial shooters.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 6, 2012)

lopicma said:


> I thought we were over the Pixel Wars? There must be a market for this sensor, or else why bother. I would settle for a full frame 15-20Mpix that can shoot in the dark at say... 500,000 ISO. I think most consumers (90% guesstimate) and many professionals (70% guesstimate) would be satisfied with this sensor spec.
> 
> There is more than just the sensor to consider. There is the glass, storage, file handling just to name a few big ones. Not being a physics pro, I do hear there is a light wave issue with small apertures resolving onto large sensors - in that you waste space on the sensor. (_I will let a more knowledgeable person explain it._)
> 
> I would bet the driving force for these high pixel counts can be traced to asteroid mining (LOL - _don't get me started_). I guess you would need these pixels for cropping and isolating a subject/target without loosing detail. If NASA or any other space program can put good glass in front of this sensor, they could pull down some great space shots. I think it's use is questionable for us terrestrial shooters.



I rarely shoot at over iso400 so a camera that shoots at iso 500,000 is of no interest at all. The MF shooters have been using 40+mp for some time - OK for large prints.

It is the quality of the image that counts


----------



## lopicma (Aug 6, 2012)

I am at the opposite end. My last vacation, about half the photos were at ISO-800, outside, under a forest canopy or in a wetlands area. If I could have gone to 1600, there would be too much grain on the old Rebel XS. All the photos needed exposure boost in Lightroom, but were salvageable. If I had a T4i or a 5D MkIII, I would have no problems. (I'm working on that solution...)


----------



## DzPhotography (Aug 6, 2012)

lopicma said:


> I am at the opposite end. My last vacation, about half the photos were at ISO-800, outside, under a forest canopy or in a wetlands area. If I could have gone to 1600, there would be too much grain on the old Rebel XS. All the photos needed exposure boost in Lightroom, but were salvageable. If I had a T4i or a 5D MkIII, I would have no problems. (I'm working on that solution...)


Err, are you thinking that a T4i will give the same result as an 5D MkIII on the same high ISO setting? Think again, my dear chap...


----------



## birdman (Aug 6, 2012)

Guys, I own the D800 and am a FORMER OWNER of the 5d2. What the extra MPs has meant for me:

1) Better IQ
2) Better technique required b/c of hand-holding issues
3) Better ability to crop
4) Better DR and really, better high ISO performance (vs. the 5d2)
5) Ridiculously large files
6) Average FPS but with Nikon's awesome AF it's a wash
7) Slower write times when shooting burst of images

--I love the D800, just as I loved the 5d2. IF the 5d3 had been cheaper AND fixed the banding-- it would've been choice #1 by a slim margin. I wasn't married to Canon, but getting rid of my 35/1.4L felt like a painful divorce. BTW, I will not be replacing it with the 35/1.4 af-s. I may opt for the 28/1.8 ($1,000 cheaper and painfully sharp)

I only wanted D800 for landscape shooting--which is my forte, and honestly Nikon has the UWA lens advantages for now. Canon really disappointed me with the 5d3 specs, as I felt certain that they could have done better with price and banding issues. MP count of 22 would've been alright, also.

Canon needs to improve its sensor design to accommodate increased read noise from more resolution. I know I will eventually buy into the Canon system again because, as a whole, it is more robust (and arguably better) than nikon. I'll always be a Canon fan, but Nikon made the DSLR I wanted this generation. Happy shooting to all


----------



## lopicma (Aug 6, 2012)

Err, are you thinking that a T4i will give the same result as an 5D MkIII on the same high ISO setting? Think again, my dear chap...
[/quote]

I am not comparing those two against each other, but against the _Rebel XS_. I only want middle ISO, not High, and anything has to be better than the XS' high ISO of 1600.

This thread is starting degenerate with Nikon speak as well... OH!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 6, 2012)

Bombsight said:


> I know the product isn't out there yet but, it's a shame how Canon holds back on what their loyal buyers want when they (Canon) knows *what* is wanted.
> 
> They claim one body is a flagship (1DX), holding out on what another body has (5DMK3) only to give their fan base what they originally asked for (more megapixels) shortly afterwards. You cant tell me they didn't plan on a higher MP body announcement after 1DX & MK3 sales peak.
> 
> ...



What Kool-aid are you drinking? The fan base, for years now has been asking for what they got in the mk3 - better AF, better performance at high ISO, and better ISO range - its pretty much exactly what the mk3 is. The whining about only started when people heard about the d800. And now there is this vocal segment who twist history to be what it isn't. Nikon rolled the dice and put their big MP camera out before canon did. Now, could you imagine the change in the field we'd have now, midway through wedding season if the situation was reversed? IE, all us canon wedding shooters slumming i up on our 5d2's because we don't need nor want a 40 mp camera (at least canon would be smart enough to give it sRAW and mRAW so we aren't stuck with 100 MB images.

You must be landscape/studio, because that is the group that dislikes the mk3, well, or the hobbyists (and most of them like the camera but not the price).


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 6, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> we don't need nor want a 40 mp camera (at least canon would be smart enough to give it sRAW and mRAW so we aren't stuck with 100 MB images.



Not that the resolution makes that much difference; otoh the x-sync up to 1/320 and high rez/off center spot metering meter are endearing.
That battery pack that powers the strobes gets instant double capacity! Also the flash duration gets down, no more need for twin heads. At least the 1Dx + PWs gives me the same benefits.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 6, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Bombsight said:
> 
> 
> > I know the product isn't out there yet but, it's a shame how Canon holds back on what their loyal buyers want when they (Canon) knows *what* is wanted.
> ...



Yep, that's pretty much what happened. And, as the owner of both an EOS-3 film camera and 5D MkIII DSLR, I consider the latter to be the true and worthy successor to the former. But, then again, I never got the Eye Control Focus to work on the EOS-3 so I'm not counting that.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 6, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > we don't need nor want a 40 mp camera (at least canon would be smart enough to give it sRAW and mRAW so we aren't stuck with 100 MB images.
> ...



You'll be waiting 30 seconds between shots on a 40mp RAW image to downconvert to mRAW or sRAW. You could say that wouldn't be a sports camera


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 7, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> You'll be waiting 30 seconds between shots on a 40mp RAW image to downconvert to mRAW or sRAW. You could say that wouldn't be a sports camera



Rather use the crop mode to gain some extra reach combined with higher framerate and buffer depth. 
The downsampled RAWs never where my cup of tea - and I wouldn't buy a high res cam for sports, esp. as there are two(pointfive, does the 7D(II) count?) better suited ones.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 7, 2012)

If it tons of MP but poor DR and low fps with no fast fps cropped modes then I fail to see how it does anything next to a D800, worse yet if it is in brick size, I'd rather a 5D3 or D800 by far.

If they make it all 5D3 specs other than now 35MP then it's something at least since it would outperform D800 in all ways other than low ISO DR.

If they somehow suddenly got better DR already too then it'd be utterly killer, but if they had better DR then why not in the 5D3/1DX?


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 7, 2012)

If this is true would they include video? Personally being a still snapper I would hope its still only however I can see an oportunity where they could be the first real MF unit to use video and hence they can reproduce the video revolution they had with the 5d2 just something to ponder I'm not saying its right or anything. I would agree though they would need to do the MF properly with 16 bit raw and iq to match the big boys


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 7, 2012)

I partly agree but the differences can be a bit more apparent than you imply IMO even for non-cropped 19" prints. And once you crop and moreso when you are distance limited, I mean just look at how much more detail a 7D can toss on a bird than a 5D2.



TrumpetPower! said:


> I must admit, this really doesn't excite me all that much.
> 
> There's more resolution to be had in the 135 format, yes. Probably even up into the 80 megapickle range.
> 
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> 
> But will the sensor be any better?
> Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
> ...



yeah it's low ISO DR that was even more impressive
(and ability to still hit 5-6fps under certain circumstances)


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> ...



Everyone goes on about the D800 - excluding mps it is barely to the 2007 1Ds3 standard as an all-round camera

Even my 2004 1Ds2 is still churning out impressive pictures at 16x12.

I have found that modern sensors are so good that the critical factor is the lens. Comparing an image from a 24-105 with one from a 200 f/2 on the same body shows up on larger print with better detail definition as well as improved contrast and colour rendition. The 70-200 f/2.8 II is very good as well.

If you are only taking for the web then a 5Dc plus top lens is as good as anything (as it gives that unique 5Dc colour rendition)


----------



## Bosman (Aug 7, 2012)

Buy the camera and brand that works for what you do and be happy but wait if you have one or the other that doesn't fit your upgrade path. People don't need to switch. I switched from Nikon in 2007 and i kicked myself in 2008 when the Nikon d3 came around. I wasted $3000 on switching. Did i get more work or more amazing results, not that i recall. Its really sad when i see people switching because those who do buy into the BS behind it. Buy your camera learn everything about it and love it! If you need more mp from Canon then wait, it won't be long. I truly believe that and i know its even a rumor but its just logical since the 1dx only fits 60% of the Canon pro body photographer purchasers out there since the mp havent been upped. If however you needed the mp, then D800 it is. Its really not as political as it seems. Does a tool fit your workflow? That is the question that you need to ask. For me, the D800 is outside my workflow as like the d800 is so slow to begin with that Nikon would make people hate them with a med raw option since it would take a decade to write it. Also, I have prob 15 or more Hard drives and i can tell you the D800 would make me need 5 more this year alone if I had one. No thanks.


----------



## lola (Aug 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Everyone goes on about the D800 - excluding mps it is barely to the 2007 1Ds3 standard as an all-round camera



You made my day!

Resolution and DR have direct impact on IQ and yet you compare D800 with 1Ds Mark III.




briansquibb said:


> Even my 2004 1Ds2 is still churning out impressive pictures at 16x12.



My 2001 Fiat Coupé still runs very smooth, you think I should compare it to a 2012 Mercedes-Benz?


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 7, 2012)

lola said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone goes on about the D800 - excluding mps it is barely to the 2007 1Ds3 standard as an all-round camera
> ...



Resolution beyond those pixels needed have no impact on IQ. a 10mp picture when printed contains no extra detail whether it comes from a 21mp camera or a 36mp camera. It is the colour rendition and clarity that really counts. 

DR on the 1DS3 is very close that on the D800 - particularly in normal shooting where DR requirements rarely get above 10. The 1Ds3 matches the noise of the D800 at 50-200iso

I would be very surprised indeed if there was any visible improvement on a 16x12 from a D800 rather than the 1Ds3 - particularly when the Canons superior lens are taken into account.


----------



## kirillica (Aug 7, 2012)

lola said:


> My 2001 Fiat Coupé still runs very smooth, you think I should compare it to a 2012 Mercedes-Benz?


It's not a correct comparison, if you take it in general. Yes, old gear cannot produce large prints on, let's say, 300DPI. but for web or 10*15cm - you won't see the difference. I even saw some test pictures from Hassy and some mirrorless camera: on 10*15cm 300dpi print-size even professionals can't distinguish which belongs to which camera


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 7, 2012)

kirillica said:


> lola said:
> 
> 
> > My 2001 Fiat Coupé still runs very smooth, you think I should compare it to a 2012 Mercedes-Benz?
> ...



10 x 8 @300dpi is about 8mp

16 x 12 @300dpi is 4800 x 3600 which the 5D2/5D3/1Ds3 manages natively - you wont tell that from a D800 except by colour rendition (maybe)


----------



## Bosman (Aug 7, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lola (Aug 7, 2012)

briansquibb & kirillica; here's a good read for you...



> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html


----------



## jrista (Aug 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> lola said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Have to start off saying that I completely agree with you regarding Canon lenses. In recent years, the quality of Canon optics has shot to the top of the charts. They are sharper, with better lens coating (SWC, or SubWavelength Coating, is a nanocoating technology not related to multicoating), and lighter in weight than pretty much anything from the competition. Not even Zeiss compares to a Canon lens these days when you factor in lens flare, which is FAR better controlled on Canon lenses (many Zeiss lenses flare very badly, despite the use of their much-vaunted T* multicoating.) 

Lenses aside, I think we need to clear up the facts behind some of your other arguments. First off, color rendition. This is a VERY OLD argument that dates well back to the early days of color film, and color film in general. It meant a lot when you found a color film that produced the kind of color you really liked. I am not a big film shooter myself, however I've seen quite a few photos shot with film. Most of my favorite landscape photographers who still use or have heavily used film in the past all seem to use Velvia 50, and for good reason. A few have chosen other types of film, such as Provia, for the types of work they do...such as winter landscapes taken at the poles...the cooler tone of Provia suits those regions better than Velvia in many cases. 

The idea that a digital sensor and particular camera can produce better digital color than any other camera is an odd idea. For one, digital sensors don't see in color at all, for all intents and purposes. The pixel values read out of any given photodiode are simply a scalar value representing a luminance reading. In a bayer sensor, each pixel has a color filter over it to restrict the wavelengths of light that actually reach the photodiode, but it doesn't make the raw value read out of that pixel more blue, red, or green by any measure of the word...its still just a luminance value, albeit linked to a certain (relatively broad) wavelength range. What makes those raw pixel values have color is the algorithmic demosaicing process performed by a computer. A key component of such algorithms is the RGB tone curve applied to each channel during demosaicing. Apply the same exact tone curves of the 1Ds III to any other Canon camera, and the results will be nearly identical. If there are any discrepancies, its not a difficult process to tweak some RGB curves in ACR, Lightroom 4.1, or any variety of other RAW processor to normalize the results. You could even save those tweaks as import or camera profiles that are then automatically applied to every photo you import from any number of cameras, and achieve the exact color rendition you want every time you import any photos from any camera. 

To put it in simpler terms: *Color rendition is a SOFTWARE MATTER, not a hardware matter.* The notion that any particular camera is solely capable of producing the kind of final output color you want is archaic, and really needs to be eliminated from discussions about digital photography and camera gear. It applied to film because of the largely immutable nature of any given film (excluding what you could do with chemicals and projectors in a dark room)...but just about EVERYTHING is mutable with a RAW file.

The next point about the downscaled results of a D800 not looking any better than the native results from a 1Ds III, I strongly dispute. Printed at a high PPI and at maximum DPI, such as 600ppi at 4800x2400 or 720ppi at 2880x1440/5760x1440 will easily demonstrate either the inferiority of the 1D III or the superiority of the D800. Downscaling such a large native image by so much is a far better approach to sharpening the photo, as you have more source data to work with than if you simply apply a sharpen filter to the 1Ds III. As someone who has spent about three years printing my own work, I can attest to the benefits of printing at 600ppi rather than 300ppi, even for photos that you wouldn't think could benefit from it (See my article here: http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/2737/124). The improvements are subtle but meaningful to anything more than a basic cursory glance. In my experience, at least for fans of my work, a high quality, 600ppi print will draw most viewers in closer than a 300ppi print is suitable for, and I always get exclamations about the fine, sharp detail. And these are 8x10, 8.5x11, 12x18, 13x19 prints...nothing exceptionally large. For the larger prints I do have, such as 24x36" and 30x40" canvas prints, the difference between a 150ppi print and a 300ppi print are also noticeable, even to eyes less trained than my own. The more source data you have to work with, regardless of whether you are printing huge or printing small, can and does have an impact on the final results. I'd take a 36mp sensor any day for my 8x10 and 13x19 inch prints, if solely to provide the crisp, sharp, clear results I want without the need to apply a halo-creating sharpening filter that inevitably shows up in print regardless my efforts.

To say that the D800's resolution advantage has NOTHING to offer whatsover over the 1DsIII is somewhat naive. If nothing than for the intrinsic "sharpening" you gain when downscaling a huge image to nearly half its size, and the ability to avoid having to apply a halo-generating sharpening filter, is valueable. Not to mention the quality of those sharper edges...sharpening tends to enhance undesirable artifacts, increases microcontrast in undesirable ways at times, etc. Downscaling absorbs undesirable artifacts and doesn't unduly increase microcontrast where it doesn't belong, nor overdo acutance along strong edges, producing a cleaner result. Printed at high PPI (600/720), I'd take the D800 (or a high-MP EOS) over the 1DsIII every time.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> If there are any discrepancies, its not a difficult process to tweak some RGB curves in ACR, Lightroom 4.1, or any variety of other RAW processor to normalize the results.
> 
> To put it in simpler terms: *Color rendition is a SOFTWARE MATTER, not a hardware matter.* T



That assumes an analogue signal sans noise, once quantified you can run into banding problems. With a filter array that requires less manipulation you're less likely to run into problems caused by the realities of data processing.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 8, 2012)

I read your post jrista and one minor question I had regarding your images you are observing for your arguments, what exactly do you do when you "downsize" say, a 21mp photo out of camera? What exactly do you mean by this? I think I know, but I wanted to be clear. Thanks.


----------



## jrista (Aug 8, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I read your post jrista and one minor question I had regarding your images you are observing for your arguments, what exactly do you do when you "downsize" say, a 21mp photo out of camera? What exactly do you mean by this? I think I know, but I wanted to be clear. Thanks.



Downsize, downscale, sorry if I'm using confusing terms. The D800, with a 36.3mp sensor, produces images 7360x4912 pixels in size. The 1DsIII, with a 21.1mp sensor, produces images 5616x3744 pixels in size. The D800 images are 72% larger in terms of area than the 1DsIII images. If you scale down the D800 images from their native size to the size of the 1DsIII images, you are effectively producing an enriched image compared to the 1DsIII. Its the same size, but it was produced from more source information, which has the dual effect of normalizing noise (I wouldn't say it necessarily reduces the noise floor, just makes the difference between each pixel due to noise less), and theoretically producing more accurate output pixels relative to a native 1DsIII image of the exact same thing.



Lawliet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If there are any discrepancies, its not a difficult process to tweak some RGB curves in ACR, Lightroom 4.1, or any variety of other RAW processor to normalize the results.
> ...



If you were making significant changes to each color channel with custom RGB curves, you might enhance noise in any given channel. But you would have to be making some very significant changes. The degree of changes you would need to make to normalize the color output of, say, a 5D II to a 1DsIII is very minor in the grand scheme of things...no where near enough to actually affect noise on any meaningful level. Granted...not having to do any fiddling at all is still a benefit, and if you are unwilling to spend an hour ONCE per camera to create a camera or import profile to produce the kind of color tone you want, then spending a lot of money on a top-tier camera like the 1DsIII might indeed be worth it. Generally speaking, though, I wouldn't say color quality is really a solid reason to spend thousands of dollars more for a camera. I think there are FAR more compelling reasons to spend that money, such as better weather sealing, better metering, and usually a better AF system.

Back to noise, namely at low ISO (where electronic noise has the potential to dominate.) If the D800 had the same amount of electronic noise as the 1DsIII, scaling its images down to to 5616x3744 pixels would mitigate about 72% of that noise relative to the 1DsIII, but you wouldn't actually completely normalize the results. Seeing as the D800 has considerably less electronic noise (over 600% LESS in relative terms!!!), scaling down by 58% should have the effect of producing images that are *far cleaner and clearer* than the 1DsIII...without any post-process noise reduction or sharpening.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 8, 2012)

Thanks, I understand now.


----------



## kirillica (Aug 8, 2012)

lola said:


> briansquibb & kirillica; here's a good read for you...
> 
> 
> 
> > http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/why-80-megapixels-just-wont-be-enough.html


))) that's so funny to read and compare to this link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

btw, resolving power of the newest lenses is equal or below 60Mpix. and they are dreaming about 400Mpix sensors


----------



## Woody (Aug 8, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ok. more megapixels. That was always going to happen.
> 
> But will the sensor be any better?
> Will it still have vertical banding up the wazoo in dark areas?
> ...



You'll probably receive many +1 for your post. Count me in. ;D

If... if Canon can somehow nail this low ISO DR thing, and if they also release a 14-24 f/2.8L lens with killer resolution like the Nikkor equivalent, they'll have no fear of losing their status as market leader.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 8, 2012)

Apparent sharpness due to downsizing is a software issue - and therefore can be made equal

Colour rendition in digital can be replicated - however it is extremely difficult to match the curves. Each channel has different sensitivity - which is why the colours vary.

I still stand by my original proposition in that the prints from a 5d2/5d3/1DS3 are probably indistinguishable from a D800 until the native pixel size is exceeeded - about 16x12

The 1Ds3 excels because of the lack of noise and banding upto iso400, add the better Canon lens and the print IQ will match the D800

Where mps really helps is for very large images or in cropping. The cons of large mps is the ability to save the images fast enough - which is where the D800 is limited.

I am looking forward to compare low iso images from the 1DX and 1Ds3 - 18mps vs 21 mps


----------



## Bosman (Aug 9, 2012)

I want a 1dx! I'll just live thru you guys experiences.


----------



## paulrossjones (Aug 14, 2012)

cbphoto said:


> I would love:
> 
> A 36+ Mp camera body from Canon
> In a 1Dx-style body
> ...



exactly what i am wanting. i have tested a d800 along side my 5dmk3 quite a lot, and the d800 files eat the canons files both in latitude in the darks and sharpness. I need more file size, every job i shoot have multiple croppings.
the 5dmk3 has been very disappointing- hardly any improvement for stills over the mk2 except better focus.

but i have a lot of canon glass, and i really like the canon lenses over nikon. i would like to keep with canon, but i am in the situation that i might have to buy a d800.

one feature i would love is wider placement of the focus points. i went through my portfolio and 60% of the shots that subject matter is outside the focus points. 

i would happily pay more for the camera over the 1dx. i just want a camera that can finally retire my contax/p65+ .

paul


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 14, 2012)

cbphoto said:


> I would love:
> 
> The best dynamic range delivered at the lowest ISO values



Combine that with a higher sync speed and I'm happy - the D800 can go to 1/320 via custom setting, the 1Dx with dumb triggers or FlexTT syncs a full stop faster then the 5D3. Outdoors that not only cuts the amount auf packs and their batteries/gas generators in half, but also helps with blur from ambient light.
And don't be cheap on the light meter... 
That was an interesting revelation when I realized that compensating for the 5D3s shutter costs more then a D800 plus the bread and butter lenses


----------



## M.ST (Aug 14, 2012)

It´s true that the 5D Mark III is only better in speed and AF.

But I don´t like the image quality from the D800E. In my opinion it´s not advisable to put more than 30 megapixels on a FF chip.

If you compare the image quality from the D800E with the image quality of a medium format camera the D800E loose, because the image is totally unsharp. But it´s all a question what are you willing to pay for the best image quality.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Aug 14, 2012)

M.ST said:


> It´s true that the 5D Mark III is only better in speed and AF.
> 
> But I don´t like the image quality from the D800E. In my opinion it´s not advisable to put more than 30 megapixels on a FF chip.
> 
> If you compare the image quality from the D800E with the image quality of a medium format camera the D800E loose, because the image is totally unsharp. But it´s all a question what are you willing to pay for the best image quality.



My images from the D800E were extremely sharp, when the camera was used with a good lens (14-24mm f2.8G) and when the camera could manage to get the focus right.

If Nikon were ever to come clean and admit the problems this camera has, and come up with fixes for their AF problems, crippled Live View, and clean up their wide-spread QC issues, I would switch back in a heartbeat.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 14, 2012)

I want to see the REAL 1Ds Mark IV.


----------



## paulrossjones (Aug 21, 2012)

M.ST said:


> It´s true that the 5D Mark III is only better in speed and AF.
> 
> But I don´t like the image quality from the D800E. In my opinion it´s not advisable to put more than 30 megapixels on a FF chip.
> 
> If you compare the image quality from the D800E with the image quality of a medium format camera the D800E loose, because the image is totally unsharp. But it´s all a question what are you willing to pay for the best image quality.




in what way are the d800 files lacking?

in all my tests the d800 absolutely leaves my 5dmk3 files for dead. far better dynamic range, especially in the darks. when the darks are lifted, the file just lightens, doesn't have any of the ugly clumping canon grain. 
I have only tested up to 1000 iso (the most i ever need) , and the d800 looks better then as well- more film like in the grain. The 5dmk3 has a terrible low light quality- especially when the light has a colour cast. 
the resolution is a lot more, upsizes better. 

if you test the cameras- you will see that more than 30mp does hold up with sensor. the files are sharper, the graduations are smoother. have you actually shots both cameras side by side?

i also have a 60mp phase back on a contax, and although this is sharper than the nikon, i think i prefer the d800 files for the look over the phase (that has the same horrible low dark grain as the canon).

also, the tethering into a macbookpro retina with usb3 is a lot faster than the 5dmk3/usb2 - even though the files are almost twice the size.

I have tested a rented d800 for 2 days now side by side with my mk3, and file wise i can honestly sat the nikon eats the canon. 

i dont really like the handling or the lenses of the nikon, so im holding out for canon to come up with an answer to the d800.

paul


----------



## paulrossjones (Aug 21, 2012)

paulrossjones said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > It´s true that the 5D Mark III is only better in speed and AF.
> ...


----------



## jrista (Aug 22, 2012)

paulrossjones said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > It´s true that the 5D Mark III is only better in speed and AF.
> ...



This is a placeholder, in an attempt to figure out this hateful "Access Denied - Security Block" issue!! DIE, DIE, SECURITY BLOCK!


Test, test, test.

I won't deny that the D800 is quite a phenomenal camera, and a game changer on some levels, however the benefits you talk about only really apply at ISO 100 and ISO 200, with diminishing returns at ISO 400 and above. By ISO 1600, the 5D III takes the lead, and actually has better DR at all higher ISO settings. The read noise only affects the 5D III at ISO 100 and 200, as by ISO 400 read noise on Canon sensors is the same as on Sony sensors... less than 4 electrons per pixel. Additionally, once you start pushing ISO, color noise really picks up quick on the D800, exhibiting in ALL color channels, which can be quite distracting. There have been numerous examples that demonstrate downscaling to normalize results doesn't do much to eliminate the lower noise advantage the 5D III has over the D800 either. 

There are strengths and weaknesses of both cameras. If you need the best low-ISO beast you can get your hands on and don't need superb AF or a high frame rate, which generally boils down to studio and landscape photography, the D800 wins hands down... you can't beat another two stop of DR, and you can't beat the form factor for the resolution offered. But if you need *versatility*, _the 5D III stomps all over the D800_, despite its lackluster low-ISO performance. And that is nothing to say of Canon glass (which has improved tremendously over the last few years, in my opinion surpassing Zeiss as some of the best glass on planet Earth), nor the superior AF capabilities of Canon cameras, especially 61pt AF bodies, when paired with NEW glass (check LensRental's recent blog series on AF performance, and note the improvements in consistency and accuracy of AF when new lenses are paired with new cameras... the 1D X, 5D III, and 7D... its as accurate as the best manual focusing using maximum zoom on live view, which is about as accurate as it gets).

We could also go into the atrocious Nikon customer support that has plagued those early D800 adopters unlucky enough to get stuck with one of the nasty green-LCD bodies from earlier in the release of the D800, a problem which Nikon was and still is very reluctant to admit, let alone actually do anything about. The same green tint exists in output files to some degree, despite firmware updates, and apparently can't be fixed in post, even with hours of attempts. Thousands of customers have been screwed over by Nikon customer support, costing them hundreds of dollars for multiple return and repair attempts, along side having to jump through half a dozen hoops just to get Nikon support to even consider a repair request in the first place. Having had to use Canon service several times, I can vouch for the fact that it is worlds better than anything Nikon has ever offered... no questions asked, rapid turnaround and superb quality service every single time (although their techs are about as nerdy as they get, which often results in some rather... strange, if otherwise acceptable... phone conversations).

Its not just about how well a camera performs at ISO 100... there are dozens of other factors to take into account. I would, in all honesty, LOVE to have 14 full stops of DR... but I _won't_ give up _anything_ to get it. I like the versatility of Canon DSLR's, I LOVE Canon glass, and I couldn't live without their unwavering commitment to customer support. Canon knows they are at a disadvantage technologically right now... and they know the D800 is making waves... it may take longer than their customers wish, but I have no doubt that Canon will retaliate with something just as good, if not better, within the next year or two. They have quite a few intriguing patents up their sleeves, including a Foveon-style layered (non-bayer array) sensor (something that could make quite a few waves itself... )


----------

