# High Megapixel DLSR a niche market?



## JoeDavid (Oct 26, 2013)

I had an email exchange with someone in Canon USA marketing recently. As a long time user of Canon equipment, I expressed my disappointment with Canon's lack of a high megapixel offering. With the D800/E and now the Sony A7R, Canon is distinctly lacking in that area. The response I got was troubling to me. I'm paraphrasing but, basically, I was told that the person agreed with me but that high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market. Personally I don't consider landscape, commercial, fine art, large group photography, etc... a niche market. It is more of an enthusiast, semi-pro and pro market but a "niche" market? I guess Canon USA also considers mirror-less bodies a niche market as well...

I had also pointed out that Canon was pricing camera bodies much more expensively than the competition. The answer to that one was that the market would decide prices. To me he was saying, buy somebody else's equipment, Canon doesn't care. There are plenty more people out there willing to pay their prices. I've been with Canon since they came out with the EOS mount back in '87 but it may finally be time for a change.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 26, 2013)

Was this an exchange of emails in official capacity or just a personal exchange?


----------



## bholliman (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't have any problem with his comment on prices. Canon and every other company sets their prices based on the market. Mainstream companies like Canon can price higher than the competition because of their brand recognition and reputation for high quality products. Companies with less well regarded products historically like Sigma and Tampon must set their prices lower to attract buyers. If Sigma continues to produce excellent quality lenses, their reputation will continue to improve e and they will be able to charge premium prices as well. Canon can only retain their premium pricing by continuing to me a leader in the industry and to maintain high quality.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 26, 2013)

JoeDavid said:


> The response I got was troubling to me. I'm paraphrasing but, basically, I was told that the person agreed with me but that high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market. Personally I don't consider landscape, commercial, fine art, large group photography, etc... a niche market.



It's niche in term of how many cameras Canon will sell, and how much profit Canon will make from it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 26, 2013)

Many users who bought a D800 are selling it, it requires a knowledgeable photographer to get the best out of all those pixels, and real estate agents and casual users suddenly realize that they can't deal with the large files and go for something simpler.

That doesn't mean that more MP is bad, but its niche in that only photography pros or enthusiasts who are willing to learn and to deal with the large files will get the benefit. 

I know a person who asked me if he should switch from his D800 to a 5D MK III. He has a big investment in Nikon hardware and lenses. I told him that he should stick with his Nikon simply because changing hardware will not make him a better photographer or make his images better. He needs to learn to post process and edit to get the best out of his images, and needs to learn more about lighting.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 26, 2013)

Well then, good thing I preordered the A7R. 

It seems that Canon has lost their mind completely. High MP and mirrorless full frame is no more niche than the 1DX.

And it's not just about the high resolution. Canon has still to release a sensor with improved dynamic range and NO shadow banding.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 26, 2013)

One of the key reasons behind Canon's success in the DSLR market is their top end pro bodies, combined with extensive marketing. People buying consumer cameras have seen the flocks of pros with 1D bodies and white lenses. I believe Canon would be gambling with their position if they gave the top spot amongst the pros to one of the others. 

I'm not sure resolution would be the most important for that though. If I had to choose between more pixles and DR/high ISO noise performance, I know what I would choose. But to be perceived as the top brand, Canon needs to support both (preferably combined).


----------



## Kwanon (Oct 26, 2013)

Oh, please....

Whoever you were sending emails to DOES NOT represent Canon as a whole....
He is not the president of the company or anyone even close!

Until you get someone from Canon who's in charge of anything don't think anything about what that nameless "canon" guy said.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 26, 2013)

High MP is niche compared to needs of Canon's userbase.

You have to look at the market as a whole.

My H4D50 Raw files are 70mb each. It has a knock on effect in terms of processing and storage. The end user has files way bigger than they need to have them in nearly all cases and I have more work to do supplying them in sizes they can handle.

I mainly use my Hassy for Actors headshots (for the res and colour accuracy) and for Landscapes when on Holiday. Sometimes at Weddings.

That's it. Yet I took 122,000 images with the 1DX in the last 12 months. An 18mp camera.

Personally, I would prefer a 22mp medium format CMOS solution from Canon so I can have 16 bit colour with High ISO performance. Then I'd use that for EVERYTHING.

Image quality is my number one concern. If Canon came out with a 35mm 16bit 1DX that was 12mp. I'd buy it.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 26, 2013)

Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I am staggered at how many 5D mkiiis Canon seem to be selling. For an extra £450 Canon lifted the mkiii to full pro spec as requested by its sales profile of mkiis ( photographers eschewing the 1Ds mkiii for the 5D mkii ) ; not a bad deal IMO. 

Fort those that don't want to pay the extra they introduced the 6D. Do you think the 6D was the answer to Nikon's D600 ? I bet it was the other way around but Nikon got to announce first.

I think the biggest threat to Canon's higher end dslrs could be the rumoured Nikon DF ( Digital 'F' mount - who the hell said 'Digital Fusion ?'  ). If they get this camera sorted properly with a really good 16 - 18 mp chip, good ergonomics and sturdy build with no b****y pop up flash, and manage to still give a very good OVF along with the EVF facility the camera could be a winner for them.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 26, 2013)

What did you expect him to say? "Yeah, we are really missing the boat on the high MP cameras...Nikon/Sony is really killing us on that and we can't do anything about it"......you got predictable stock answers. That is all. 

I am sure Canon will call a high MP cameras a "niche" right up until the second they release a high MP camera.....then it will be the "best thing ever"....."game changing resolution"......and Canon will be "leaders of the technology...."


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 26, 2013)

somebody from canon usa..... well you can stop reading after that.
no official statement, probably a guy doing callcenter work.

you know how tight canon is about R&D "some guy" in the USA sure knows nothing.

but hey.. good opportunity to complain about canon and tell everyone you preordered camera XY because canon does not what you want them to do. ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 26, 2013)

JoeDavid said:


> was told that the person agreed with me but that high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market. Personally I don't consider landscape, commercial, fine art, large group photography, etc... a niche market.



He was probably not talking of _subjective importance_, but of estimated _sales volume_ - and he's correct here, because for a *working* high-mp camera you need lenses that are able to resolve this resolution - and with both crop (dense pixels) and ff (sharpness across the frame) this would mean cost well beyond the current Rebel or 6D *system* prices.

As for _prices_ themselves, it's clear Canon is driving a high-price policy for early adopters, and then lets the market decide how fast and far the prices drop - this is frustrating for enthusiasts who want the newest and best products now, but if you know it and wait some it's expectable.

My issue with Canon (and what you should ask about ) is that they're too often crippling their own products for internal differentiation and currently ignoring the middle segment altogether but concentrate on either high-end (200-400L, 1dc, ...) or low-end or video (st-m, IS primes) and there are interesting patents and prototypes, but to no avail - a 430ex successor with rt anyone?


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 26, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> As for _prices_ themselves, it's clear Canon is driving a high-price policy for early adopters, and then lets the market decide how fast and far the prices drop - this is frustrating for enthusiasts who want the newest and best products now, but if you know it and wait some it's expectable.



yep.. in a few month the 6D dropped from 1999 euro to 1580 euro here.

and for someone who does not need a sports AF system it´s a fantastic camera.
are there limitations, sure. otherwise nobody would need to buy a body with more features.

we live in camera heaven these days and all people on such gear sites like this do... is complain.
complaining will not make your images look better.. more MP neither....


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 26, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> we live in camera heaven these days and all people on such gear sites like this do... is complain. complaining will not make your images look better..



But complaining, then discussing workarounds for the issues you're complaining about will - so I see nothing bad in pointing out products' shortcomings as everyone can decide how much corner sharpness or other (non-?) issues matter.



Lichtgestalt said:


> more MP neither....



Good point there - I have to admit with my new 6d experience looking at the 60d crop shots my first thought usually is "oh my, what crappy iq" - but after some seconds I always realize 100% crop on the monitor is not the most important aspect, and if you cannot do nice photography you won't be able to with ff or high-mp ff...


----------



## photonius (Oct 26, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Well then, good thing I preordered the A7R.



won't you have a problem getting lenses that can actually really use all these MPs? Canon still has the best lens lineup, and even DxoMark show that a 5DIII with a good Canon lens produces better results than a D800. example:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-500mm-and-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR-lens-reviews-legendary-performers-in-the-range/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-500mm-f-4G-ED-VR-fights-off-both-Canon-and-Sony


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 26, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > more MP neither....
> ...



You summed it up here; I saw the same thing after using a 5D mkii. Looking at the files on screen I thought 'this is _much_ better than the original 5D. But it doesn't translate to the image as a picture, at least not one of a 'normal' size. 

The only photographers who will benefit from very high mp all the time are those that like to look at their images at 100% on screen.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 26, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Lichtgestalt said:
> ...



Even in this case you need to have good quality pixels on the 100% level. If an image consists of very many pixels, but whatever information gets there through lens, filter and sensor is of mediocre or even bad quality per pixel, even a pixel peeping photographer won't have an overall resolution benefit compared to another camera with less MP, but better per-pixel quality. This may become a rather frustrating experience for some.

The experience with crop sensor cameras like the 7D should set a clear example regarding the limitations of increasing pixel density.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 26, 2013)

Also remember that markets change: what constitutes a niche market today may be mainstream in 5 years. 9 years ago, when I bought my first digital camera, its 8MP was considered large for its class, and there was a shot-to-shot lag writing to CF. As processors and memory get faster, and as user demand increases, eventually there will be a need for more MP. Demand may have hit a plateau after it achieved the speed/IQ/reliability to replace 35mm film. 18-22MP is more than adequate for most amateur and pro uses, and there are diminishing returns beyond that.

At some point, MP will creep up to meet slowly advancing demand and supporting tech. Yes, 35MP+ is a niche market now, but it won't stay that way forever.

From the business perspective, those companies who push out huge MP FF cameras not "innovative" they are desperate. Think of it: why would a tech company, any tech company, blow all its best tech on a current generation product? They'd want to hold some back for the next gen. And who wants a mutant camera with a great sensor, but second- or third-rate components and "fit and finish?" Some, yes, but not most. Most people want something like a 5d3, where everything just works.

I don't mean to disparage the D800, which seems to be a great camera, and I really hope the Sonys turn out well because competition is good and I'm a fan of EVF; but yes, these are currently niche cameras put out by companies desperate to improve their market position. As long as Canon (any company) leads in market share, you can expect them to trail slightly in innovation because innovation is inefficient.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 26, 2013)

I believe that for most camera owners 6 to 10 MPs is plenty and the entire MP increase over the years is basically a marketing gimmick. More MPs for professional photographers is another story - and since the number of pros is small compared to the number of photography enthusiasts, one could easily call it a "niche" market.

I still have the original 6 MP rebel and over the years have purchased two new replacements (14 MP and 18 MP, I believe) only to return them both. For viewing on my monitor, or for printing and selling prints up to 8" x 12' there was no significant difference with more MPs. Recently, when I needed a camera that could print significantly larger sizes to produce photos for public meetings, up to 24 x 36, I purchased a 6D. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice camera and it has many more - and more easy to set - settings. I like it a lot (although I had to return the first two I bought due to exposure issues), but for taking vacation or family pics, I would prefer a new Canon camera body with all the bells and whistles of the new cameras - but with only about 10 MP and smaller file sizes!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 26, 2013)

dak723 said:


> I believe that for most camera owners 6 to 10 MPs is plenty and the entire MP increase over the years is basically a marketing gimmick. More MPs for professional photographers is another story - and since the number of pros is small compared to the number of photography enthusiasts, one could easily call it a "niche" market.
> 
> I still have the original 6 MP rebel and over the years have purchased two new replacements (14 MP and 18 MP, I believe) only to return them both. For viewing on my monitor, or for printing and selling prints up to 8" x 12' there was no significant difference with more MPs. Recently, when I needed a camera that could print significantly larger sizes to produce photos for public meetings, up to 24 x 36, I purchased a 6D. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice camera and it has many more - and more easy to set - settings. I like it a lot (although I had to return the first two I bought due to exposure issues), but for taking vacation or family pics, I would prefer a new Canon camera body with all the bells and whistles of the new cameras - but with only about 10 MP and smaller file sizes!


Well said. There is no reason to over 8 megapixel image if the purpose is just viewing on your computer, or print to paper 30x40 cm. I've printed 50x70 cm with modest Rebel XTI (10 megapixel) and was breathtaking. If stop to think a moment, you'll find high-quality lenses will most visible improvements of 36 megapixel. I understand that some jobs (rare) benefit from high megapixel, but in this case lenses and technique for accurate focus, shutter speed enough, and tripod are essential to take advantage of improvements.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 26, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> You summed it up here; I saw the same thing after using a 5D mkii. Looking at the files on screen I thought 'this is _much_ better than the original 5D. But it doesn't translate to the image as a picture, at least not one of a 'normal' size.
> 
> The only photographers who will benefit from very high mp all the time are those that like to look at their images at 100% on screen.



And to enjoy doing so, they may well have to adjust their shooting style and brush up on their technique if not using a tripod. Consider these comments by Roger Cicala on the D800 at the end of his enthusiastic comments on the rental page for that camera at lensrentals.com:

"All of that [= high praise] being said, I know already that between 25 and 50 people are going to email after using the camera and say their shots didn’t seem much sharper than their old camera. And I’m going to ask to see their pictures. And they’re going to send me shots taken with a nice prime lens at f/1.4. Repeat after me: there is no lens that can do justice to this camera at f/1.4. The best primes can at f/2.0, but most primes will need to be at f/2.8. Even the best zooms will be better at f/4 than f/2.8. If you need to shoot at wide open aperture, save some money and rent a D700."

Presumably that will be true of any camera with a similar sensor. I happen to like looking at images 100% on a large screen from time to time, just to see how much detail the camera happened to pick up, so I rented a D800E just for the heck of it. I think he's right. It also seems to be the case, as others have said, that you have to be able to hold a camera really steady if not using a tripod - in several cases, I found that photos which looked perfectly good viewed at a normal size on a 30" monitor revealed evidence of slight movement at 100%, something I hardly ever see with my FF Canons. The detail was wonderful, but....


----------



## Pi (Oct 26, 2013)

*Low Megapixel DLSR a niche market*

It is the other way around. Higher mp dSLRs are becoming mainstream, and lower resolution ones will soon be considered a niche market (when high fps or maybe video is more important).


----------



## deleteme (Oct 26, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> It's niche in term of how many cameras Canon will sell, and how much profit Canon will make from it.



Absolutely correct. Canon has a huge line that has a ton of sales volume. 
Canon got sidetracked in the MP race a while ago precisely because the were responding to their customer demands for better video and low light performance. Nikon continued chasing the MP numbers because they did not sense a cost -effective battle in the video arena.

The manufacturers only chase so many rabbits.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 26, 2013)

Pi said:


> It is the other way around. Higher mp dSLRs are becoming mainstream, and lower resolution ones will soon be considered a niche market.



We should define what "high mp" actually means - he 36mp of the d800 might come close - but for me "high mp" is ff 40mp+ as this is a higher pixel density than current crop & really makes a difference, for good or worse.



AmbientLight said:


> Even in this case you need to have good quality pixels on the 100% level. If an image consists of very many pixels, but whatever information gets there through lens, filter and sensor is of mediocre or even bad quality per pixel, even a pixel peeping photographer won't have an overall resolution benefit compared to another camera with less MP, but better per-pixel quality. This may become a rather frustrating experience for some.



True, but for some cases a higher mp mediocre shot has advantages over a low mp good pixel-quality one - you simply have more data to work with, which might matter to image rotation, lens correction and modern noise reduction algorithms (take the newest dxo version for example). As long as the postprocessing algorithm is able to isolate the junk data (outresolved lens or sensor noise) from the good data you can still downsize it and probably end up with better iq than the low mp sensor - but of course at the cost of higher data storage.

Also higher-mp Canon ff cameras will hopefully get an in-camera raw crop mode like Nikon - 100% af array coverage and less junk data if your lens isn't long enough... and m-raw and s-raw might get more often used than now.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 26, 2013)

When processing speeds (PC, laptop, even phones), storage space, etc make high MP fast and easy, I'd take 100 MP. Why not? It gives more options.

Even for video. 4K video allows you to crop and zoom in post, or create a slider look in post (without using a slider), etc, and still end up with a 1080p finished product.

As the tools get more powerful, we all benefit. And creative people will find unexpected uses for the new abilities, including ultra-high MP cams. 

I say ... bring it on baby!


----------



## photonius (Oct 26, 2013)

bassfield said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Not a lame argument, just the choices of super high res lenses for Sony are more limited. Of course it was not clear that you plan to use Nikon lenses on the Sony.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 26, 2013)

photonius said:


> bassfield said:
> 
> 
> > photonius said:
> ...



Interesting point. The key issue is that you do require a full system of lenses and camera to be adequate for high MP shooting. If there is even one no-good compromise in the entire system end results will suffer and the resulting high-MP images won't be forgiving either.


----------



## JoeDavid (Oct 26, 2013)

Kwanon said:


> Oh, please....
> 
> Whoever you were sending emails to DOES NOT represent Canon as a whole....
> He is not the president of the company or anyone even close!
> ...



I wouldn't mention the guy's name in case Canon has someone scan these forums. He was not speaking officially, just candidly to me. I will say that you would probably know the name...

In any event, the change I am contemplating is to medium format. I used to shoot all three (35mm, 6x6cm, and 4x5") back in my film days but with the cost of entry for digital I concentrated on my Canon equipment. To get into medium format in digital is extremely expensive. I'm looking at Phase One equipment, but even used, it is about like buying a luxury car! If I end up going ahead with it, it won't just be for higher resolution. As some of you pointed out, dynamic range appears to be better in the large MF sensors.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't understand why any of this is surprising to anyone.



JoeDavid said:


> ...high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market.



Of course it is a niche market. About the only group of professionals remaining today that constitutes a market of any size are portrait, wedding and event photographers. That's a grueling, highly competitive business with a high failure rate and a high rate of turnover. Canon initially priced the 5DIII at a premium for that market because they were confident that the value added by the camera as a competitive tool would prompt these photographers to buy it. From the sales figures, it's obvious they were right. 

Photojournalism jobs were never plentiful and with the consolidation and cost cutting going on in newspapers today, they are even harder to come by. Very few people actually earn a living in the areas you mention: landscape, commercial, fine art and large group photography. So yes, it is a small niche market.



JoeDavid said:


> I had also pointed out that Canon was pricing camera bodies much more expensively than the competition. The answer to that one was that the market would decide prices. To me he was saying, buy somebody else's equipment, Canon doesn't care.



Are you shocked that the market sets the prices? And, what he was really saying is that Canon is confident that their products are good enough to justify their costs in the market. That's hardly the same as saying buy someone else's equipment.

Besides, the whole idea that Canon products are overpriced in comparison to other manufacturers doesn't really hold up. Maybe the product you want is more expensive, but across the entire line, there is little difference between Canon and Nikon prices. And, from what I've seen of other manufacturers pricing lately, Canon isn't out of line there either.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 27, 2013)

unfocused said:


> JoeDavid said:
> 
> 
> > ...high megapixel DLSRs was a "niche" market.
> ...



? Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

i have bought the trey ratcliff new zealand tutorial.

on that are original files from the D800.

i honestly don´t know what the fuss is about.
when i look at the original NEF files included i see nothing that is breathtaking.

all images he has on that DVD don´t show a better image quality then a 5D MK3 or 6D. 
the borders look mushy. 
and i guess the MP are wasted because his lenses can not resolve.

i can hardly see any more details in his images then i see in 5D MK3 images.

his images are not bad, thats not what im saying.
i am just saying that, looking at the images from acknowledged and prominent pro, i see nothing that makes me wish to have a D800 over a 5D MK3.

this is just useless talk. 36 MP or 22 MP will not make a big difference in most cases... not even at 1:1.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> somebody from canon usa..... well you can stop reading after that.
> no official statement, probably a guy doing callcenter work.
> 
> you know how tight canon is about R&D "some guy" in the USA sure knows nothing.
> ...


 
And the call centers are often in India. I'm sure that someone in India really cares if you buy a sony. They work for Sony as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 27, 2013)

bassfield said:


> Then it is nothing more to discuss from my point of view



Indeed there isn't, not if you simply ignore what the thread is about: high mp, not dr or base iso performance.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

bassfield said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > i have bought the trey ratcliff new zealand tutorial.
> ...



well from what you guys make of the sony sensor.. IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BY LOOKING AT IMAGES... not? ;D

when you have to explain the benefits of the sony sensor .. they can´t be worth much to someone who is interested in photograpyh... and not gear talk. ;D



> It's very easy to see the benefits of a sensor that has higher resolution, wider dynamic range, better color resolution, transitions. if you know where to look for.



ah, so now im just not able to see it because i lack the technical skills. 

well im doing photography for more then two decades and im a MF user too.
what books should i read to get it? 8)

i don´t speak about shadow banding or DR. 
above i speak mostly about MEGAPIXELS. 
megapixel that´s what this thread is about and something a lot of you guys here are obsessed with.

im absolutely for better DR!
and even more for cleaner shadows that can be pushed even further.

it´s just not that the D800 makes such a big difference as some people wants us to believe.




> Can I have please at least 56MP from Canon with S/N value= 14,4 stop DR at base iso and better color resolution



well get my phase one or a hassi when you need that.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 27, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.



The whole discussion is for the want of an extra 2MP (which is <10%) advantage cameras like the Nikon D3200 have over the 5Dmk3? Gee...


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.
> ...



and that is a 10% advantage in pixel number... not even resolution!


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 27, 2013)

I don't quite understand why I continually allow myself to read these threads when I'm on the can only to find more minutiae regarding how horrible canon's sensors and bodies are. Yes, there has been little innovation with regard to sensor tech at canon in recent memory. And yes, I too am curious about the 36.3 mp sensor and all the DR goodness people speak of. But for those that keep threatening to leave.....

The only request I'd like to make is just go already. Make some awesome images that show just how inferior canon's tech is and convince me to switch as well. But thus far, no seems to be willing to do it as much as they are spouting off about it. I would love nothing more than to see some amazing images out of the Sony/Nikon sensor because I would then have something definitive to show me that current users of that sensor are able to do empirically perceptible things that I myself cannot with my canon rig. 

As it stands, I have yet to see images that evoke a feeling of "wow, I wish I could accomplish that shot with my rig" or "wow, that image definitely exhibits qualities of a much higher quality sensor than mine."


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I don't quite understand why I continually allow myself to read these threads



i ask myself why i frequent these gear focused websites at all.
most discussions circle around the same lame topics or "what shall i do" questions.

still i come back....


----------



## sdsr (Oct 27, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Almost every current-production Nikon dslr contains a sensor with more pixels than a 5DIII, starting with their inexpensive entry-level D3200. High megapixel cameras aren't a niche market as far as Nikon is concerned.
> ...



Beats me - I don't think anyone in this rather odd discussion has defined what "high megapixel" means. I was merely responding to someone who asserted that that high mp is a niche market and gave as an example the 5DIII. (I mentioned the D3200, not because I think it has any advantages over the 5DIII but because whatever else it is, it surely isn't a niche market - unless "people who buy Nikon's cheapest dslr" qualify....)


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't quite understand why I continually allow myself to read these threads
> ...



I suppose we are in the same boat.


----------



## Halfrack (Oct 28, 2013)

When we judge sharpness of a digital image, we immediately go to 100% and see what an image looks like. I can with absolute certainty, that a large number of shooters who think they have great glass and shooting technique will not have a great experience. The D800/D800e demands the most of both glass and shooter to get a 'sharp' image, so to go to a higher resolution without having answers, you're asking for upset customers. This is the reason I think there is rumors around a Canon MF - that to push the resolution that high, and to put a 20 year old EF lens in front of it, it's most likely going to suck. Element slightly out of alignment - it's going to show.

I love MF - Phase One certified, and have a H4D-50. I would prefer that Canon do a retro styled high megapixel / high DR fixed lens as a starter, since they can control all pieces in one package - ala x100s. Once they can show the world how amazing it looks they can put the same sensor into a DSLR, be it 35mm or MF.


----------



## Pi (Oct 28, 2013)

Halfrack said:


> The D800/D800e demands the most of both glass and shooter to get a 'sharp' image, [...]



No more or less than getting a sharp image with a 16mp crop camera and an FF lens.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 29, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't quite understand why I continually allow myself to read these threads
> ...



And yet some have the nerve to claim that "its not the equipment, its the photographer!" LoL How many threads are on this forum that address technique as compared to the number of threads about gear?


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 29, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



Curiously I do really like reading about photographic techniques. I believe that this is the area, where we can learn most from others. What's to learn about owning a 1D-X? You either have the money or you don't.


----------

