Your Move Nikon..50 MP?

spraynpray

I just had my first email asking for pre-ordering the 5DR or 5DS. £3000 (S) and £3199 (R). not priced as high as I would have expected so how can Canon justify asking nearly that for the 5D3 when it came out?

It will be interesting to see the actual image quality and spec for them in due course.

scoobysmak

Since Nikon gave the $300 discount for the D810 I went a head and upgraded from my D700. It has been (still is a great camera). I might convert it to IR like I did my D200 (my wife loves the D200 conversion). Before I do this I think I will keep the D700 as a backup just in case in the next 6 months my D810 has a problem (I usually find electronics go bad in the first 6 months or they work for years with no problems unless you drop it or something similar). If Nikon produces a 50"ish" MP camera I will look at it because to be able to crop and have a decent print size would be great (16x24"). I would love to have one so I could print a billboard size photo but honestly I wouldn't use it correctly.

The problems I see in higher MP cameras, usually the ISO takes a hit. Over time technology can help but sometimes simple physics can not be ignored. Next I see the frames per second are very limited and maybe the buffer. I see this getting "fixed" first of any of the problems I mention due to advancing technology. The last part is lens resolution, overall the camera and lens even now have better "skills" than I do at 12MP much less 36MP. Some lenses have already started to show there "age or design flaws" with 36 MP so increasing the MP will just put more lenses in this category. I see new designs are on the way with technology that hasn't been used before starting production (well at least technology not used by Nikon). This could "cure" some of the lens resolution problems but honestly I have a bag of lenses that work great with my current camera. I can print at pretty decent sizes even after I crop. Besides better ISO ability or a faster shutter I can not ask for much more unless I feel like replacing my entire collection of equipment.

I see some people want 50 MP so they can take a 200mm lens and get a wildlife shot at f2.8, crop the crap out of it so they don't have to purchase a 400mm lens at 12k (note: they still might crop the 400mm shot but just not nearly as much). That 200mm lens needs to have exceptional resolution so you can still print a decent size photo. The problems are wildlife is usually most active at dawn and dusk, low light moments, and can be a bit unpredictable so its helpful to have a faster fps to capture the right moment and not something a bit "awkward". Needless to say in the high MP game both low light ISO and fps are usually not there. I do see the person that takes maybe 12 panorama shots really loving the upgrade so they only take maybe 3 but it might require a lens purchase to really get the most out of it. I see us approaching the exponential technology limit you might say, beyond this is it really worth it? (that's only something the person pulling out the wallet can answer)

Example 1:
I see it kinda like the HD tv bug around the year 2000. Before this I think most people had a normal 36 inch TV if you wanted something "large", I think you had around 300 lines of resolution (maybe a bit more or less). After HD hit you had like 720 lines on a 57" inch tv, then within months 1080 lines (I know you had interlaced and progressive scan but I am not trying to get too technical here, probably too late). Now today I see 4k tvs at the same size as the 1080p models and really can't tell much difference (before it was clearly obvious HD was better, now not as much). If you go out and get a 90" tv I do see the 4k tv advantage but I don't care to lose 90" of my living room to a tv.

Example 2:
I am into cars so I occasionally see a drag race or two. Say you have a 2500 Lbs drag car. Based on a 1/4 mile calculator (basic calculator online, HP and Lbs of the car) here are the results:

50HP = 21.46 seconds
100HP = 17.03 seconds (4.43 faster than 50HP)
150HP = 14.88 seconds
200HP = 13.52 seconds (3.51 faster than 100HP)
250HP = 12.55 seconds
300HP = 11.81 seconds
350HP = 11.22 seconds
400HP = 10.73 seconds (2.79 faster than 200HP)
800HP = 8.52 seconds (2.21 faster than 400HP)

In this example you can see how the cost of drag racing is exponential in cost compared to track times. It probably didn't cost me much to go from 50HP to 100HP but I got the biggest gain from it. It cost my arm, my leg and a few internal organs to go from 400HP to 800HP and I didn't even get half the results from doubling my HP that the first increase got me.

Any better results in my photography will probably be the nut behind the shutter getting it right and not the equipment.

DJBee49

This is a game without end really.

I now have a D810 (and my 'old' D800). They are both superb in almost every respect and I love using them. They both repeatedly amaze me with their capability. I am now saying to myself that they are more than I will ever need, as both are better than I am and far exceed my requirements in my recently acquired status as an amateur photographer. I hope that I can stick to that.

I also am a life-long motorcyclist and although the analogy is not exactly right, it might be close. I gave up 'updating' my bikes long ago and now have two bikes, one of which is 20 years old and the other 14 years old. If I had the very latest machine, I would not go any faster, safer or more economically. In reality, the constraints are my ability and the traffic/speed limits etc., not the bike! Both of my machines are capable of more performance in every direction than I can actually use on the road.

I remember an advertising exec. saying to me years ago that modern marketing is not giving people what they need but persuading them that they want something. Then selling it to them. Perhaps it was always thus.

Mind you, I said all this when I bought my D700! Hmmm.

guymp

As far as I'm concerned, in my line of work, which is architecture, one can never have too many pixels.

I have moved from large format film to a medium format back, to a Nikon D800E, and would be only too delighted if Nikon announced a 50MP camera. Meanwhile the new Canon 5DS-R would give access to their superlative 17 TS-E and 24 TS-E Mk 2 lenses, which significantly out-perform my older Nikon 24 PC-E.

This means I shall have the slight headache of running two rival systems side by side, but maybe that's a good thing.

Guy.

sevencrossing

As far as I'm concerned, in my line of work, which is architecture, one can never have too many pixels....
Guy.

Yes but only if by adding more mp Canon mange the same, or better, dynamic range and color fidelity as the D800 or D810

guymp

Yes, quite. I would certainly not get rid of the D800E. Potentially, my hybrid kit would include:

Canon 5DS-R
Canon 17 TS-E
Canon 24 TS-E Mk 2
Canon 1.4x Mk 3

Nikon D800E/D810
Nikkor 45 PC-E
Nikkor 85 PC-E

Guy.

FlowtographyBerlin

Has someone seen the sample images here?

A nice illustration of that evergreen of sensor outresolving lenses. You certainly see how the lens quality is limiting the image quality, more than with the D8X0. The samples above are from the R version, no AA filter.

Good for everyone who invested in extraordinarily high-quality glass.

This game really gets more and more similar to computers, where you always have to upgrade eventually, because some vital component needs a new OS or something and your system gets slower and slower, eventually you buy a new computer, and then you need to upgrade all the hardware that doesn't support the new system anymore.

Looking forward to NIkon's answer to the 5DsR.

WestEndFoto

This is going to put a lot of pressure on lenses.

The dynamic has now changed. Only Nikon's superteles outresolve 50 megapixels. Not the Arts. Perhaps the Otuses, but not by much.

It is no longer about cameras, but lenses.

haroldp

The sensor topology of the 24mp DX sensor yields 54mp FX. That is the most likely approach for Sony / Nikon to take given how semi-conductors are actually manufactured.

@Westendfoto

It has been about lenses since the D3x.

On the D3x, all lenses looked better than on the D700, and better lenses were looked better than lesser lenses even if the sensor could not resolve it all.

The information retrieval of the lens / sensor system improves as any element of ut improves once basic thresholds are reached.

My first comment with the F3x was that it showed me what was wrong with my lenses. The D800/810 even more so.

All of these are now at the level where the limiting factor most of the time is the photographers technique, and circumstances.

The biggest recent improvement to my eagle shots is a better gimbal head (RRS).

... H

guymp

I certainly would not want manufacturers to slow down the development of lenses. Especially since new ones come out that prove there are still big improvements being made.

However, there will come a point where we must stop making critical judgements at 100% on screen. I include myself in this; I am as guilty of pixel peeking as anyone. One of the things that characterises a digital image (digital anything) is that transitions are stepped rather than smooth.

What I'm trying to say (not terribly successfully) is that having more pixels isn't necessarily about sharpness, but could be about colour, noise, and achieving a smoother and more natural appearance.

Guy.

WestEndFoto

I certainly would not want manufacturers to slow down the development of lenses. Especially since new ones come out that prove there are still big improvements being made.

However, there will come a point where we must stop making critical judgements at 100% on screen. I include myself in this; I am as guilty of pixel peeking as anyone. One of the things that characterises a digital image (digital anything) is that transitions are stepped rather than smooth.

What I'm trying to say (not terribly successfully) is that having more pixels isn't necessarily about sharpness, but could be about colour, noise, and achieving a smoother and more natural appearance.

Guy.

I think you are bang on. However, it is difficult to attach a spec to that, so difficult to discuss on a forum.

nukuEX2

Military/ industrial optics are well beyond what is available commercially for photography,

First camera on the Hubble was a CCD clocking at around 2.5MP and was priced at $2Million US in 1978 Dollars. Galileo and later Cassini orbiters carried a relatively low MP CCDs by today's standard but they had a killer optics That proved the argument that it is all about the glass.

FrenchRiviera

As far as I'm concerned, in my line of work, which is architecture, one can never have too many pixels....
Guy.

Yes but only if by adding more mp Canon mange the same, or better, dynamic range and color fidelity as the D800 or D810

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5

As far as dynamic range is concerned, we're told that the new 5DS and 5DS R should give the same performance as the current EOS 5D Mark III

Again a sensor from Canon directly imported from Middle Ages :-)

According to first seen jpeg pictures and the amount of visible noise reduction , still probably light banding as on 5DIII

6 years after first Exmor D3X , no improvement on dynamic range , that means less dynamic on native ISO than a m4/3 like OMD EM1 , really a shame .

manhattanboy

The problems I see in higher MP cameras, usually the ISO takes a hit. Over time technology can help but sometimes simple physics can not be ignored. Next I see the frames per second are very limited and maybe the buffer. I see this getting "fixed" first of any of the problems I mention due to advancing technology. The last part is lens resolution, overall the camera and lens even now have better "skills" than I do at 12MP much less 36MP. Some lenses have already started to show there "age or design flaws" with 36 MP so increasing the MP will just put more lenses in this category.

I see some people want 50 MP so they can take a 200mm lens and get a wildlife shot at f2.8, crop the crap out of it so they don't have to purchase a 400mm lens at 12k (note: they still might crop the 400mm shot but just not nearly as much). That 200mm lens needs to have exceptional resolution so you can still print a decent size photo.

The above is really the argument why there is a place for a great DX camera. Expecting to "Just Crop It" sounds great on a T-shirt, but in practice doesn't work out so well.

scoobysmak

The above is really the argument why there is a place for a great DX camera. Expecting to "Just Crop It" sounds great on a T-shirt, but in practice doesn't work out so well.

I agree, I honestly think that both Nikon and Canon wanted to make FX the full way a head and let FX take over. I think once people realized that a DX sensor could take a nice picture and was 1/2 the size and weight of the FX equivalent, when people didn't move to FX Canon got the picture but so for Nikon hasn't. Maybe Nikon will just jump to a CX sensor, lol. Seems most cell phones have become acceptable to people unless they are wanting to take more artistic shots. Of course one of my co-workers just got some device that allows her iPhone 6 to be remote fired, change ISO, shutter speed, white balance, and quite a few other options. I haven't tested it but with all those options who needs a point and shoot anymore, she can just upload to facebook right on her phone.

kanuck

Just imagine the kind of computer processor you will require to move around all those 50mp Canon files. I remember the shock when I first had to deal with my big D800e files. :-w Suddenly 32 GB of RAM doesn't seem like overkill at all anymore...I think Nikon's Response will be their business as usual D4x body release at the end of the 4th quarter. Then roll out the red carpet on their D5 monster...

sevencrossing

As far as dynamic range is concerned, we're told that the new 5DS and 5DS R should give the same performance as the current EOS 5D Mark III

DxO suggest at lower ISO settings, the D800 has up to 2.5 EV more dynamic range than the EOS 5D MkIII.
(The D810 slightly more range than the D800)
Personally I would prefer a greater dynamic range to having more MP

Your Move Nikon???
Stalemate ?

WestEndFoto

I would rather have more dynamic range as well. However, if there was a good selection of glass that was sharp enough to take advantage of 50 megapixels wide open (currently most are wanting even at 36 megapixels), then I would have to think about it.

Perhaps a new D900 line optimized for studio photography where dynamic range is not that important with glass that can exploit it? Then leave the D800 line to focus on dynamic range.

spraynpray

After speaking with people who own Canons, they are pretty much all of the mindset that the current wide to short tele zooms are not going to be up to the job. 24-70 may be ok, but 24-105? Forget it.

WestEndFoto

Forget zooms past 24 megapixels. Even my 50mm 1.4G for $500 and 50mm 1.2Ais outperforms the 24-70 2.8 at 2.8.

PB_PM

DXO resolution tests seem to disagree, stating that that max resolving power of the Nikkor 50mm F1.4G is 16MP. The 24-70mm F2.8 is well beyond that even wide open, I believe it's rated to resolve around 23MP.

WestEndFoto

Which camera are you using as the comparison? Below is the DXOmark score on a D810:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.4G-on-Nikon-D810-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D810___199_963_175_963

The sharpness score is identical on a D810. And that is comparing the 50mm at f/1.4 where it is somewhat soft. At 2.8, this is a much sharper lens. In fact, my 50mm 1.2 Ais, still being produced and in production since 1983, is even sharper than my 1.4G at 2.8 (at 50mm, this is Nikon's sharpest lens from 2.0 to 4.0).

Careful in interpreting the overall score. Transmission accounts for most of the difference given the extra transmission of the faster lens. Not to mention numerous other untested objective and subjective factors, but there is no better tool than DXOMark for these types of "spec" comparisions.

And look at the chromatic aberration on the zoom. Yuck!

Bye bye zoom!

Paperman

Shutter speed + 4 stops will be the new shutter speed + 2 stops which was the new shuttter speed equals focal length :-?

Ironheart

Shutter speed + 4 stops will be the new shutter speed + 2 stops which was the new shuttter speed equals focal length :-?

Or VR 4 with nine stops of stabilization...

Paperman

DXO resolution tests seem to disagree, stating that that max resolving power of the Nikkor 50mm F1.4G is 16MP. The 24-70mm F2.8 is well beyond that even wide open, I believe it's rated to resolve around 23MP.

Just wondering if those resolving power figures are for the lens/sensor combination or not ... Will that 23 Mp ( out of a possible 36 Mp ) increase on a 50 Mp sensor ? I have a feeling it will ....