Any more rumors about Nikon coming out with a less expensive 24 Meg Pix Camera this summer? I am going to NewFoundland in late July and would sure like to have one. Thanks, Jim:)
Printable View
Any more rumors about Nikon coming out with a less expensive 24 Meg Pix Camera this summer? I am going to NewFoundland in late July and would sure like to have one. Thanks, Jim:)
2 more DLSR'S this year - as for models not real sure - dont think they will make it into your timeframe.
Thanks Lance. I guess I'll just have to wait.:confused:
Seems like Lance does know something that we don't ;)
I find the concept of a more affordable 24 MP camera to be fascinating. Still, I wonder whether there in most cases is a practical need for such a camera.
Considering the ability of today's 12 MP cameras to produce large, glorious prints, and unless very heavy cropping is needed, is there really a use for the ultra MP camera other than as a source of bragging rights? :D
Norm
I remember one comment among the Canon folks here on the reason for getting a high mp camera is for exactly that: cropping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Dulak
Mike Moats, our Micor/Floral photos moderator here, I think, is still shooting with a "low" megapixel camera such as the Fujifilm S5, a 6mp camera. And he's been selling/showing some not-so-small prints such as those shown here (see the pic under Summer Art Fair Schedule):
http://www.mikemoatsblog.com/
I would love a few more megapixels. My stock agencies require non-interpolated large files; any moderate cropping will result in files to small for my agencies. I love my D3s but do wish for a few more pixels
There was a nikon camera roadmap leaked a while back, not sure how reliable it was but it did detail 2010 cameras I think.
As for the 24mp, talking about mp is dangerous stuff on forums. It tends to start wars! I know that I love the resolution of my 5d2 compared to lower res cameras, I can just see the difference in lightroom when Ive shot different cameras (10mp vs 21) on a 1900x1080 monitor. 100% of the time I can tell the difference. That doesn't mean that a 12mp camera is junk and that it isnt possible to make great pictures with even a 4 or 6mp camera. However, I remember shooting a picture of a squirrel testing out a 600mm on the 5d and being able to see myself reflected in the squirrels eye. In 'real world' applications, it provides awesome detail for huge prints for brides which is what puts the croque-monsieur on the table. There is also definitely an advantage with cropping. The d700 is an awesome camera however and 12mp is plenty enough for most uses (I guess I would probably be just as happy with the d700 as I would a 5d2, trading mp for AF accuracy\speed and lower noise).
I would hope that any 24mp camera would be full frame, so a crop camera like the d300 (or 400 when it arrives) would probably have a higher pixel density (24mp is very approximately 9mp on a crop 1.6x) so you may be better off sticking with a cropped sensor anyway rather than always throwing away lots of expensive megapixels?
What do you have now?
If we're talking about real world application, then it stands to reason that we should consider how our electronic files will turn out to be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Richy Mather
1) Are they just jpeg/tiff files for viewing zooming in 100% on a high resolution monitor?
2) Are they going to be printed on magazines, newspapers, etc.?
3) Are they going to become prints and hanged on walls? If so, how big will be the prints?
I think a high res camera may make a difference if photographs will be used for (1) above. But I'm not sure about (2) and don't know much about (3). How big a print needs to be for an average Joe to see the difference between the prints of photographs that were shot with a 12mp camera and those from a 24mp camera and from what viewing distance? How many 2 ft x 3 ft prints you have on your walls? A few years ago, I read an article on New York Times and it said they put two photographs on the street and let people looked at them. Most people could not tell which one was from a 12mp camera (back then it was a lot).
Still, I think most people prefer more pixels...almost like by instinct :)
Theres always two sides to every discussion and this is very well put (both sides are correct in their own way). 8mp is enough for most applications, but really think about what happens, bride has a 30x40 on the wall, whats the first thing someone does when they see it? Walk towards it. Great pictures draw people in, I want my prints to pull people towards them and reflect the beauty of the day and I dont want them to look any less perfect close up than they do at a distance. I want large prints that look the same as those from my rz67. Seriously, sell a $400 print and explain that it looks pixelly close up because you are supposed to look at it far away? That simply doesnt wash and will ruin a reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desmond Chan
The 5d2 is the closest Ive come to that in the sensibly priced digital realm. At 8x10 4-6mp is enough and is very tough to tell apart from a higher mp camera. That doesnt mean that for some people more mp and more cost isnt the better option.
The cropping aspect allows me to get two shots from one capture, from a wide angle shot I can pull out a closeup of the faces that will stand being 8x10.
Being tied into Canon right now also means to some degree if there are certain features that I want (i.e. improved autofocus) then I HAVE to accept more mp. This is simply how they are positioning themselves and us canonnites have to live with it. I would be just as happy with the D700 as I would the 5d2, just for different reasons.
To a large degree the more mp argument for Canon is pointless, there is not variety like the 12\24 mp choice nikonians have. If you want ff then its 21mp (unless you want the classic 5d), if you want fast frame rates then its 16mp.
Given there is a wealth of decent very wide angle crop only lenses out there I would think most people would be better buying a crop camera with approx 10-12 mp and spending any extra money on great glass. That still doesn't mean that more mp isn't worth it for some people.
To be fair, I also saw a video where they asked random Americans questions such as how many sides does a triangle have. Most amusing answers. There was also a follow up in England and Germany that got equally amusing answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desmond Chan
MP has to be a personal choice. Best bet is to rent a camera (or just download some raw sample files and process them as you normally would) and then make some prints and see if you can see the difference. Discussing MP on the web is like discussing which of us has the smartest \ best looking kids.
One factor that should be considered but hasn't received much attention in this discussion is noise. It's generally true that cameras that produce the least amount of noise at high ISO values have full-frame sensors with lower pixel counts, in which the capture elements are larger and more widely spaced.
For that reason, George Lepp in his tech tips column in the June 2010 issue of Outdoor Photographer states that he is reluctant to use ISOs exceeding 400-800 with his Canon EOS 7D (18 MP APS-C sensor) camera.
Norm
Noise is a difficult one. One very important factor with noise is how large the pixel is, and not in the way you think. take a 6mp camera and a 24mp camera. Print both 8x12. The pixels in the 6mp camera are much larger , capture much more light and all things being equal have less noisy pixels. However, he flip side is that the pixels that do deviate are much larger. The 'noisy' pixels are much smaller therefore affect the image less than the larger pixels of the lower mp camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Dulak
Having said that, the FF argument is true.
I am looking at a 7d simply because it is different. I rarely get over 640 iso but when I do I have the 5d2s so Im not worried. The 7d is very noisy, but cleans up amazingly in lr3. My simple test was simply to compare the 1d3, 1d4 and 7d by processing the raws appropriately and printing them. The cost performance ratio for me put the 7d top for my needs so I think I will pick one up soon. Using it over 800 iso is probably not going to get great results although I did manage to get significant detail out of a 1600 iso raw. The print was acceptable but not perfect. 400 and below was fine, 800 is just about fine.
