With the 5D III just announced (22MP, 6 fps, supposedly clean high ISO) and the D800 (36MP) it appears Canon has made the D700 successor and Nikon has made the 5D II successor. Actually, not a bad strategy. Advanced and high-end users of each brand wanted these cameras badly. Now they will be able to have them.
5D Mark III: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/02/Canon-5D-Mark-III
Nikon user since 2000
#2. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 0
#3. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 0
I think a number of street shooters who are currently in love with the D700 (ahem, e.g., like me) will cave in to the marketing pressure/NAS/insufficiency-of-brain-cells, buy the D800 and run it at medium image size (which is still a remarkable 15-20mp depending on the size setting you choose). I think that making that simple menu choice turns the D800 into the logical successor to the D700.
#4. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 0
The funny thing is that when the D800 came out all the Nikon forums had grousing about it but the Canon people envied it. I looked on some Canon forums this morning and they are grousing about the 5DIII and the Nikon people envy that! lol.
I think some people enjoy talking about their cameras more than making pictures! Both Canon and Nikon have produced things far beyond my ability to make full use of.
#5. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 4
#6. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 0
I would have been happy if the D800 was a mere 24MPs even at the same price. I simply cannot imagine what the D4X will bring to the table once it is released. Nikon and Canon are certainly positioning itself independent of the other.
#8. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 6jmiguez Nikonian since 17th Oct 2010Sun 04-Mar-12 10:07 PM
>I would have been happy if the D800 was a mere 24MPs even at
>the same price....
I agreed with the statement above. While, I can see where 36mp can be useful at times, do we need to make every shot at 36 MP? Just think of the expense for more memory cards and disk space. Then there is the download and processing time needed to deal with 36MP files. It seems like a waste of resources.
I think 24MP would have been plenty.
My Pictures may be seen here: http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/
#9. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 8DSW90049 Registered since 11th Feb 2012Fri 06-Apr-12 11:29 AM
Agree, 24MP would easily have been enough. For 36MP, better buy a few Terabyte external hard drives, because it's going to fill hard drives quickly. For me, 16MP seems easily enough. Hell, my old d70 had 6MP and for much, that seems enough. I suppose if you print huge, poster-sized and regularly for your work, maybe 36MP can be justified, but it's going towards overkill. My Mustang will do 120+ mph, but that may be once a year in the desert when nobody's looking - I drive at half that speed. It is the nature of technology to go towards overkill. To top this, will Canon now cook up one with 48MP? Where does overkill become simply silly?
Wouldn't it be interesting if they developed a sensor where you could adjust the amount of MP so you could max at 36, but for other purposes maybe only 24, or even 16? A thought . . . .
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#10. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 9agitater Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Fri 06-Apr-12 12:09 PM
>Wouldn't it be interesting if they developed a sensor where
>you could adjust the amount of MP so you could max at 36, but
>for other purposes maybe only 24, or even 16? A thought . . .
You can do that right now with the D800. Image size settings are adjustable just as they are in all other Nikon DSLR models. No doubt that for some shooting a lot of people will be shooting at one of the medium settings in the D800 (e.g., 15mp - which is essentially the same as the D7000 but full-frame/FX of course).
#11. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 10MelT Registered since 06th Jul 2002Fri 06-Apr-12 12:55 PM
>>Wouldn't it be interesting if they developed a sensor
>>you could adjust the amount of MP so you could max at 36,
>>for other purposes maybe only 24, or even 16? A thought .
>You can do that right now with the D800.
Well you can do that for jpgs but you can't control the file size of RAW files unless you go into a crop mode which brings challenges of having the viewfinder masked, etc.
It would be fantastic if you could change the MP size of the RAW file with everything else remaining the same including what you see through the viewfinder.
#12. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 11ZoneV Nikonian since 07th Jan 2005Fri 06-Apr-12 03:12 PM | edited Fri 06-Apr-12 03:15 PM by ZoneV
>It would be fantastic if you could change the MP size of the
>RAW file with everything else remaining the same including
>what you see through the viewfinder.
Agreed. 80% of the time, 6MP is enough for printing my photos at a certain size. Canon has sRaw, which is a glorified Tiff file in a lower resolution (has more bit depth and adjustment lattitude than tif, but still isn't real raw. It's better than jpeg by far though). But if there could be a real raw format in smaller size, it'd be great. Of course, you can still shoot regular tif and pick the image size.
It just so happens Thom Hogan addressed this topic the other day.
"Still Lots of Confusion II
April 3 (commentary)--With the mega megapixles of the 36mp sensor on the Nikon D800, the question of "small raw" has returned to the fore given the 75MB file size at the best capture quality. The 21mp Canon 5DII has three "raw" sizes (21, 10, and 5mp) after all. So why didn't Nikon do something similar?
The first problem we have is definitional: what is raw? In theory, raw is the actual data from the sensor, basically the digital version of the analog count of electrons at each photosite position. Anything that changes that is no longer "raw", it's something derived from raw data.
So just how would we create a "smaller raw"? We have quite a few possibilities:
Bin the Bayer. Take each 2x2 block, average the greens, then create an RGB value for the block. This unfortunately only saves us 25% in file size, but we now have a 9mp output (3680x2456). That doesn't sound like the gain (25%) outweighs the loss (75%).
Site Skipping. Okay, how about if we just skip over photosites? The first row is RGRGRGRG and so on, so how about if we record RG...RG... etc., skipping every other column pair? Likewise, skip every other pair of rows. Once again we're down to 9mp (75%), but at least now we're down 50% in file size. One problem we have is that by leaving gaps in the coverage, we have the same aliasing/sampling issues we get with video, as we're subsampling the sensor.
Interpolate Raw. Interpolation is coming up with "new (faux) data" from the data that exists. We could generate "virtual photosites" by interpolating existing photosites. By looking at the 18 million green photosites, we could interpolate data for 6, 9, 12, 15 green photosites, basically any number we want. Then we do the same for red and blue. We get size reduction, but the problem is that we move away from a direct connection to the data. Our interpolation routines need to be very good and not contributing new artifacts.
Grow TIFF. Since TIFF supports the smaller image sizes, the only real issue with selecting TIFF over raw is the loss of data as we cut 14-bit to 8-bits. Of course, even 8-bit TIFF files start out as bigger than uncompressed raw files (108.2MB TIFF versus 74.4MB NEF), so expanding the TIFF to even 12 bits adds 50% to our file size and makes even the smallest 12-bit TIFF larger than the smallest raw compressed file (42MB versus 29MB). Oops. Even if we could get as good as compression as the lossless NEFs get (44%), we're still at 23MB, only a 6MB savings from the original raw file. Again, gain doesn't outweigh loss, especially since the camera is going to need to spend time doing a lot of processing in this scenario, which could impact frame rates. Plus we've lost post processing of camera settings..." -Thom Hogan, bythom.com, April 3, 2012
You can read the rest of the article on Thom's site. www.bythom.com
Nikon user since 2000
#13. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 0
For more than 30 years I've seen Nikon and Canon swap in the minds of consumers. But these last two announcements are the most obvious. Could this be intentional? It nets both more money!
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#14. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 13snegron Nikonian since 05th May 2007Wed 11-Apr-12 12:29 AM
The only advantage Canon has is availability. Nikon's lack of availability will be the driving factor for pros switching over to the other side.
After some time off from the wedding photography business I am contemplating re-entering the field again. I won't go through the process of attempting to apply to NPS because I know I won't get approved. Therefore, I have to consider my equipment choices carefully.
I will be upgrading to FF as all I currently own are 4 old DX bodies. While I have been a long-time Nikon fan and will be for life, my business sense is telling me to look into the other side. Availability is my main concern. When I need an emergency replacement of a body, lens or speedlight, I won't have time to be placed on a waiting list.
I have to spend the money on a couple of FF cameras, lenses and speedlights anyway, so I am technically back to square one.
#15. "RE: Canon and Nikon switch positions" | In response to Reply # 0
Check out this article:
Nikon user since 2000