Another 12MP camera by Nikon? They need to catch up to Canon's 20+MP dSLRs- I know I know, everyone says Megapixel isn't the end-all, but it doesn't hurt that's for sure. And I've been a Nikon user since I was 11 (29 yrs & counting).
And let's make that 20-25 MP camera under 3 grand- not over 8 grand.
Remember folks, digital is an expensive- not an investment. I'm here all week. :)
As a 20-year pro well versed in the game, I beg to differ my friend. I know everyone is harping over MP not being a big factor, but that only applies if you add it to a small poor-quality image sensor.
Watch- these camera manufacturers won't sit at 10-12 MPs, they'll move up and up- because when you have more pixels, you retain more info and detail to print larger.
And yes, image sensor quality is key too, but 10,000 paint dots in a painting has more detail, as compared to 1,000 dots in a painting- simple fact.
"Watch- these camera manufacturers won't sit at 10-12 MPs, they'll move up and up- because when you have more pixels, you retain more info and detail to print larger."
That isn't necessarily true. First off the lens has to be sharp enough. Especially since a crop frame sensor has a much higher pixel density. And the aperture you're shooting at has to be sharp enough. Wide open it probably won't be. And stopped down too much and you get into diffraction limitation territory. You have to shoot at a low enough ISO, since noise destroys detail.
Then there is one factor that is totally out of the photographer's hands: The low pass filter. Often manufacturers choose to incorporate a rather aggressive one for the pixel density.
plus, frame rate means little to me- I'm producing images, not shooting like mad for mediocre shots I'll never use- I want quality- I want to produce gems- not 30 shots of a moment I could capture with 2 or 3 top-notch images. It's the difference between someone who works in the industry, and someone who gets caught up in technical mumbo-jumbo.
@Mr Chunky. Talk with some professionals who can explain you why things the way they are.
For the market camera is targeted, 12MP is more than enough. With the physical sensor size, per optics, one is limited to about 15MP. 12MP is not too far from limit of actual technology. More smaller pixels would only decrease quality.
Also, with higher pixel count you get much larger RAWs. Talk to folks who have to work with 30+MB RAWs on daily basis - and ask how much /fun/ it is. Unless somebody pressed hard to work with such huge files, there would be very very few volunteers. I hope that future cameras would be allowing to select the shooting resolution - and resulting RAW size - to opt for quality or quantity depending on shooting conditions.
As to shooting speed. Burst mode became quite important and shooting events or kids or sports is pretty much impossible without good RAW fps rate. Here, faster equals better. You do not need it for portraits or macro, but for the rest it is quite important.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Another 12MP camera by Nikon? They need to catch up to Canon's 20+MP dSLRs- I know I know, everyone says Megapixel isn't the end-all, but it doesn't hurt that's for sure. And I've been a Nikon user since I was 11 (29 yrs & counting).
And let's make that 20-25 MP camera under 3 grand- not over 8 grand.
Remember folks, digital is an expensive- not an investment. I'm here all week. :)
Actually, it can hurt :P
As a 20-year pro well versed in the game, I beg to differ my friend. I know everyone is harping over MP not being a big factor, but that only applies if you add it to a small poor-quality image sensor.
Watch- these camera manufacturers won't sit at 10-12 MPs, they'll move up and up- because when you have more pixels, you retain more info and detail to print larger.
And yes, image sensor quality is key too, but 10,000 paint dots in a painting has more detail, as compared to 1,000 dots in a painting- simple fact.
Umm, the only 20+MP dSLRs on the market today are Full Frame. And Nikon makes one of those.
"Watch- these camera manufacturers won't sit at 10-12 MPs, they'll move up and up- because when you have more pixels, you retain more info and detail to print larger."
That isn't necessarily true. First off the lens has to be sharp enough. Especially since a crop frame sensor has a much higher pixel density. And the aperture you're shooting at has to be sharp enough. Wide open it probably won't be. And stopped down too much and you get into diffraction limitation territory. You have to shoot at a low enough ISO, since noise destroys detail.
Then there is one factor that is totally out of the photographer's hands: The low pass filter. Often manufacturers choose to incorporate a rather aggressive one for the pixel density.
BTW, diffraction limitation occurs sooner with higher pixel densities.
plus, frame rate means little to me- I'm producing images, not shooting like mad for mediocre shots I'll never use- I want quality- I want to produce gems- not 30 shots of a moment I could capture with 2 or 3 top-notch images. It's the difference between someone who works in the industry, and someone who gets caught up in technical mumbo-jumbo.
@Mr Chunky. Talk with some professionals who can explain you why things the way they are.
For the market camera is targeted, 12MP is more than enough. With the physical sensor size, per optics, one is limited to about 15MP. 12MP is not too far from limit of actual technology. More smaller pixels would only decrease quality.
Also, with higher pixel count you get much larger RAWs. Talk to folks who have to work with 30+MB RAWs on daily basis - and ask how much /fun/ it is. Unless somebody pressed hard to work with such huge files, there would be very very few volunteers. I hope that future cameras would be allowing to select the shooting resolution - and resulting RAW size - to opt for quality or quantity depending on shooting conditions.
As to shooting speed. Burst mode became quite important and shooting events or kids or sports is pretty much impossible without good RAW fps rate. Here, faster equals better. You do not need it for portraits or macro, but for the rest it is quite important.