Not to start a flame war or anything....

[Munky]

Hopefully Nikon will get off their ass soon and introduce a higher megapixel sensor heh. 12mp for the lose. There's gotta be something wrong with having the competition's $1500 product capture more detail at low iso than your new really expensive D3s. (And no, having more megapixels does not increase noise when images are viewed at an equivelent enlargement size, people are just sheep lol)

I disagree. More pixels don't necessarily capture more detail. A 6MP D40 captures more detail than a 14MP compact. Likewise, I'm pretty sure a 12MP FF sensor captures more detail than a 18MP APS-C sensor. Even at base ISO, the smaller sensors are inferior to the larger one. Not to mention the D3s will blow any smaller sensor out of the water at high ISO.

Where I want to see innovation is not in MP count, but in things that actually matter, like dynamic range and colors. Have you tried taking a photo of red LED's lit up on a dark background? I did, and no amount of fiddling with RAW files could get me a photo that looked similar to what I saw with my eyes originally. That's where I want to see real innovation, not cramming more pixels.

 

[ElFenix]

try reading the coins to the left and right:

more:

 

[PurdueRy]

I can support higher resolution sensors only to the point where optics are able to resolve detail. I know the 50D pushes lenses harder than anything before it(until the 7D) and a select few can take advantage of its sensor. I haven't seen any tests that give numerical figures for lens resolution on the 7D but I imagine very few if any lenses have maximized its potential.

So, for the time being, until optics improve I'd like to see sensors to stay anywhere in the 12MP-15MP range.

I agree that I'd like to see advancements in dynamic range as well. I am sick of overblown skies or dark foregrounds. Of course this would require a printer and monitor that could display the dynamic range as well.

More advancements in IS would be nice...granted its pretty good as is but I always feel it could get better.

Metering is another area that I feel could be a bit "smarter" but then again I don't design cameras for a living.

 

[MotF Bane]

Okay Fenix, you completely lost me. What the hell is that supposed to show?

 

[soydios]

The new batch of Nikons are newer sensors designed by Sony, the same ones used in the Alpha line.

Nikon and Sony have been collaborating on sensors since the beginning. I think that the only Nikon-only sensors have been the D1(h), D1x, D2h, D2x, and D3(s)/D700 sensors. So basically the 6, 10, and 12MP sensors are Sony sensors with Nikon tweaks.

 

[Anubis]

Okay Fenix, you completely lost me. What the hell is that supposed to show?

its 12 vs 18(?) MP images ripped from DPreviews tests. thats what i'm assuming anyway. but yea really vague post is vague

 

[extra]

I disagree. More pixels don't necessarily capture more detail. A 6MP D40 captures more detail than a 14MP compact. Likewise, I'm pretty sure a 12MP FF sensor captures more detail than a 18MP APS-C sensor.
Where I want to see innovation is not in MP count, but in things that actually matter, like dynamic range and colors.

No, you're right, more pixels don't necessarily capture more detail. Sensor size, technology, and good glass are very very important. Dynamic range is also important.

I want both. In my opinion all those things matter.

Why is the D3x so good--imho the best dslr available right now if you have the money? It captures an obscene amount of detail because it has great technology, a large sensor, extremely high pixel count, AND also some of the greatest dynamic range around. Why accept compromise? 🙂

Contrary to popular belief having more pixels does not increase noise for a given print size and does not reduce dynamic range. (Don't take my word for it, feel free to go search for Eric Fossum's posts on dpreview as an example).

And we aren't hitting the limit of good glass--although more pixels does mean that we will want higher quality glass. Still, a higher res sensor will never be worse with the same lens--it will just experience diminishing returns. The 18-55mm IS (a kit lens!!!) stopped down to f/6.3 or so captures a good bit more detail on my 7d than on my xsi.

As for the D40 vs a point and shoot: this is an extreme example but a G10 captures *substantially* more detail in a well exposed base iso image than a D40. It isn't even close.

Sensor size is very important, arguably the most important thing, but it isn't the only thing.

As for full frame vs aps-c (what I'm about to say seems to upset people, but it's the truth): The 7d can capture more detail than a 1dmk3 (this seems to upset people). The 7d can capture more detail than the original 5d (but not the 5dmk2 obviously). And yes, the 7d can even out resolve the mighty D3 (and presumably the D3s as well but I don't have proof of that. 'Tis a reasonable assumption though). It doesn't touch the D3x though, the D3x captures quite a bit more detail--just as you'd expect.

Pixels matter. 🙂

 

[ElFenix]

Okay Fenix, you completely lost me. What the hell is that supposed to show?

the person right before me stated:

A 6MP D40 captures more detail than a 14MP compact. Likewise, I'm pretty sure a 12MP FF sensor captures more detail than a 18MP APS-C sensor. Even at base ISO, the smaller sensors are inferior to the larger one.

take a guess as to which crops are from which size/resolution sensors.

detail isn't the only thing but it is one of the main things. and increasing sensor resolution can increase detail, even with smaller sensors (at least at base ISO).

 

[Cattykit]

What's wrong with 12MP? Do you forget to compose properly, or are your walls covered in 30"x20" enlargements?

Keep in mind people have different needs. That's something you fail to understand many times. While 12MP might be more than you'll ever need, there're people who needs a lot more MP than 12. What would you say if someone says you should be fine with 3MP?

The 7D technically captures more detail at low ISO than Canon's own really expensive and yet unreleased 1D4. Is there something wrong with that?

If all it matters is low ISO detail, I guess there's something wrong with it. But, there're so many things that matters along with low ISO detail.

Okay, you win. The 50D competes 85% with the D300 and 15% with the D90.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

You can't possibly consider that to be an imitation. Following your logic, I can blame so many Nikon products to be imitations of Canons' as well.

 

[extra]

What's wrong with 12MP? Do you forget to compose properly, or are your walls covered in 30"x20" enlargements?

My walls aren't covered in 20"x30" enlargements...you win. 🙂

However, they are covered in 12x16s and 13x19s with an 18x24 thrown in there somewhere. 🙂 I love to make large prints! I really enjoy the 12x16 size for some reason. I think a 13x19 at 300dpi is around 22mp. Now, you obviously don't need anywhere near 300dpi to make a great print fortunately, but more detail is always great!

I am very sad that the econozone stopped carrying their lustre paper, it was amazing, especially for the price 🙁. I'm dreading running out of the 13x19s I think I have like 10 left. Stuff was great, in a way it has basically the same texture as luster fuji crystal archive paper does. Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

I'm sure I forget to compose properly as well though =), I am not that great of photographer and am still experimenting and learning a lot.

 

[Munky]

the person right before me stated:


take a guess as to which crops are from which size/resolution sensors.

detail isn't the only thing but it is one of the main things. and increasing sensor resolution can increase detail, even with smaller sensors (at least at base ISO).

Those are just high contrast details where I'd expect a higher rez sensor to produce a bigger enlargement. But what about low contrast detail, like hair, fur, grass, and other textured surfaces? That's when the S/N performance of a sensor really gets a workout, because a noisier sensor will smudge the subtle details, even at base ISO.

 

[ElFenix]

new crops:

all but one at base ISO. rescaled in gimp. if they had the paintbrushes back then i'd have picked them but this is as good as i can do with their old review format. crops taken from the reviews of 3 cameras.

 

[randay]

so to answer the ops question: noone really knows, its a mystery.

 

[jpeyton]

You can't possibly consider that to be an imitation. Following your logic, I can blame so many Nikon products to be imitations of Canons' as well.

You're right. Remember when Canon introduced a virtual level in their cameras back in 2007, and Nikon debuted their version in 2009? Remember that built-in flash commander that Canon has had for years, but Nikon finally put into their cameras this year? I think Nikon finally released an image-stabilized macro this year too. Nikon copies Canon at every turn, it seems.

 

[Munky]

Those crops are better. The bottom two are noticeably better than the top two. I'm gonna guess #4 is from the D3, #3 is from the 7D, not sure about the other two, but #2 looks like a compact, with obvious noise reduction smudging.

 

[ElFenix]

1 is a D40, 2 is a G10 at ISO 400, 3 is a G10 at ISO 80, and 4 is a 1DsIII (at 100&#37😉.

the G10 is horrible at ISO 1600. loses color information. i was looking at the LX3's 1600 and it wasn't near as bad but the LX3 has an ugly yellow cast to the studio samples at dpreview at all sensitivities.

 

[Tip3r]

1 is a D40, 2 is a G10 at ISO 400, 3 is a G10 at ISO 80, and 4 is a 1DsIII (at 100%).

I suck at guessing.

 

[soydios]

You're right. Remember when Canon introduced a virtual level in their cameras back in 2007, and Nikon debuted their version in 2009? Remember that built-in flash commander that Canon has had for years, but Nikon finally put into their cameras this year? I think Nikon finally released an image-stabilized macro this year too. Nikon copies Canon at every turn, it seems.

umm...are these facts correct?

 

[ElFenix]

umm...are these facts correct?

other than being reversed, yeah, probably. the flash commander was a minolta thing that nikon may have licensed and canon didn't (it's old enough now that's KM's patents may have expired and thus it's in the 7D). there are a couple other minolta things that nikon licensed/copied that canon didn't (in body focus motors being the main, canon stuck with lens motors after switching to EF). of course, sonic motors and IS lenses were canon firsts.

basically everyone is copying off of everyone else.

 

[PurdueRy]

I think Nikon finally released an image-stabilized macro this year too. Nikon copies Canon at every turn, it seems.

That IS that is completely ineffective at macro distances unlike Canon's model? 😉

 

[jpeyton]

That IS that is completely ineffective at macro distances unlike Canon's model? 😉

You know this from experience, right?

 

[PurdueRy]

You know this from experience, right?

😉

Anyway, my point is that anyone can point out some things that one company "copies" off the next. Canon created the first IS lens, Nikon created the first video SLR, Olympus created the first cleaning system, Sony created the first "usable" live view.

I think that Canon's improvements in the IS for their macro lens has its own merits and stands on its own instead of merely just being a "copy" of its Nikon counterpart.

 

[extra]

basically everyone is copying off of everyone else.

This. It's not just Nikon and Canon copying each other either. For example, afaik Olympus invented the integrated sensor cleaning method that everyone uses.

 

[Cattykit]

You're right. Remember when Canon introduced a virtual level in their cameras back in 2007, and Nikon debuted their version in 2009? Remember that built-in flash commander that Canon has had for years, but Nikon finally put into their cameras this year? I think Nikon finally released an image-stabilized macro this year too. Nikon copies Canon at every turn, it seems.

If you insists, why don't we go bottom and look at things from the beginning of electronic technologies?
How about command dials? How about first use of microprocessors? How about automatic exposure systems? How about USM lenses? How about Image Stabilization lenses? How long did it take Nikon to copy those? How about use of CMOS sensors? The list goes on and on. Also for lenses, just look at historical timetables and look at which comapny more came out nowadays standard lenes.

Stop making arguing points for the sake of making arguing points. I don't know why you're so crazy about this "Nikon rules Canon" ideology. In the end, it's you who get ruled, not Canon nor Nikon.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I keep being tempted to make the switch to Nikon...but then I look at their lens lineup...

There is no Nikon equal to the Canon EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS
There is no Nikon equal to the Canon EF 70-200 F4L IS

Then again, I could sell all of my Canon equipment, spend about $500 in addition to the sales proceeds and buy a D700 Kit with the 24-105VR and 70-300VR lenses.

That is indeed tempting.