Originally Posted by cab.in.boston So, having more MP is a great thing, as you recognized when you moved up to 21. But having 36 is too many, because the files are too big. I'm going to guess that you thought 5dII files were going to be too big before you made that leap. Maybe if you moved up to 36, you'd find that to be just right? I have two 12MP Nikons (D90 and D300) and am thrilled with them. In 3 yrs or however long it's been that I've had them, I've never yet printed anything larger than probably 5x7. I just don't print. That doesn't mean I won't, in fact there are several photos I have that I'd like to print large and hang, maybe someday. Anyway, at 200 dpi, I could get up to 14x20, and given I don't print now, I can hardly imagine needing significantly more than that. What I do want is better low noise performance, and moving to a D700 would give me that, but I'd need to upgrade my lenses as well, so the jump becomes much more expensive. I'd like to upgrade my lenses anyway, but for now I am reasonably happy with what I have (albeit I'm lacking any ultra wide option). And that's good because I can't afford the glass that I'd want anyway. But looking at what is out there in the Nikon universe right now, there's really nothing that I am desperate for. A D700 would be an upgrade, but I'd be salivating over it if it had the D3s (or D4) sensor. So maybe it makes me an apologist, but while the D800 looks pretty darn nice, it's not something I'm interested in, and I'd be much happier with a low noise sensor in the 16-18MP range (D700s w/D3s, or D800s w/D4 sensor). Or, let them design a new 12MP DX sensor, I can keep my lenses, and instead of making MP increases with similar ISO performance, how about stay the course with 12MP and increase ISO by 2 stops? That would make me happy. As long as I don't know what I'm missing with FX, I won't miss it, right? So I won't try to speak for all or most Nikon users, but I am definitely in Matt's camp on this issue and am more than happy with 12MP.

I can take up to 10000 images in a weekend in the summer, so yes, 36MP is definitely too much. I'm pretty familiar with 21MP files, so it's not too hard to imagine what it would be like if they were twice the size. TBH 21MP is too much most of the time, but occasionally it is helpful. If Canon can improve the High ISO performance with the same MP that is much more useful to me, as it would be to you, looking at your final paragraph.

Just interesting to see another Nikon person saying how great the D800 is, but underlying it is the fact that you would have been much happier if the D800 was a lot more like the 5D3, i.e. around 16-24MP with great High ISO performance (at least I hope so!).

Originally Posted by W.W. Webster At what times are they too big, but at other times OK?

When I have to deal with a large batch of them, it is slow going. Like from a wedding.

See that's the beauty of Nikon. Options. 36 MP too big? Turn up the RAW compression all the way, and your RAW filesize drops down to about the same as a 21 / 22 megapixel Canon. (~30 MB) Need all you can get? Lossless compression, or even un-compressed.

BTW, I've shot PLENTY with 21 megapixel files, and I do post-production full-time. I know I don't speak for all Nikon D700 users, there are many who hate the gap.

BTW also, for every one time I give Canon a hard time, I've got two or three things I give Nikon a hard time about. Now just isn't the time or place for my Nikon complaints, because they don't relate to resolution or any of the other new features that the 5D 3 offers versus any of it's competition... Aside from sRAW mode maybe, although I'm happier having DX crop mode and RAW compression, that's a much better option for what I shoot. I've lost track of how many jobs I've shot with crop-sensor lenses mounted on my D700. ;-)

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville See that's the beauty of Nikon. Options. 36 MP too big? Turn up the RAW compression all the way, and your RAW filesize drops down to about the same as a 21 / 22 megapixel Canon. (~30 MB) Need all you can get? Lossless compression, or even un-compressed. BTW, I've shot PLENTY with 21 megapixel files, and I do post-production full-time. I know I don't speak for all Nikon D700 users, there are many who hate the gap. BTW also, for every one time I give Canon a hard time, I've got two or three things I give Nikon a hard time about. Now just isn't the time or place for my Nikon complaints, because they don't relate to resolution or any of the other new features that the 5D 3 offers versus any of it's competition... Aside from sRAW mode maybe, although I'm happier having DX crop mode and RAW compression, that's a much better option for what I shoot. I've lost track of how many jobs I've shot with crop-sensor lenses mounted on my D700. ;-) =Matt=

Presumably compressed raw loses some of the editability that RAW is designed for in the first place?

I just feel a bit sorry for some of you Nikon Guys, as you were really hoping for a D700 replacement, and it looks like you're not getting one, well not from Nikon anyway.

Regarding crop mode, I don't think that would interest me much, even if Canon had it. The whole reason I got full frame cameras was to make the most of the fantastic lenses like the 50mm F/1.2 and 135 F/2, putting some crappy consumer lens on my pro camera just seems like a strange thing to want to do. And doing that on a D700, what's that, 4MP or something?

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft My point is, I'd be surprised if you can really speak for most Nikon users like that. I think anyone who is happy with 12mp has probably never shot with more for any extended period of time - you don't know what you're missing. Sure, before I got my 5DII, I thought my 10mp 40D had enough resolution.

I think he covers it as far as I'm concerned.

They offer big pixels (D700) or big pixel counts (D800) with an autofocus system you should be thankful for. If it wasn't for Nikon supplying that, you would be stuck with more of the same with the mkIII.

I'm running a D3s, and 12mp is good. If its not enough for you, that's ok. I wouldn't want to run your AF system either.

If I was to get excited about a Canon camera, it would be the 1Dx. Nikon has, for my needs, much more to light my fire. D700, D800, D3s, D4.... Life is good on the dark side. Looks like its getting better for you guys too.

Originally Posted by fldspringer They offer big pixels (D700) or big pixel counts (D800)

That is oversimplifying the issue in a big way in order to neglect the gaping hole in Nikon's lineup.

with an autofocus system you should be thankful for. If it wasn't for Nikon supplying that, you would be stuck with more of the same with the mkIII.

Yes, competition is good for both of us. I could counter that if it weren't for the 5DII, you would not have the D800. And it's not at all certain that the 5DIII would not have a better AF system anyway. The old EOS 3 had the 45 point system.

I'm running a D3s, and 12mp is good. If its not enough for you, that's ok. I wouldn't want to run your AF system either.

I take it you don't print large. "My" AF system looks like it is about to grow by 52 points.

If I was to get excited about a Canon camera, it would be the 1Dx. Nikon has, for my needs, much more to light my fire. D700, D800, D3s, D4.... Life is good on the dark side. Looks like its getting better for you guys too.

To each his own. From where I sit the 5DIII looks to be more exciting than either the D700 or D800. And the 1DX basically is a D4. Plus 2mp.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft That is oversimplifying the issue in a big way in order to neglect the gaping hole in Nikon's lineup. Yes, competition is good for both of us. I could counter that if it weren't for the 5DII, you would not have the D800. And it's not at all certain that the 5DIII would not have a better AF system anyway. The old EOS 3 had the 45 point system. I take it you don't print large. "My" AF system looks like it is about to grow by 52 points. To each his own. From where I sit the 5DIII looks to be more exciting than either the D700 or D800. And the 1DX basically is a D4. Plus 2mp.

I'm glad your excited.

If Canon's AF has caught up to Nikon's CAM3500, you are in for a treat. Its not about the number of points, but how well it works. I hope its great.

I print 8x10 most. I wouldn't hesitate to print much larger. I've seen impressive large prints at much less than 12mp. Life did exist before the 5D2 you know. Resolution is minor bananas to me, but I understand your desire for the bigger files.

Here's how I see it. I'm not worried about the 5DIII, 1Dx, or anything else Canon does, at least as it pertains to me. I want you to have access to great gear because it doesn't hurt me a bit. It doesn't matter to me because I can't hang my lenses on your bodies.

I'm much less concerned about what Nikon supplies me than several Canon owners in this thread. I relate to prior dark side users that can take or leave the new offerings. My camera has the best performing AF available, at least until the D4 ships. It has high ISO performanve in spades, and meets my every need. Most of the stuff I love in my D3s is handed down to the D300, D700, and the soon to be released D4-D800 just raises the bar a bit higher. Thanks for your concern, but really, we are doing quite well on the dark side. Really we are.

Now for the real question, why do you feel so broken up about Nikon's announcements? Seems a little over the top to me.

Originally Posted by fldspringer I'm glad you're excited.

FTFY

I print 8x10 most. I wouldn't hesitate to print much larger. I've seen impressive large prints at much less than 12mp. Life did exist before the 5D2 you know. Resolution is minor bananas to me, but I understand your desire for the bigger files.

I have an 8mp 20x30" print hanging next to a 21mp 20x30" print on the same wall. The 8mp print gets the job done and is perfectly enjoyable, but it is obvious which is which. That matters to me.

Here's how I see it. I'm not worried about the 5DIII, 1Dx, or anything else Canon does, at least as it pertains to me.

You should be at least interested in it, because what Canon does affects what Nikon does and vice versa.

My camera has the best performing AF available

Maybe. Not according to these guys:

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/201...kon-d3s-added/

(X past the stupid ads)

Most of the stuff I love in my D3s is handed down to the D300, D700

That is a great thing about Nikon, and it seems Canon is finally learning from them.

Now for the real question, why do you feel so broken up about Nikon's announcements? Seems a little over the top to me.

I'm not. All I said is if I were a Nikon owner, I'd be pissed right now, because there is no upgrade path that makes sense to me. I guess I should have said D700 owner. Or D300 owner. As a 5DII owner, I'm psyched that the D800 "only" costs $3000. That will pressure Canon to price the 5DIII fairly. I'm also psyched that because the D800 is 36mp and we can assume the 5DIII is 18-22mp, that the 5DIII will have to be rich in other features (ahem, AF) to compete.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft .... I'm not. All I said is if I were a Nikon owner, I'd be pissed right now, because there is no upgrade path that makes sense to me. I guess I should have said D700 owner. Or D300 owner. As a 5DII owner, I'm psyched that the D800 "only" costs $3000. That will pressure Canon to price the 5DIII fairly. I'm also psyched that because the D800 is 36mp and we can assume the 5DIII is 18-22mp, that the 5DIII will have to be rich in other features (ahem, AF) to compete.

Then it sounds like we're all happy with the systems we've got, and the only thing we're hung up on is that we can't believe the OTHER is happy, because the thing they're happy with seems so inadequate for the specific things WE like to do.

The thing is, no generation is ever perfect. Canon has never had a perfect generation, Nikon has never had a perfect generation. They've both come very close, but there have always been gaps. I've been just fine with the gaps in Nikon's lineup, while in my extensive experience shooting Canon, I couldn't stand the gaps. I know that others feel the same exact way, in reverse.

That's WHY there's two systems. All you can hope is that you pick the system that has the gaps you can bear to live with. Sounds like the only one here who may NOT have picked the right system is the OP. :-P

=Matt=

I'd say the D700 was perfect in 2008. The 5DII was an outlier, but time marches on and now 16mp is the minimum ante. It's looking like the 5DIII will be perfect now. I will probably keep that camera until it disintegrates in my hands.

Funny how the 5DIII is the new D700 and the D800 is the new 5DII.

Too big when the pictures are soft. Just right when the picture is great. Haha.

BTW, every sign is hinting that BOTH Canon and Nikon are not "done" with these two new "affordable full-frame" cameras. We'll see TWO from each maker, this generation.

Nikon officials / reps are stating left and right that the D800 is NOT a D700 replacement, and that the D700 is now dropping in price, which leads me to believe with HIGH confidence that we'll see the D4 sensor in an affordable body within the next 12-18 months. (I may be wrong but they often do price-drops right before an "s" refresh, or a direct successor...)

Similarly, I doubt Canon will so easily relinquish their megapixel crown to Nikon; I doubt Canon just threw in the towel when they saw the D3X sensor quality; there's no way they've been planning ONLY a 22 megapixel sensor all this time. I'd bet they've got a 30-40 MP sensor in the oven, and again we'll see it within 12-18 months.

Just food for thought. We're at the very beginning of the next generation, and not all cards are on the table yet.

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville We're at the very beginning of the next generation

^^^That may be the truest thing spoken in this thread. We get to enjoy a burst of new technology and ideas from the mfrs - how cool is that?!

The other thing to point out, despite the gearlust that the gearsluts (hey, those are anagrams!) are enjoying, is that even Canikon "old" "out of date" cameras produce stunning images. I've seen great stuff out of a 30d, a d90, a 5d original. Do they have the current technology developments and niceties of the newer generations? No, but even as little as 5 years ago these cameras were being praised from the skies as raising the bar on *what photographers were able to do*. That is STILL true; these machines all offer things that make taking great pictures possible.

I'm excited about today/tomorrow's Canon announcement, to be sure, although price rumors suggest I personally will need to wait until the first rush passes and the price drops, or the first wave of refurbs become available (after the initial bugs get worked out ). Or even jump on a well-priced "thrown overboard" 5dII as a stepping-stone FF camera. In the meantime? I get GREAT images with my 7d (a camera I love - as far as features and useability it's perfect for me, and it's only the desire for FF resolution and ISO capability that pushes me to the 5 series). I even get great images from my xsi when I use it (I kept it as my backup camera).

I think it's so easy to get lost in the gear and its features that we forget it's about taking the pictures. If the camera can produce quality images - and the models mentioned in this thread can - then it's not a "bad" camera, even if it doesn't have the latest/greatest/newest bells and whistles. And it looks like the "next generation" is going to be about AMAZING cameras..... at least until they're considered passe in another 3 years

ETA: To tone down my seeming Pollyanna-ness, I will say that the 24-70II is hugely disappointing. No IS and a crazy, CRAZY price tag. I'll be sticking with my recently-repaired and cleaned Mk I, thank you very much....

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville BTW, every sign is hinting that BOTH Canon and Nikon are not "done" with these two new "affordable full-frame" cameras. We'll see TWO from each maker, this generation. Nikon officials / reps are stating left and right that the D800 is NOT a D700 replacement, and that the D700 is now dropping in price, which leads me to believe with HIGH confidence that we'll see the D4 sensor in an affordable body within the next 12-18 months. (I may be wrong but they often do price-drops right before an "s" refresh, or a direct successor...) Similarly, I doubt Canon will so easily relinquish their megapixel crown to Nikon; I doubt Canon just threw in the towel when they saw the D3X sensor quality; there's no way they've been planning ONLY a 22 megapixel sensor all this time. I'd bet they've got a 30-40 MP sensor in the oven, and again we'll see it within 12-18 months. Just food for thought. We're at the very beginning of the next generation, and not all cards are on the table yet. =Matt=

I hope Nikon do release a DX00 with the D4 chip, if nothing else it would make Canon price the 5D3 more competitively. I suspect Canon does have a high MP sensor in the wings as well, but I think they will wait and see if there is significant demand.

The next big camera for Canon will presumably be a 7D/60D replacement with a new sensor, as the 18MP sensor is pretty long in the tooth now.

18MP sensor is pretty long in the tooth now.

It still works just fine from where I'm sitting...

Question on the MPix race. Yes, more MPix allows more cropping after the fact and higher DPI/PPI on the print. But, if you assume 0.5 arc-min resolution then 12MPix puts your viewing distance at 1.4 times the diagonal and 22Mpix gets you 1.0x the diagonal for viewing distance and 0.5 arc-min resolution. So, while getting up at 3 feet on a 20x30 is a bit close, it isn't really unreasonable. But getting much closer doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. At 36MPix, the viewing distance can go down to 0.8x (29"). The increases in resolution are getting into a very non-linear area once you get past the 1.0x point.

For folks who print big (larger than 20x30), what viewing distances do you see as 'normal'?

Originally Posted by adbsgicom Question on the MPix race. Yes, more MPix allows more cropping after the fact and higher DPI/PPI on the print. But, if you assume 0.5 arc-min resolution then 12MPix puts your viewing distance at 1.4 times the diagonal and 22Mpix gets you 1.0x the diagonal for viewing distance and 0.5 arc-min resolution. So, while getting up at 3 feet on a 20x30 is a bit close, it isn't really unreasonable. But getting much closer doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. At 36MPix, the viewing distance can go down to 0.8x (29"). The increases in resolution are getting into a very non-linear area once you get past the 1.0x point. For folks who print big (larger than 20x30), what viewing distances do you see as 'normal'?

The studio I shoot with uses 5D mk2's in 9.9 megapixel sRAW1 mode all the time, and we have 20-30" canvases on the wall that look great even when you view them from ~12" away. Sure, they're not as incredibly detailed as a 21 or 36 megapixel image, but the bottom line is that they look gorgeous from just a few feet away, which is all people will ever view them from when they're on display in a home, on a wall behind a couch or desk, etc.

=Matt=

Matt, that is sort of what I assumed, but was wondering if people who printed the big stuff 30-40" stuff ended up upsizing their images with some like RealFractals (or PerfectResize as it is now), or if they just left physics deal with it. At least your studio lets physics do the heavy lifting...

Originally Posted by adbsgicom Matt, that is sort of what I assumed, but was wondering if people who printed the big stuff 30-40" stuff ended up upsizing their images with some like RealFractals (or PerfectResize as it is now), or if they just left physics deal with it. At least your studio lets physics do the heavy lifting...

The 36" prints I've made were up-sized in Photoshop using the regular scaling. I don't think that genuine fraactals etc. is hepful until you star making 5-10 ft prints and crazier.

=Matt=

Canon EU site is temp. down... much interest in the new gear announced today :)