# The Megapixel Race.......Nikon's next step?



## JTPhotography (Feb 6, 2015)

Canon raises the bar to 50. I wonder if Nikon will try to match it or put the energy into improving on their already awesome dynamic range. Personally, I would have to think long and hard about  upgrading to anything with more resolution than the d800.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 6, 2015)

I think Nikons next step should be a medium format DSLR to compete with the Pentax offering. 
I am getting the feeling that at this point, there would be issues with diminishing returns with further MP upgrades. 
i just dont see pictures actually getting much better between 36 mp and 50 mp...so what would the point be of 70 mp?
they should just go medium format.


----------



## waday (Feb 6, 2015)

Instead of increasing mp count or increasing sensor size, they should just include features that photographers really want: a hypnotic device to convince clients to pay for more pictures.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 6, 2015)

I think they could do the same as Leica, have no screen to view the pictures but Nikon shooters wouldn't be able to manage without a screen


----------



## runnah (Feb 6, 2015)

Well Nikon is on the tail end of their release cycle so odds of seeing anything big out of them won't happen for another couple years. Canon is just starting their big new releases so you can expect more.

On a side note, it really isn't a "race" between the two brands, more like a game of leapfrog. One brand leads for a bit, then they switch.


----------



## shadowlands (Feb 6, 2015)

I know, please don't increase the MP. 36 is insane enough. My computer can't handle 50MP, lord....


----------



## AKUK (Feb 6, 2015)

The PSD files can get large enough and suck up enough RAM inside PS on the D800 as it is. With 50mp, you'll need a pretty decent PC and plenty of backup storage for the RAW + PSD files. I dare say in a year or so, we'll see something equally or more extreme from Nikon. Personally I wish they'd focus more on dynamic range, ISO performance and shutter speed on these larger resolution cameras. Maybe a global/electronic shutter and increased sync speeds for great control of ambient light with flash. I think that would be my favourite feature improvement.

Large resolution cameras certainly have their merits. The ability to crop in after the fact as well as printing large scale images. Still, you're going to need some serious glass to match those resolutions. I can get acceptable images from the D800 with the old 50mm f/1.8D. If it was larger than 36MP, I think I'd have to splurge on the Sigma Art, which is about 6 times more expensive.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 6, 2015)

runnah said:


> Well Nikon is on the tail end of their release cycle so odds of seeing anything big out of them won't happen for another couple years. Canon is just starting their big new releases so you can expect more.
> 
> On a side note, it really isn't a "race" between the two brands, more like a game of leapfrog. One brand leads for a bit, then they switch.


That's my favorite game!


----------



## tirediron (Feb 6, 2015)

AKUK said:


> ...Maybe a global/electronic shutter and increased sync speeds for great control of ambient light with flash....


 THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nikon's never played in the MF game, I can't see them starting now.  Something else I would LOVE to see are LOWER base ISOs (assuming they came with a corresponding improvement in noise, detail, etc. I would love to be able to shoot 25 & 50 ASA equivalent again.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 6, 2015)

We can only hope it becomes a reality. Imagine syncing at 1/1000 sec or higher. Droooooooool! Wide aperture flash shots without the need for ND filters to control the ambient.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 6, 2015)

AKUK said:


> We can only hope it becomes a reality. Imagine syncing at 1/1000 sec or higher. Droooooooool! Wide aperture flash shots without the need for ND filters to control the ambient.


 Suuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!


----------



## goodguy (Feb 6, 2015)

My gut feeling ?
Yes Nikon will replace the "small" 36MP sensor on the D820 with a 50MP+ sensor.
I dont care, as long as they will continue to make good general use camera with 24MP (or so) sensors then I am happy.
I like good resolution so I can crop if needed my pictures but I also like good low light performance and I think 24MP is a good place to stay and just keep improving those low light high ISO performance.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 6, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I think they could do the same as Leica, have no screen to view the pictures but Nikon shooters wouldn't be able to manage without a screen



Troll.


----------



## snowbear (Feb 6, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Troll.


(It's fewer keystrokes to put him on ignore.)


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 6, 2015)

snowbear said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Troll.
> ...



No way, I'm a huge gary fan. But I also slow down when I drive past accidents.


----------



## dennybeall (Feb 6, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I think they could do the same as Leica, have no screen to view the pictures but Nikon shooters wouldn't be able to manage without a screen



 Wow, is that what that shiny square on the back of this NIKON is?, I wondered.  A screen, how useful.
Especially for HD Video........................


----------



## mikoh4792 (Feb 6, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I think they could do the same as Leica, have no screen to view the pictures but Nikon shooters wouldn't be able to manage without a screen



Most of your posts are of you going out of your way to diss nikon users. I haven't seen one person here act like Nikon was the best, which is usually your excuse for hating on the brand. Don't you use a camera with a screen as well?


----------



## KmH (Feb 6, 2015)

Making pixels smaller by putting more of them on an image sensor of the same size includes some trade offs.

The biggie is a lower SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio).
That means more software tweaks to handle the increased image noise the lower SNR causes.

Next is resolution, or more specifically not having lenses that have as much resolving capability as the increased MP image sensor.
In other words an Image sensor that out resolves the lenses available for the camera the new higher MP image sensor is in.

Or put another way - Be careful what you wish for. LULZ.


----------



## cgw (Feb 7, 2015)

Nikon's biggest challenge now is simply making cameras people want to buy:

The Numbers are In byThom Thom Hogan

Nikon Third Quarter Financials byThom Thom Hogan

This overshadows any blather about which brand offers the most sensor real estate.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 7, 2015)

KmH said:


> Making pixels smaller by putting more of them on an image sensor of the same size includes some trade offs.
> 
> The biggie is a lower SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio).
> That means more software tweaks to handle the increased image noise the lower SNR causes.
> ...



My thoughts exactly. You need good glass with the D800/D800e/D810 to get the best out of the resolution/cropping. Most people would need to upgrade their glass to pretty much the best out there, in order for the increased resolution be of use. Otherwise you'll crop in and have soft images, which kind of defeats the point of having such a high MP count in the first place.

What I have found amusing are some of the fanboys out there rejoicing over the 5Ds. When the D800 came out they slammed it for being too big resolution wise._ "22MP is way big enough for all my photographic needs. 36 is just ridiculous. The RAW files will be huge on the D800. The PSD files massive. Never gonna need anything bigger than my 5D MKIII". _

Personally I couldn't give a toss what brand a camera is. A good bit of equipment, is a good bit of equipment. I have no doubt the Canon will be impressive but, it's going to take top notch glass to get the full potential out of it.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 7, 2015)

mikoh4792 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I think they could do the same as Leica, have no screen to view the pictures but Nikon shooters wouldn't be able to manage without a screen
> ...


My main cameras don't have a screen,  you can't have read my posts there are some that always say Nikon are best


----------



## goodguy (Feb 7, 2015)

gsgary said:


> mikoh4792 said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


You said Nikon is best ?
Interesting, either you stopped trolling us or I am still sleeping.
Dont worry though I still think Sony makes great cameras and still waiting for them to come with f2.8 zoom lenses.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 7, 2015)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > mikoh4792 said:
> ...


2.8 [emoji3] I use F1.4/F1.5/ F2/F2.5 on my A7


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 7, 2015)

Thank you Thom, err, cgw, for your blog plug. I feel like we don't get enough of those.

As always, cgw, err, Thom can quote numbers just fine and draw charts, but his analyses of them appear to be drawn out of an unsavory part of his own anatomy.


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 7, 2015)

Could care less about more mp's how about native  iso's of 25,50,64 that would be huge, who cares about 50mp's only my opinion. I still use my Canon1Ds all the time. 11.1 mp's ! Just picked up a mint cond. 5d 12.8mp's that's all I need.


----------



## cgw (Feb 7, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Thank you Thom, err, cgw, for your blog plug. I feel like we don't get enough of those.
> 
> As always, cgw, err, Thom can quote numbers just fine and draw charts, but his analyses of them appear to be drawn out of an unsavory part of his own anatomy.



So please share your reading of the CIPA/Nikon numbers, OK? Otherwise, you're just outgassing...

Rejection isn't much a rebuttal.


----------



## Overread (Feb 7, 2015)

ENOUGH

Quick picking fights you lot. If you can't stand someone then use the ignore feature. If you wish to disagree on a certain raised topic or point then use a polite choice of language; dropping to insults is shallow, crude and a fast way to getting a mod involved. 

If you find another users posts highly abusive or breaking site rules then use the report feature and let mods deal with it - don't rise to the bait.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 7, 2015)

Elided per request.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 8, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Elided per request.


Wimp repost it


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 8, 2015)

ne555 said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Canon raises the bar to 50. I wonder if Nikon will try to match it or put the energy into improving on their already awesome dynamic range. Personally, I would have to think long and hard about  upgrading to anything with more resolution than the d800.
> ...



Need, no but it has benefits, assuming other qualities are met, like sharpness and dynamic range.  And as others have said, if you have good glass to get the most out of the resolution. Those benefits are crop power and print size.


----------



## raventepes (Feb 8, 2015)

Right now, I'm kind of one of those guys just kind of waiting to see where this new Canon is headed. Interesting beast. 

Just came upon an article by Ming Thein. Figured I'd share it here since it's relevant. 

OpEd resolution output collector or photographer Ming Thein Photographer


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 8, 2015)

I like that one line 'are you sure something else isn't robbing you of resolution?'

I can flat guarantee you that almost all the time something is. Doesn't mean a 50mp sensor doesn't make sense.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 9, 2015)

Just for the record - I much rather prefer the 12 Megapixel Sensor of the Sony A7s. Native ISO 100k - now thats some amazing sensor !



tirediron said:


> Nikon's never played in the MF game, I can't see them starting now.


 Nikon might not ever have produded medium format, but they DO produce the maybe best large format lenses in the world, at least from what some people in the internet claim (not because of sharpness, which apparently is pretty perfect in this area anyway, no matter who produced the lens - but because of consistency in color rendering between different lenses).


----------



## goodguy (Feb 9, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> Just for the record - I much rather prefer the 12 Megapixel Sensor of the Sony A7s. Native ISO 100k - now thats some amazing sensor !


 Agreed, Nikon should get this sensor from Sony and stick it into one of its body!


----------



## gsgary (Feb 9, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the record - I much rather prefer the 12 Megapixel Sensor of the Sony A7s. Native ISO 100k - now thats some amazing sensor !
> ...


I hope they don't let them have it and keep for themselves Sony would be on top now but probably wouldn't make as much money


----------



## goodguy (Feb 9, 2015)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Solarflare said:
> ...


I doubt Nikon will be interested in this sensor, they are now locked in a MP race with Canon and doubt they will be interested in developing a low MP high ISO camera, I wish they would but I doubt it very much.


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2015)

Just as the new two 5D bodies are niche market options I'd be willing to bet that a low MP high ISO camera would fit another niche very well. Indeed we might be entering a time where we get more of these niche bodies being promoted.


----------



## Lucryster (Feb 9, 2015)

Overread said:


> Just as the new two 5D bodies are niche market options I'd be willing to bet that a low MP high ISO camera would fit another niche very well. Indeed we might be entering a time where we get more of these niche bodies being promoted.




Yeah, Nikon just announced the D810a which is specifically set up for astrophotography.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 9, 2015)

There's no technical bar to having tons of models out there. There are expenses, though. Some companies are better at this than others.


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2015)

Canon has had an astro camera for a while as well-  though not as heavily marketed.

If it becomes a trend its both a good and bad thing for us.
On the one hand more specialist options means that those of us with niche demands can get cameras more suited to those requirements with detriments that likely won't be a huge problem for us. It's a boon for the camera manufacturer as well as they can now maybe sell you two cameras - one general one specific - or even two or three specific instead of one general. 

On the other the risk is that the manufacturers get too hooked on the idea of niche; that we end up with cameras which are focused so fully to their market sector that the manufacturers can't afford to have those specs in general bodies - thus any generalist photographer will always operate at a disadvantage. 


It might also suggest that tech is reaching a limit-point where further advance is smaller when trying to advances all areas uniformly; ergo spread out into niches where you can fill the slot whilst suffering hte cost of that improvement.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 9, 2015)

I want an A7f so it will take film


----------



## runnah (Feb 9, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I want an A7f so it will take film



How about just an advance lever that plays the winding sound effect?


----------



## gsgary (Feb 9, 2015)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I want an A7f so it will take film
> ...


The camera I want has that, a digital that you have to wind on every shot Epson RD1


----------



## runnah (Feb 9, 2015)

gsgary said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Who designed that camera Dr. Moreau?


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 9, 2015)

My preferred DSLR would require that you fiddle with a lever on a lens, and then remove a "dark slide", in that order. Doing it the other way around also works but produces a pure white frame. You have to bathe the camera in mercury vapor to get the SD card out.

Off my lawn you dang kids.


----------



## dennybeall (Feb 9, 2015)

photoguy99 you're giving our age away talking about shooting with a 4X5 Speed Graphic.......
look to the left


----------



## gsgary (Feb 9, 2015)

I won't be buying another digital camera when my A7 bites the dust, no need to upgrade with film


----------



## goodguy (Feb 9, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I won't be buying another digital camera when my A7 bites the dust, no need to upgrade with film


You sound like you are very eager to get back to your film so here is an idea, you can send your A7 to me this way it will not be in your way going back to film and maybe you will make a Sony convert at the same time.
Just a helpful idea.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 9, 2015)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I won't be buying another digital camera when my A7 bites the dust, no need to upgrade with film
> ...


I have never stopped shooting film 95% of what I shoot is film


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 10, 2015)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


 That was some 6 Megapixel rangefinder (for the Leica M mount), IIRC it had an APS-C sensor (so 50mm wasnt 50mm etc), a couple years before Leica ever had their Leica 8.

Epson R-D1 Review


----------



## goodguy (Feb 10, 2015)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Well there you go, why let these pesky 5% stop you from shooting film 100% ?
I am here to help you, send me your A7 and make a Sony convert!
I do everything for my friend.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 10, 2015)

goodguy said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


You wouldn't be able to handle it


----------



## goodguy (Feb 10, 2015)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Try me


----------



## gsgary (Feb 10, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


That is still a great camera beautiful for B+W, only downside it has Nikon DNA D70 sensor


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

If I did my math right, then the individual photosite size is about 4100nm, which is only about 6.5 times larger than the wavelength of red light.

I can't help but wonder if it really makes much sense to pack that many pixels into a small format sensor. Apparently, this pitch has been proven in the 7D II, but there is a physical limit that is quickly being approached here, eventually the photons simply won't "fit" inside the sensor without some sort of quantum wibbly wobbly side effects. At that point, I think we'll all have to reconsider the mirror, unless you're into hauling around a digital Graflex RB Series. Thrrrrumk ... ssshhhhhhchwwwip.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 11, 2015)

I wonder how many will buy a new 5D 50 MP body just to post low res JPEGs on facebook. 
How many Canon lenses are there that can take advantage of a 50 MP sensor?


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 11, 2015)

greybeard said:


> How many Canon lenses are there that can take advantage of a 50 MP sensor?



All of them. Sharpness is an overall system property. Improve any one component and the output will be sharper. To some degree.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 11, 2015)

greybeard said:


> I wonder how many will buy a new 5D 50 MP body just to post low res JPEGs on facebook.
> How many Canon lenses are there that can take advantage of a 50 MP sensor?


There are plenty with D800's doing that so there will be thousands with the 5D 50mp


----------



## AKUK (Feb 11, 2015)

There's plenty doing it with 12MP cameras, let alone anything bigger lol. The 12.3MP D90 produces 4,288 × 2,848. Most forum limits are around 800 pixels on the longest edge. 23" monitors are around 1920 x 1080. 27" 2560 x 1440. So even if you uploaded a full size image to flikr, it has to be resized locally for the resolution of the viewers display size.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

(don't get me wrong, the RB is an AWESOME camera)


photoguy99 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > How many Canon lenses are there that can take advantage of a 50 MP sensor?
> ...



That's true to an extent but if the resolution of the lens is superseded by the recording medium, then there is no advantage.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 11, 2015)

That's simply not true. The benefits may be quite small but they'll always be there. MTFs don't plummet to zero at some magic number, they tail off more or less indefinitely.

The relevant question is whether the benefit of the new sensor (or other component, or collection of components) is worth the cost.

Certainly you'll see more benefit if you spend $1800 more on a nice lens to go with your new sensor.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

Ok. Well. You keep trying to cram 6 micron pegs into 4 micron holes.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 11, 2015)

So, is the pixel pitch on this sensor roughly the same as the sony/nikon 24mp APS-C sensor used on the d3300-d7100-a6000?


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 11, 2015)

Little smaller. Not much tho.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2015)

It is the same as the 7d MK II from what I read at dpreview.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 12, 2015)

Nikon's next step? How about a new $899 CoolPix model?! I'm actually expecting something that dumb, or dumber...


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 13, 2015)

greybeard said:


> I wonder how many will buy a new 5D 50 MP body just to post low res JPEGs on facebook.
> How many Canon lenses are there that can take advantage of a 50 MP sensor?


Not many if any !!!!!!


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Feb 13, 2015)

LARGE FORMAT SENSORS


----------



## gsgary (Feb 13, 2015)

Wish I had a yawn button


----------



## waday (Feb 13, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Wish I had a yawn button


It's a shame you don't have a Nikon. I believe they have that feature.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 13, 2015)

waday said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Wish I had a yawn button
> ...


I just can't believe people talk about stuff like this how the **** does anyone on here know what Nikon are going to make


----------



## waday (Feb 13, 2015)

gsgary said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Completely agree with you. They don't, and they'll waste their lives speculating. I just try to make the best of what I have and what's available.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 13, 2015)

waday said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...


I don't care about the latest up to date camera with loads of stuff you don't need


----------



## AKUK (Feb 13, 2015)

It's a bit like the iPhone thing to be honest. I don't get all the morons who queue - sometimes for days, just to be the first, or one of the first people to get a new iPhone, brag about all the features to their friends and family, yet don't do anything different with it than they did with their old one. Cameras are no different in a lot of respects. The science of marketing makes people feel as if their current camera is only as useful as a doorstop, compared to the latest version. 

A camera is a tool. You pick the right one for the task at hand. You make the picture. The camera merely takes a picture. Remember that and your work will improve, as will your bank balance


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 13, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I don't care about the latest up to date camera with loads of stuff you don't need



I really like that you're a minimalist........ who the hell needs a good camera ......... or punctuation ......... or properly structured sentences? Right G-man? LOL


----------



## unpopular (Feb 13, 2015)

I have pretty good grammar most of the time. I feel like I do just fine with my A700 and XE-1.


----------



## qleak (Feb 13, 2015)

Nikon's most recent dslr cameras all use Sony sensors. So shouldn't it be what will Sony do next in the MP arms race? 

Or Toshiba? 

Give me a break


----------



## AKUK (Feb 13, 2015)

Give it a few years and I think Sony are going to take a major chunk out of the Canon and Nikon sales. They are the ones really pushing the boundaries with sensor performance and design. I found their curved sensor pretty interesting. I also think it will be Sony who introduce the electronic global shutter. If you're a flash photographer or videographer, that certainly will be enticing. With Sony providing sensors to both the major players in the market, they could really screw them by developing even better sensors and keeping them to themselves. I also think Canon are majorly shooting themselves in the foot by not working with Magic Lantern. ML have taken an already great camera in the 5dmkIII and brought some really great additional features in their own custom firmware. Really innovative stuff. Canon should be employing them, not doing things to stop the enhancement of their gear. It just shows a total lack of real innovation on the part of Canon and Nikon. They need to up their game because with Sony producing such good sensors in their cameras and Pentax now throwing their hat into the full frame ring. Things are going to get much more hotly contested.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 13, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Give it a few years and I think Sony are going to take a major chunk out of the Canon and Nikon sales. They are the ones really pushing the boundaries with sensor performance and design.



**pulls out poncho** It's gunna get muddy in here.


----------



## Overread (Feb 14, 2015)

Sony should get on board and drop that custom flash mount they use and use a standard one and start pumping out more lenses - although with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina making pro-series lenses now that might not be a huge problem (for customers - it is for sony of course). 

The other question is how long can Sony keep pushing huge amounts into sensor technology - and also how long before Nikon and Canon consider doing the same. I get the feeling taht Nikon and Canon pushed all their money into lens advance and Sony wet "ok you guys make lenses - we'll go make sensors". So it could be we'll see Canon and Nikon slow lens advance in a year or two and pick up on sensors again - since yes there is that risk that Sony will withhold the best for themselves. It just depends - if Sony wants a bigger slice of the direct market they will withhold the best - if they don't mind they'll keep selling their best, although favouritism might play a part (here Nikon can have the best this year - Canon you get it in 12 months time)




On the subject of firmwire I really think most of the camera manufacturers could take a big leaf out of the PC market and release firmwire updates more often to older camera models. They are missing a huge chunk of customer loyalty by allowing us to upgrade our older or even more recent gear with new shiny features; not just require us to pay to continue being loyal by buying new bodies.


----------



## qleak (Feb 14, 2015)

AKUK said:


> Give it a few years and I think Sony are going to take a major chunk out of the Canon and Nikon sales. They are the ones really pushing the boundaries with sensor performance and design. I found their curved sensor pretty interesting. I also think it will be Sony who introduce the electronic global shutter. If you're a flash photographer or videographer, that certainly will be enticing. With Sony providing sensors to both the major players in the market, they could really screw them by developing even better sensors and keeping them to themselves. I also think Canon are majorly shooting themselves in the foot by not working with Magic Lantern. ML have taken an already great camera in the 5dmkIII and brought some really great additional features in their own custom firmware. Really innovative stuff. Canon should be employing them, not doing things to stop the enhancement of their gear. It just shows a total lack of real innovation on the part of Canon and Nikon. They need to up their game because with Sony producing such good sensors in their cameras and Pentax now throwing their hat into the full frame ring. Things are going to get much more hotly contested.


Magic lantern is not a firmware.  It's software that runs from the SD card


----------



## gsgary (Feb 14, 2015)

Overread said:


> Sony should get on board and drop that custom flash mount they use and use a standard one and start pumping out more lenses - although with Sigma, Tamron and Tokina making pro-series lenses now that might not be a huge problem (for customers - it is for sony of course).
> 
> The other question is how long can Sony keep pushing huge amounts into sensor technology - and also how long before Nikon and Canon consider doing the same. I get the feeling taht Nikon and Canon pushed all their money into lens advance and Sony wet "ok you guys make lenses - we'll go make sensors". So it could be we'll see Canon and Nikon slow lens advance in a year or two and pick up on sensors again - since yes there is that risk that Sony will withhold the best for themselves. It just depends - if Sony wants a bigger slice of the direct market they will withhold the best - if they don't mind they'll keep selling their best, although favouritism might play a part (here Nikon can have the best this year - Canon you get it in 12 months time)
> 
> ...


A7 has a normal flash mount


----------



## AKUK (Feb 14, 2015)

qleak said:


> Magic lantern is not a firmware.  It's software that runs from the SD card



Correct. We use it here on two Canon 5DMKIII for video work and have done so for a long time. Granted it might not technically be firmware in the traditional sense because it doesn't get written to the Canon's hardware permanently. Essentially it is a firmware add-on. However it is commonly referred to as firmware by those that use the ML software, which is why I referred to it as such.

The fact remains though that Canon recently started working against ML with one of their firmware updates for the camera, which is sheer idiocy on their part. Rather than embracing something that offered significant improvements to their product and taking on-board those who developed those expertise, they have instead attempted to thwart them and in the process strip the benefits their customers gained. We see computer hackers getting hired by software developers to develop better code and a better product quite often, yet Canon seemed to have missed this point.


----------



## Overread (Feb 14, 2015)

Canon I think is very used to the idea of controlling what we can and can't do with the tools they give us. I think that this helps them streamline their production - they basically build higher level bodies and then change what features we can and can't use with them to produce lower level bodies. Ok that isn't all of it, but I'm very sure that its part of the reason - that way they can cut down on production costs because now more bodies are sharing the same internal parts and build. 

Of course it scares them when ML start doing things because suddenly their nicely controlled market structure gets broken if lower level bodies can do things higher level ones can too - suddenly they are worried customers of the higher level will get lower level and 3rd party software instead. 

I think it was the 300D that was a fantastic display of this; the released body had lots of locked away features and capabilities which got unlocked by 3rd party software.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 14, 2015)

I agree it's certainly unnerved them but if they embraced the features ML were producing, they'd be able to control the situation better. Currently, they're trying to squish something organic that has brought a lot of benefits to their customers. People still need to buy Canon to use the software and ultimately working against what brings their customers benefits is bad PR at best.


----------



## Overread (Feb 14, 2015)

Thing is they'll only squish it short term - long term nearly all code can be broken and ML have done it for a while now. 

Honestly I'm not sure why either - I guess Canon hopes that by squishing it they retain control - they've probably got many of the ML features on their "future models" list of features to add. Like it or not they are slaved to modern business which states they MUST keep reselling products to their customer base; as such they've got to have a continual roster of features to drip-feed into production. 

So they don't want ML jumping the gun otherwise years of release plans for them go out the window - at least software and features side.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 14, 2015)

Exactly. The coders will ultimately win out in the long run, they always have done. Probably not in all that amount of time either. Look what happened with Adobe CC. I don't even think it was 24 hours before the coders hacked their way around the Adobe activation protocol lol. 

I can fully understand Canon wanting to maintain control of the model/pricing/feature structure but equally, ML and firmware add-ons aren't something that are going to go away. Due to the internet and the speed markets and information moves at nowadays, the old business models are going the way of the dinosaur. People favour MP3 over CD. DVD sales have taken a hammering over services like Netflix. Markets are shifting so quickly that unless you adapt, you go extinct. Kodak learned that the hard way. 

With so much innovation coming from newer, smaller brands, the big boys will be sorely mistaken if they think they can continue they way they have been, just because of their size.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 14, 2015)

Add on software is a nightmare for the manufacturer.

When something goes wrong with a closed system you know who's fault it is. It's yours. You fix it.

The whole system, the camera, the firmware, the warranty and support organization, the sales and and marketing, everything, not one piece of it is set up to handle third party software running on the camera.

It can turn into an utter cluster-eff. You can burn a lot of money chasing phantom bugs, for instance.

So they're not just being meanies.


----------



## qleak (Feb 14, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Add on software is a nightmare for the manufacturer.
> 
> When something goes wrong with a closed system you know who's fault it is. It's yours. You fix it.
> 
> ...



Again ML is not firmware and it runs on the SD card.   It can be returned to stock quite easily.


----------



## Lucryster (Feb 14, 2015)

qleak said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Add on software is a nightmare for the manufacturer.
> ...



It still influences how the camera runs and operates. Really doesnt matter that its installed on the sd card instead of the camera itself.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 14, 2015)

Let's say that the camera has a minor problem. Software needs to do X before it does Y or, very very occasionally, the shutter will tear itself apart.

Customer returns camera with destroyed shutter. Swears they were not running ML. Software team spends $100,000 trying to find a bug in Canon's software that does not exist.

I don't care if you call it software, firmware, or magic beans. These are real problems.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 14, 2015)

Which is why Canon working with, or actually employing the people behind ML to develop new features for the cameras at the firmware level, would be in both Canon and the end users' interests. Some of the best features in the 5DMKIII have come from the ML software. If I were heading up product development at Canon, I'd be very interested in what these guys were bringing to the table and certainly wouldn't want the competition to get their first.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 15, 2015)

Nice meta discussion going there about Canon and ML! Had to look twice at the thread title!

Does Nikon really need to match the megapixels?  Depends on their marketing strategy.  Trouble is that the headline numbers are what is easiest for advertising execs to manipulate and publicise.  The average Joe in the street won't know or care much about lower native ISO, though to people like me it does make a difference.  I think that Nikon need to work a bit to get their lenses up to scratch.  

Speaking as a Nikon D800E and Pentax 645Z owner, I have to say that the Nikkor 24 - 70 2.8 is a bit long in the tooth and needs replacement.  It's soft in the corners with pronounced CA at 24 - 28mm at any aperture you care to choose - just as Canon's original 24 - 70L was.  This is one of the 'Holy Trinity' lenses, and I don't think it is harnessing all of the D800/E/810's pixels let alone a 50mp.  

As a landscape shooter, I don't think much about sync speeds, dynamic range is an important consideration, but I think we need to  be a little careful what we wish for.  If you get TOO much dynamic range, then shots will look flat.  You then have to more work in post to give the shot some shape.  Am finding  this with some shots with the 645Z.  I think around 14 - 15 stops of DR is optimal, and it's a pity that the 5DS/R are unlikely to have this.  

I think we may be reaching the point of diminishing returns.  Just increasing the MP count I fear is not going to end well.


----------



## Microbois (Feb 15, 2015)

I haven't read this whole discussion,  but here's my take on the subject.

I think we have enough pixels as it is, at least in the DSLR category. I have a Nikon D610, and it's plenty enough. The D810 packs a a lot of pixels, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about that. If I need to have a picture printed the size of a small car, a DSLR is probably not the best camera for it anyway.

I'm just fed up of the incremental minor upgrades both Nikon and Canon bring to the table with each iteration of their DSLR models. I can't wait to see something truly disruptive. Most likely, it will come from the software side, and not from hardware, but both Canon and Nikon aren't the most advanced on that aspect. Secondly, I would patch all the holes they have in their lens lineup and accessories.

Ô well, I'll stop complaining and keep shooting pictures...


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 15, 2015)

You want disruptive? Lytro.

We don't generally recognize or like genuinely disruptive things right of the bat.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 15, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> You want disruptive? Lytro.
> 
> We don't generally recognize or like genuinely disruptive things right of the bat.



I don't like it because: Lytro Living Pictures


----------



## unpopular (Feb 15, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> You want disruptive? Lytro.
> 
> We don't generally recognize or like genuinely disruptive things right of the bat.



People act like lytro invented light field, a principle that has been known to physics since Faraday described it in the 1800's. It's nothing new at all, and experimentation in light field photography has been taking place since the 1990s.

Lytro taking it into a commercial product is interesting, however, I am not really sure what Lytro's next step is going to be. The technology has a lot of photographic potential that Lytro just isn't pursuing yet.

If Lytro, Sony, Nikon or Canon worked together to produce a camera capable of generating a, say, 8mp image, something large enough to work with, or a cinema camera capable of 2K or higher (just imagine what light field photography could do for cinema!) that would be really interesting. (this is likely not possible at this point).

Lytro seems content selling very expensive novelty cameras to wealthy techies. While the latest camera is a big improvement, and lytro might just surprise us, thus far they've only managed to disappoint.

----

With the traditional digital photography, I think that the future will be in avalanche diodes. These sensors are extremely light sensitive, and function similarly to, as I understand it, solid state PMT tubes. Small sensor arrays have been developed for IR rangefinder applications (Avalanche photodiode arrays APD arrays First Sensor These 64 pixel sensors currently cost well over $1000 (retail), so it's going to be a while before a 24-megapixel, visible spectrum array is developed.

APD though is likely the future unless some other superior technology becomes available first. I'd venture to guess (and it's only a guess) that these sensors would have an upward ISO in the millions with virtually noiseless ISO well over what current cameras struggle with.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 15, 2015)

There's at least one other company doing light field.

Anyways, that was just an example. The disruptive is often dismissed as a novelty or silly until one day you wake up and notice that everything is different.

If you've ever sneered at cell phones and offered an argument that they'll never replace a DSLR my advice is to prepare to be blind sided, cuz you're not going to see it coming.


----------



## Overread (Feb 15, 2015)

In theory cameras might well get to a point where the features of a current DSLR can be fitted into a mobile phone; although I think we are a long while off that yet.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 15, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> There's at least one other company doing light field.
> 
> Anyways, that was just an example. The disruptive is often dismissed as a novelty or silly until one day you wake up and notice that everything is different.
> 
> If you've ever sneered at cell phones and offered an argument that they'll never replace a DSLR my advice is to prepare to be blind sided, cuz you're not going to see it coming.



I don't sneer at the possibility of using a cell phone.  They can take great photographs when they have the right light.  Their biggest problem is when they don't have the right light.  A certain amount is easy to sort out, but the small sensor is the biggest drawback. The Panasonic with the 1 inch sensor looks promising but is something of a niche product.


----------



## Microbois (Feb 15, 2015)

I don't know if you read Thom Hogan's websites, but he's been repeating ad nauseam what should be the next steps for DSLR. I essentially share his opinion on the subject, but it looks like Nikon and Canon are stuck into the incremental upgrade approach, and there is no sign it will change anytime soon.

As far as the Lytro camera, I've read about it, and looked at a few examples, but it's not very practical, nor do I see an interest in making such pictures.

By disruptive technology, and for the consumer market, I would think of a "smart" camera that can make some use of what it sees, and expose accordingly. For instance, if it's pitch dark, and there are a few dots of lights here and there, well... maybe Joe Average is trying to take a picture of a night sky. If the camera detects a lot of mouvement (sports action), and can actually figure out the speed at which objects are moving, then it can crank up the shutter speed to freeze movement. If the frame is filled up with snow or sand at the beach, hmmmm... maybe the camera can figure it out, and expose accordingly. I mean, all this is not beyond our actual capabilities, but most of the work will be done through software. Of course, all this technology would be useless for those who know what they are doing, but that would be a great area of improvement for beginners, or those who actually don't care about learning photography.

For experienced photographers, improvement to the workflow from the camera is long overdue. When you think that a guy sitting at a baseball game can send an edited picture of the game within couple seconds from his iPhone, it puts a lot of pro cameras to shame. Sure, he won't have the quality, nor a long reach zoom, but this is an area that can be improved a lot in higher end cameras.

Obviously, there would be other aspects as well, but I'm not buying. I have a Nikon D610, and I don't need more pixels, nor do I need more this or that. I'm perfectly pleased with it, and will use it for a very very very long time before I think of upgrading.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 15, 2015)

Microbois said:


> As far as the Lytro camera, I've read about it, and looked at a few examples, but it's not very practical, nor do I see an interest in making such pictures.



The problem with Lytro isn't so much light field, it's Lytro. The company doesn't seem to understand photography, and how light field photography could benefit photographers.

While it is very cool that you can change the focus and to some degree the perspective, light field photography packs a lot of information about the scene. Backgrounds could be very easily edited away, subjects isolated, selective adjustments made much more precise with the addition of information about depth being intrinsic to the image.

I do think light field will be the eventual future of image processing, but it's still a ways off. Furthermore how these images will be processed is a pretty far departure from traditional image processing. Lytro likely will play a role in that future, but how significantly really depends on if Lytro continues to limit their own product.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 16, 2015)

I think one thing that is for certain though is that the mirror and optical viewfinder is on it's last legs. No matter how much we love optical SLRs there are just too many reasons for Nikon, Canon and (already) Sony and Fuji to abandon them. Electronic viewfinders will only get better and better and they are already much cheaper, more reliable and with more features than the typical optical viewfinder we're comfortable with.

Don't get me wrong, I love optical viewfinders. But my DSLR is gathering dust and I don't think I've even charged the batteries since I got my XE-1. The XE-1 is just so convenient and reminds me so much of my beloved Canonet that it's just too much fun to use. Hybrid rangefinders like those of the X-Pro and earlier on the Contax G will also likely be seen.

The inevitable push to medium format (this is a phys, and a demand for entry level full frame will only increase the challenges associated with swinging mirrors in a compact enough form that is suitable for general photography and journalism.

Plus, who doesn't want a digital Mamiya 7?

----

On a side note, could they tune the width of the individual photosite to correspond to a given color, i.e. have red photosites around 800nm wide, blue photosites 400nm wide? At that point, could they just graduate the width by, say 10nm and instead of recording RGB data, record the spectra of the image, pixel by pixel?

Each such pixel would be 16um wide, which is comparable to each composite "pixel" (RGBG) on this 50mp EOS at around 12um.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 16, 2015)

unpopular said:


> I think one thing that is for certain though is that the mirror and optical viewfinder is on it's last legs. No matter how much we love optical SLRs there are just too many reasons for Nikon, Canon and (already) Sony and Fuji to abandon them. Electronic viewfinders will only get better and better and they are already much cheaper, more reliable and with more features than the typical optical viewfinder we're comfortable with.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love optical viewfinders. But my DSLR is gathering dust and I don't think I've even charged the batteries since I got my XE-1. The XE-1 is just so convenient and reminds me so much of my beloved Canonet that it's just too much fun to use. Hybrid rangefinders like those of the X-Pro and earlier on the Contax G will also likely be seen.
> 
> ...


I don't want a Mamiya 7 spoiling by making it digital


----------



## unpopular (Feb 16, 2015)

Might be too late?

More details on the rumored Sony Zeiss and Mamiya medium format digital rangefinder cameras Photo Rumors


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2015)

The mirrorbox won't be replaced yet. Video viewfinders are good, but they are not good enough.

Firstly they suffer from the fact that DSLRs still read light in bands across the sensor not all at once, which means when you have video you get fast moving details bending over the frame (helicopter blades show this fantastically). 
Secondly they are not quite up to speed with action and fast panning. 

I suspect that the electronic overlays (which we already have) will remain the mainstay until such time as the video features catch up. However the more you boost video the more processor time (and investment) you have to stick into the camera; processor time that could be better spent doing photo related things rather than fiddling with the display, which in all honestly, does work very very well with simple mirrors.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 16, 2015)

No, not now. There's a lot of catching up to do. But along with super-sensitive sensors and increased processing power, it is very conceivable that the frame rate you'd see in the viewfinder could exceed 60fps, which is about the upper limit of human perception.

At 100fps and a 4K+ viewfinder at significantly low light, it would out perform optical finders. I think that's possible within 5-10 years.

The bigger problem though is accommodating large sensors into a current generation DSLR platform. You just can't get that with a swinging mirror. Well, you could if the mirror slid (or at least slightly thicker), but the mechanism and optics would need to be very complex.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 17, 2015)

1. There is more than just resolution. The 44x33mm Sony sensor still outperforms the 36x24mm Canon sensor, and substantly, in all categories. So I dont see the big problem.

2. Also, Sony is Sony. Its not really always an advantage, but it means they'll for example stay ahead of the Megapixel race ... thus its just a question of time until the 44x33mm Sony Sensor will get even more Megapixels.

3. The point of medium format is not just the Megapixels, either. Its the excellent optics, primes at f/2.8 to f/4 open aperture that are basically optically compromise free and "perfect".

Thus I still hope the Sony/Zeiss/Mamiya rangefinder will see the light of day.


----------



## Alexr25 (Feb 17, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Plus, who doesn't want a digital Mamiya 7?


Me for a start!
The film one was bad enough and a real PITA to use, why anyone would want a digital version is totally beyond me. On the other hand if anyone wants to get rid of a Hasselblad with that big floppy mirror and a digital back they can send it to me, I'll even chip in for the postage.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 17, 2015)

Alexr25 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, who doesn't want a digital Mamiya 7?
> ...


You have to be joking the Mamiya 7 is agreat camera not much matches the lenses


----------



## unpopular (Feb 17, 2015)

Alexr25 said:


> On the other hand if anyone wants to get rid of a Hasselblad [...] I'll even chip in for the postage.



Jammed up, frozen shutters on over-priced, over-hyped bodies are totally my thing, too!

I'll take Rollei 6000-series or a Contax 645 over Hasselblad any day - with the exception of the arc body.

And I agree, the Mamiya 7 was an awesome camera, and the fact that they still sell for as much as they do should say something, especially for Mamiya - which normally depreciates pretty quickly.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2015)

A far as NIKON's next move in the megapixel race, I think that race has been minimized...both Canon and Nikon have shown that they're happy to make lower-than-consumer megapixel count bodies, like the D4s and 1DX that have vastly lower MP count than the highest-in-brand models. On the professional and "working" bodies, there's got to be at least some acknowledgement of the need to keep image quality very,very high while also keeping files sizes reasonable, as a way to keep frames per second speed high, keep storage needs reasonable, and keep overhead/resource needs at a reasonable level for transmission/archiving/reviewing/processing. I mean, the Nikon D4s and the Canon 1Dx have "low-megapixel" sensors in them, compared to  the consumer and enthusiast Nikons, which are all at 24 million pixels, and now Canon has finally moved its very-newest consumer models up to 24 MP, and its 5D variants to 50 megapixels, but still, there are some "working photographer" models that really do NOT need the very state of the art in MP count. So...I don't think this race is as big a deal as it WAS in the 2004-2009 era.

We've gotten to the point now where added megapixels, anything over say 22 to 24 MP in full system d-slr cameras, is not really that big of a selling point to a lot of the market. For working shooters, like wedding shooters, or sports/event/news shooters, whose images are usually run fairly small, and who often shoot A LOT of images, file size is a real concern. CLEAN, low-noise, good color, and wide dynamic range images of 16,18,22,or 24 million pixels are...really plenty for a lot of people. I honestly do not think that adding more MP is a positive direction for all users, and in fact it is seen as a negative by some people.

Back to Nikon's next step: I have very little faith in Nikon's vision or innovation, and the flat camera market with declining sales means there's not much incentive for them to innovate or develop radical, new offerings with the hope of greatly increasing sales. The d-slr market is constricting...the glory days are in the past. I see Nikon as just plugging along. When Sony comes out with a newer, higher MP sensor, Nikon will likely make a body that uses it. I really don't expect much innovation or much of a reaction to Canon's 50 MP camera bodies.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2015)

Thing is with Sony so eager to sink vast sums of money into sensors it seems likely that Nikon and maybe in the future Canon and others will just buy the Sony sensors. Because to compete with them might be near nuts (esp since Sony doesn't seem as heavily invested into the lens line-up as the others). Sony also has to make a splash so it will be interesting to see how long they retain their sensor hold; could be what we are seeing is a short term huge investment to let them carve out a slice and then they'll settle down as well


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2015)

Toshiba's APS-C sensors are used in at least one current Nikon body. According to photographylife.com, "The sensor on the D3200 is made by Nikon, while the sensor on the D5300 is made by Toshiba (same as on the D7100). The D5300 has no optical low pass filter, so it is capable of resolving more details than the D3200". So, currently, the D5300 and D7100 cameras have sensors made by Toshiba. Nikon has also used its own in-house sensors recently, and seems content to use Nikon, Sony, or Toshiba-made sensors. Right now, the Toshiba-made 24 MP sensor in the D7100 is pretty close to state of the art in terms of overall performance at the per-pixel level, so I think we need to remember that while Sony sensors are very good, there is not a total monopoly in the sensors-for-sale market.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 17, 2015)

Derrel's got a good point.

The market is contracting. It's not very hard to make some rough guesses at where the bottom is, and when we'll get there.

So the game at this point is to set up to be on top when the DSLR market bottoms out. This is quite different from when the market is expanding. Five-ten years ago the correct procedure was to innovate like mad and see what features stuck. Now you probably want to be focusing on the pros and high-end amateurs, the influencers who define the market. The market isn't going to include the moms and so on, who are seduced by nifty sounding features. The money is likely to be in selling a million or so a year to enthusiastic amateurs who want to shoot what the pros (or whoever their heros are) shoot.

It's about capturing the influencers, not about generating a parade of new features.

Simultaneously you're looking at how to shrink the company to fit, without destroying it, and without destroying the company's ability to build products.

Is Nikon doing a good job? They DO seem to be doing pretty well building, and maintaining, a suite a "high end" cameras. They're the category leader in everything an influencer is likely to be doing. Studio. Landscape. Sports. Etc.

Canon's 50mp camera could well be an efforts to take over that studio/landscape spot. I'm not sure 50mp is the right answer here, but it's a start. They need to be looking for exquisite color rendering and things like that as well, to dominate those categories with this new instrument.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2015)

The downside to a shrinking market is more releases with less gravity in each release. At least that seems to be how many other companies manage things; they streamline toward mass production of more product; but at the same time also mix the updates up so that you get smaller gains between updates. Essentially its milking the market - esp those people who HAVE to be at the cutting edge and have the latest model.

In cameras though I'm not sure how viable that is at the higher end; we already see that many oft hold back half a year or more on new releases when upgrading; and that bigger more significant gains nearly always work to the companies favour (esp in stealing customers and winning htem over to your side).


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2015)

Overread, your response is basically what is happening now...more releases, with less gravity in each! Iteration, not "innovation"...that is the way the camera companies, and many other companies in mature markets,operate. I also agree with you that the mirorbox is far from dead; there's a segment that lovs to trumpted the upcoming world domination of the EVF cameras, but the sales figures show that to be a very small market segment, at least from the POV of Canon and Nikon. Thom Hogan's article last week lays out a case for Canon and Nikon **not bothering** to worry much about the mirrorless market...they ALREADY are the world leaders in the d-slr segment, so their best interests are to just tread water in this declining market, and...hope. The fanboys on the internet keep repeating their opinion, that EVF/mirroless systems are "the wave of the future" and that Canon and Nikon "must move toward mirrorless"--but the fact is, other makers have only small niche market presence in mirrorless, compared to the lion's shares Canon and Nikon control, so...the flat, or even worse, the _constricting_ market for fancy cameras means Canon and Nikon don't need to really do anything else except...iterate. That will keep them afloat for the forseeable future.

Right now, I shoot 24 MP FX...that meets my needs pretty well; I dare say the LAST thing I want is a camera that shoots files that are twice as bloated. As Hogan has mentioned many,many times, a lot of his readers seem to be in a thing he calls, "*last camera syndrome* mode," meaning the camera they have they think is the last one they really NEED. I have 51 AF points and a battery that will shoot 2,500 frames on a charge. I reallllly do not need much more.

Medium format from Nikon? I do not think so, no. Too much needed R&D for lens development and manufacturing, and not much of a market to sell to. And I see no viable partner that Nikon could snuggle up to, lens-wise, so I think medium format from Nikon is very unlikely, unless it's something very SIMPLE, and also high-profit, like say a Bessa 667 folding medium format type of camera with a pretty simple, modest lens on each camera.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2015)

I think mirrorless has a strong hold on the internet market because

1) for years DSRL shooters didn't have a "serious" point and shoot. Mirrorless gives them that serious point and shoot. It's new, exciting and has got them hooked. Many buy it as a compliment not replacement of their DSLR. Ergo the markets don't directly compete for all.

2) Many who are dropping the DSLR system totally are oft those who are older generation or in some ways disabled or simply shooting and wanting a much lighter setup. The mirrorless lets them keep shooting whilst using gear that is of high quality, but lighter in weight.

3) The last group are those predicting that DSLRs will become mirrorless; which is at present mostly looking to the future and isn't really a downside to the DSLR makers; in fact its really nothing at all

As such many compare mirrorless to DSLR, but in reality I think its more competing with the serious point and shoot market instead. Yes mirrorless is growing and DSLR is if not growing then shrinking; but I suspect that mirrorless isn't the direct cause


----------



## runnah (Feb 17, 2015)

I think mirrorless will eventually take over a larger chunk of the market once they show a REAL advantage of switching.

Smaller and lighter is not an advantage when there are still many sacrifices.

Beside most of us have large manly hands and a gripped DSLR isn't a burden.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2015)

Thing is if you make a mirrorless with a fullframe sensor your lenses have to be the same size. So whilst at the budget end you're ok - at the serious end you're really not saving much. Further at that point the heavier weight of a DSLR provides more area to grip and more counterbalance whilst holding. 

Really the only gain is the "electronic viewfinder" which isn't ideal if you're doing anything action based.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2015)

HERE is a link to the Bessa 667 (switchable between 6x6 or 6x7 cm images) folding medium format rollfilm camera. There have been many other cameras like this before from various manufacturers. Now THIS kind of a camera might actually be useful with the 44x33 type "medium format" sensor. The lens on this kind of a camera need not be all that fancy...and it avoids the need for an all-new lens mount AND at the same time, it keeps the actual lens size and weight very,very low. This design also has a very retro appeal, which I think many would like. If you've ever owned a folder (I have) you also know how EASY one is to carry in the field! A folder like this is also a VERY simple mechanism. Voigtlander Bessa III Rangefinder Folding Camera Black AA667M


----------



## sashbar (Feb 17, 2015)

Overread said:


> Thing is if you make a mirrorless with a fullframe sensor your lenses have to be the same size.



That is not quite correct. Short flange distance allows for mirrorless lenses to be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter (wide-angle lenses in particular), and for wider apertures than DSLR lenses.  And that means - same quality/max aperture/focal distance lenses for the same sensor size.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2015)

True and pancake lenses are becoming more popular as well so for shorter range stuff its more possible; though f2.8 or wider glass is still going to come with some weight to it - and anything over 100mm is going to get bigger. 

The bigger question though is ergonomics. film cameras were restricted by the way film worked; DSLRs have kept the look but really when you look at it its not perfect. Indeed mirrorless cut down on a lot of holding space for a setup (esp if you don't have dainty hands). 

Mirrorless removes more restrictions and thus barring the LCD suggests that they could go for a totally new erganomic design.


----------



## CygnusStudios (Feb 17, 2015)

I'm coming into this conversation a little late, but I remember very well when the 5 mega pixel camera came out and everyone was convinced it was the best thing to come along since perforated toilet paper. 

On a computer screen, a magazine, or even a billboard 100 feet away being driven by at 60mph, 99.9% of the people on the planet can't tell the difference in megapixels. 

My current systems the Nikon D3 and Mamiya Leaf Credo 80 are scoffed at by some photographers on both ends of the spectrum. One being too low and the other being too high.

Never in all my years has one single client ever cared what camera system I used, raw vs jpeg, dslr vs mf, or anything else that photographers get all riled up about. 

If you think that a 50 + megapixel camera will automatically transform your photography into masterpieces or make the job that much easier, well more power to you.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 17, 2015)

CygnusStudios said:


> On a computer screen, a magazine, or even a billboard 100 feet away being driven by at 60mph, 99.9% of the people on the planet can't tell the difference in megapixels.



Couldn't disagree more. It has all be covered here before, so I won't go into it again, but yes, there is a difference.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 18, 2015)

I think the most impressive comparison I've ever seen was when I was shown two 24 Megapixel images, of the same subject, both full of detail, and was asked to point out which was from the Nikon D3x (24 Megapixels native) and which from the D3s (12 Megapixels), but upscaled. I had to think really, really long because I just couldnt figure out which is which, and in the end I was sure I figured out which one had more detail ... but it turned out I was wrong.

Ever since I'm much less into Megapixels than before.





sashbar said:


> Short flange distance allows for mirrorless lenses to be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter (wide-angle lenses in particular), and for wider apertures than DSLR lenses.  And that means - same quality/max aperture/focal distance lenses for the same sensor size.


 Well, thats correct, but unfortunately, on the digital sensor you also have to solve the problem of steep angles of the light.


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 18, 2015)

goodguy said:


> My gut feeling ?
> Yes Nikon will replace the "small" 36MP sensor on the D820 with a 50MP+ sensor.
> I dont care, as long as they will continue to make good general use camera with 24MP (or so) sensors then I am happy.
> I like good resolution so I can crop if needed my pictures but I also like good low light performance and I think 24MP is a good place to stay and just keep improving those low light high ISO performance.


Yes like native  iso's of 25,50,64 please !!!


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 18, 2015)

bigal1000 said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > My gut feeling ?
> ...



I wonder why this hasn't been done yet? It would be nice to have a built in 10 stop ND.


----------



## runnah (Feb 18, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> bigal1000 said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...



Video cameras have had built in ND filters for years.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 18, 2015)

just think. All those mps i wouldnt even have to frame shots. i could just snap away and  crop the chit out of every one.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 18, 2015)

No, they should make cameras with built in IR filters--because that's what everyone needs.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 18, 2015)

Overread said:


> Thing is if you make a mirrorless with a fullframe sensor your lenses have to be the same size.



No, look at rangefinder lenses.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 20, 2015)

unpopular said:


> No, look at rangefinder lenses.


 Uh ... if you are talking about Leica - those are small because:

(a) they are all (or almost all) primes (which has to be this way because of how rangefinders work),
(b) do not need space for an autofocus motor and other gimmicks, and finally
(c) because Leica managed to handle steep light angles by making their sensor have much finer structures than other sensors, thus being able to place the photo diode much closer to the surface. This allows to avoid using retrofocal constructions in the wide angle lenses, which make them both much smaller and of higher image quality.

Sony FE lenses mostly do not have these benefits.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 20, 2015)

Overread said:


> True and pancake lenses are becoming more popular as well so for shorter range stuff its more possible; though f2.8 or wider glass is still going to come with some weight to it - and anything over 100mm is going to get bigger.
> 
> The bigger question though is ergonomics. film cameras were restricted by the way film worked; DSLRs have kept the look but really when you look at it its not perfect. Indeed mirrorless cut down on a lot of holding space for a setup (esp if you don't have dainty hands).
> 
> Mirrorless removes more restrictions and thus barring the LCD suggests that they could go for a totally new erganomic design.



I'm not sure how film cameras were restricted by the way film worked i also have big hands and have no trouble with my small Leica M's and A7, i also never put grips on my DSLR's


----------



## gsgary (Feb 20, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > No, look at rangefinder lenses.
> ...



All M lenses are primes apart from the WATE and MATE which are 3 primes in one lens


----------



## Overread (Feb 20, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > True and pancake lenses are becoming more popular as well so for shorter range stuff its more possible; though f2.8 or wider glass is still going to come with some weight to it - and anything over 100mm is going to get bigger.
> ...



I'm referring to the shape of the body itself. A film camera had to have space for the film, the flat plane for it to record to and then another part for it to wind onto. SLRs also had to (in the past) have a full mirrorbox setup which again partly dictated the possible shape of the camera. Now in the digital age we have the potentail to change the shape of the camera to one that might be more ergonomic to hold.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 20, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> Sony FE lenses mostly do not have these benefits.



That is not what I was saying. I am saying that all these technical issues can be resolved with current technology. (ultrasonic AF motors are not large at all!)

But I was making a point about future technology needing to overcome the bulk of a swinging mirror as sensor size must inevitably be made larger.

The pixel density issue is real for so many reasons.

OTOH, there are tricks to get around resolution. Hasselblad (IIRC) is already using superresolution which makes 50mp into 200mp (with six exposures). If superresolution can be carried out in fast shutter time (or even limited to, say, 1/250 or under), we may see a massive and sudden increase in useable resolution. The multi-exposure approach will certainly be available for stationary subjects sooner than later - even if you don't have $50,000 with B&H written on it.

Being that Sony/Minolta has always had sensors capable of controlled shifting to compensate for shake, I don't know why Sony hasn't incorporated super resolution yet (it's not a new concept) - and it's a little frustrating it hasn't.

So, maybe there is still a place for small format after all.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 20, 2015)

Why must sensors inevitably be made larger?

The trend for 150 years has been pretty steadily the other way.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 20, 2015)

Cost, sensitivity, diffraction limit, the number of photons you can physically fit into a single hole with any degree of predictability (though, we're a ways from that).


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2015)

Speaking of super-resolution from multi-sampling the sensor data...Olympus announced their OMD EM5 Mark II in mid-February 2015. This camera can use the sensor-shift system that is located in the body to combine multiple images into one file. I've seen a few sample pics: the images are MUCH more detailed than the native 16 megapixel single-capture images are. Thom Hogan addressed some of the issues this system has last week in his article, The Downside to More Pixels at The Downside to More Pixels byThom Thom Hogan

here's a quickie early article talking about the new camera. Olympus to Make 40MP Sensor Shift Photos Possible During Handheld Shooting


----------



## Overread (Feb 20, 2015)

Now that interesting! Limited to 1/60sec or slower, but still fascinating and also perfectly doable for landscape or similar work. If it advances up into the faster shutter speeds it could really make a huge difference to the camera market and what is possible!


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 23, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Why must sensors inevitably be made larger?
> 
> The trend for 150 years has been pretty steadily the other way.


 Well, thats wrong.

If you want more resolution, larger sensors was always the way to go.

Also, the digital area progresses the other way around.





Derrel said:


> Speaking of super-resolution from multi-sampling the sensor data...Olympus announced their OMD EM5 Mark II in mid-February 2015. This camera can use the sensor-shift system that is located in the body to combine multiple images into one file. [...]


 Thats no new technology. Though their idea to make it also work handheld is intriguing.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 23, 2015)

No, no. The trend has been smaller pretty steadily.

The TREND has been PRETTY STEADILY smaller.

Read all the words. Yes people still go 8x10 and larger for various special cases.

But the TREND has been PRETTY STEADILY toward smaller formats. 

unpopular appeared to be talking about TRENDS which is why I made the statement I made.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 23, 2015)

I'd agree, the trend has been toward smaller capture formats since about 1900 or so. The smaller formats offer greater depth of field for EACH and every single picture angle. 6x6 cm rollfilm has very shallow DOF with is normal angle of view lens, the 80mm f/2.8 prime; full frame 35mm or 24x36mm digital has more DOF with its normal 50mm lens; APS-C has a bit more DOF; m4/3 has even more DOF; TINY formats like cell phone sized sensors have almost hyperfocal depth of field even with their lens at f/2.8 and focused to a meter and a half distant. Over the course of a century, photography has shifted from large capture devices being the norm, to medium-sized capture, to small, and now, to TINY capture sizes being pretty widespread.

The biggest change in picture-taking as format have grown smaller and smaller is less and less need to focus absolutely critically, and the ability to have deep depth of field pictures made easily. With a 4x5 camera on a tight headshot, it's tricky to get the nose in focus and the ears in focus. With a smartphone, that is nooooo problem. Boom! Done! Even one-handedly!

According to some recent heavy-duty sales data analysis I saw presented at CES (in an online video), consumers the world over are favoring greater convenience and simplicity over the lure of "more MP" and "more features". Adding more and more and more megapixels is NOT solving the problem of declining sales in the d-slr market space. People want easier-to-use imaging devices, not ones that have higher MP count and more features. I don't think it matters what Nikon does next--the need for a 50 megapixel camera to match Canon's newest announced models is very limited, and a 50 megapixel Nikon body is really not going to help sales very much.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 23, 2015)

The trend of everything is smaller, but most smaller things are better.

using tapatalk.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 24, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> unpopular appeared to be talking about TRENDS which is why I made the statement I made.



No. I was talking about technological limitations, specifically, on professional and prosumer markets. In these markets there has been a trend toward larger, full frame formats (A7, 5D/6D, D600/D800).


----------



## TTLui (Feb 24, 2015)

Give me a super light, smaller, D4s type body, perhaps made of carbon fibre and magnesium (even if it cost more than the outgoing model) I don't need more megapixels. 20 megapixels should be just fine. I just need lightweight/portability and the same functionality and speed as the flag ship camera.


----------



## LostLensCap (Feb 24, 2015)

Nikon may make a body like an 810Z that would be 50+ MP.  I'm sure Sony can, and probably has, expand the 24mp AP-C sensor to FX size which would more than do the job.  Aim it at the advanced studio/landscape shooter and charge like $3,900.00 for it.  But, like Derrel wrote, will it improve Nikon's bottom line?  Probably not.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 24, 2015)

Well, I disagree, IMHO the current trend in photography is getting bigger in sensor size.

Especially if you're like me and want maximum low light performance, big sensors and bright primes is the way to go.


----------



## shadowlands (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm honestly fine with 36MP. It's plenty. But I still use my D300 for most things I do, like running around, etc...
When I do a paid job, or travel, I bust out the D800 RAW, but of course, it takes more time, post processing.
But it's not a huge difference when compared to my former D700. Just a little more time.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 24, 2015)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> Well, I disagree, IMHO the current trend in photography is getting bigger in sensor size.



If one looks at the total number of digital cameras, there is a veritable tidal wave of small-sensor imaging devices from 90% of the manufacturers. And then, there is a small bucket that holds the very few cameras that have 24x36mm or larger imaging sensors. Medium format digital sells something like fewer than 10,000 units per year world-wide, from what I've heard. So, to me, the idea of a trend means that the 90% majority is the trend, and the bigger sensor products are not "a trend", but merely outlying outposts along the fringes of the territory. The highest volume selling imaging devices are smartphones, which have very TINY sensors.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 24, 2015)

if you took the phone, internet, app, and SMS abilities away from those cameras (as well as offering them for free when you pay for these services), would people still buy them?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 24, 2015)

Braineack said:
			
		

> if you took the phone, internet, app, and SMS abilities away from those cameras (as well as offering them for free when you pay for these services), would people still buy them?



Good question. Reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch, "*What If?*" My favorite was the episode where they examined the question (gramatically incorrect, BTW) "*What if Julius Caesar had a Piper Cub?"
*
Smart phones are small, light, rugged, and super easily pocketed, or carried in purses or on belt holsters. My iPhone would have to be one of the thinnest, most compact, and most easily carried still AND HD video cameras I have ever,ever had. Smart phones shoot huge numbers of images on their built-in memory, and have high-quality display systems that serve as both viewfinder and playback device. All in all, the typical iPhone/Android smart phone of today is a high quality camera and video camera. But we can't go back and What If? out of existence the data plans, web connectivity, and instant world-wide transmission of images and text and video that smart phones have. My guess though is that a good smart phone would still be a popular camera and video camera and self-contained storage and display device that would outsell almost any camera that has ever been made.

According to Thom Hogan, internet connectivity is one of the critical features that regular cameras are seriously lacking in. The ability to instantly transmit and share images from the smart phone is what is making using a smart phone camera such a popular alternative to using a regular camera. Also, the phone cameras are EASY to use, not confusing or threatening to technically challenged people.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 24, 2015)

problem is though....
your phone always (usually) has an internet connection even when your not on a wifi hotspot, so you always (usually) have a camera with its own dedicated internet access.
cameras though...even ones with wifi (our little samsung P&S has wifi) only have that connection when you are near a wifi signal.

maybe what they need is a DSLR with an option to have access to 3g/4g/LTE phone connections.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 24, 2015)

Derrel said:


> If one looks at the total number of digital cameras



Absolutely. There is no doubt that there will be a consumer market for high performing small format sensors.

What impact does that have on other markets? While sensors have gotten smaller from 1" sensors of analog television to 1/8" sensors of cell phone cameras, larger format DSLR cameras have been getting less expensive with higher demand. The Pentax 645D and the rumored Sony and Mamiya digital mirrorless systems are examples of how, indeed, sensor size still matters to people who are interested in photography rather than snapshots. If true, the Sony medium format rumor is especially interesting since their market is not currently professional photographers.

Take a look at the Nikon 1. A big reason I was not interested in it was due to it's sub 4/3 sensor. Of course, there are advantages to small sensors, but going too small likewise is limiting.

There is a push in both directions depending on the market you're talking about, but those two markets are so unique from one another, you can't really say "well, look at cell phones!" when you're talking about DSLRs and Mirrorless.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 24, 2015)

unpopular said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that there will be a consumer market for high performing small format sensors.
> 
> What impact does that have on other markets?



Uhhhhh....the consumer market for small, point and shoot type digital cameras, and for digital "bridge" camera, has almost DIED since smart phones replaced those products world-wide. Digital camera sales dropped seriously in 2012, and precipitiously in 2013, and also very steeply again in 2014. The market for digital cameras peaked in 2010. After that, it's been allllllllllll downhill for the camera makers. The market for cameras has constricted, seriously.

This Chart Shows How the Camera Market Has Changed Over the Past Decades


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 27, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The highest volume selling imaging devices are smartphones, which have very TINY sensors.


 Okay.

I simply dont care about smartphones. Or notebooks. Or whatever other non-camera also has an image taking option.

Heck, I dont even care for whattheyarecalledagain webcams.

Oh and also not for security cameras.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 27, 2015)

Give me mega grain any day


----------



## unpopular (Feb 27, 2015)

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unless you are suggesting that Nikon is going to market a pro-photographer smart phone with an 1/8" sensor, we're talking about different things - and different futures.

It doesn't matter what platform you put an 1/8" sensor into, or that the camera phone has eaten into the P/S market, the consumer market and professional markets are unique - and always have been.

It's like saying that because Kodak sold a butt-load of Brownies and Ponys, widespread use of SLRs by professional photographers shouldn't happen.

Trends at the lowest end have limited impact on the highest; and if anything, trends on the high end impact expectations on the lower end.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 27, 2015)

It's weird how people say that a handful of full-frame cameras from Nikon, and less than a handful of models from Canon and Sony make up a "trend" toward larger image sensors, when 95% of the cameras on the market have SMALLER SENSORS than FX. Jesus...look up the word trend, learn what it means. The "trend" in imaging is small sensors. Simple. Obvious. Fact.

A few outliers are NOT a "trend"...the "trend" is the whole "herd" so to speak...not a few peripheral individuals that are outside the group.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 27, 2015)

But Derrel, what I want is a camera that records only green wavelengths.

Nikon is missing out by not building this thing and jumping on the greentography trend!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 27, 2015)

photoguy99 said:
			
		

> But Derrel, what I want is a camera that records only green wavelengths.
> 
> Nikon is missing out by not building this thing and jumping on the greentography trend!



Hey....I've actuallly heard about *going green* being good for my household, and my community, and indeed the entire planet! Nikon oughtta' get with the going green program!


----------



## unpopular (Feb 27, 2015)

ARGH! TWO DIFFERENT MARKETS!!!!

What part of this don't you friggin' understand?


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 27, 2015)

if you really want to talk "trend"...
the "trend" has been going with_* smaller*_ sensors for years.
there have been a _*few*_ advances in medium format sensors, but far more has  been invested by companies in sensors smaller than the 35mm format. Even discounting cellphone cameras, the overall trend for well over a decade has been smaller than 36x24 sensors.
the two best examples of this are, of course, APS-C sensors, which have dominated DSLR sales since the beginning, and more recently, but no less impressive sales wise, the m4/3 format cameras. Even Nikon got in on their own small sensor with the Nikon 1, which is smaller than m4/3 sensors. 
I would call  those a "trend".


----------



## Dave442 (Feb 27, 2015)

Interesting chart by Hilbig. I think I followed that change to digital and from compact to DSL, though still do not have a mirrorless.   Now if I use that historical data to predict a trend I don't think I can. The drop-off does show a market shift, but to what it does not say. 
All I know is that I don't see anyone in our family buying another compact camera, those died back with our initial move to the iPhone 5 and some other smart phones. Now my grandson loves to use my old Sony 5mp compact camera, but charging batteries every few hours and downloading all the pictures for him makes me want to just give him a smartphone and have all those pictures be automatically uploaded directly to Flickr (and wherever else he wants to send them) like the rest of the family (he just wants to be like me - charging batteries and downloading from memory cards all the time).


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 28, 2015)

Cant we just agree that digital system cameras, i.e. digital cameras with interchangeable lenses, both DSLRs and mirrorless, tend towards larger sensors over time ?

Also compact cameras - the small sensor compact market has collapsed, and theres suddenly a surge of APS-C compacts, and theres even a full frame compact (Sony RX1) as well.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 28, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> Cant we just agree that digital system cameras, i.e. digital cameras with interchangeable lenses, both DSLRs and mirrorless, tend towards larger sensors over time ?
> 
> Also compact cameras - the small sensor compact market has collapsed, and theres suddenly a surge of APS-C compacts, and theres even a full frame compact (Sony RX1) as well.



uh...no.
because that's not the case.
cameras _*started*_ large format.  Large format view cameras.
they have been trending towards..say it with me now..._*smaller*_ sensors ever since.
large format->medium format->35mm->aps-c->m4/3 etc, etc.

the small sensor compact market has collapsed?
are  you..._*serious*_? or....is it something else?
aps-c and m4/3 sensors _*are*_ small sensor compact cameras. that was the whole idea behind them. smaller and cheaper for a wider consumer market.

so a few companies are going to full frame. whoopie!
35mm was the _*compact*_ format of the day...smaller than the previous standard of 120/220 film.
full frame, IE:35mm, was a downsized format.

so..in conclusion..again
the trend is the same as it has been since the beginning. smaller.
if a few companies want to produce a large format, thats not a trend. thats an offshoot.

the trend has not changed with the film to digital transition.


----------



## Overread (Feb 28, 2015)

Could we perhaps summarise this with:

Some companies are making bigger sensors
AND
Some other companies are making smaller sensors
AND
Some companies are doing things with physics that defy sensors
AND
GSGary is still using film


----------



## Derrel (Feb 28, 2015)

Overread said:
			
		

> Could we perhaps summarise this with:
> 
> Some companies are making bigger sensors
> AND
> ...



YES! gsgary is still using film! This week he bought his first Nikon film camera! He posted a pic shot with it this very day! And so, based on a wildly,wildly small sample size of one, we can, no, we MUST agree: all film camera users, meaning _those people who make photos using film_, are *trending toward becoming Nikon users*.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 28, 2015)

oh forget it.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 1, 2015)

The only trend that I see is today's smaller sensors are performing better than yesterday's larger sensors.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 1, 2015)

sashbar said:
			
		

> The only trend that I see is today's smaller sensors are performing better than yesterday's larger sensors.



And that is one of the main reasons so many people are perfectly happy with small-sensor cameras, APS-C and m4/3, in the 16-megapixel range. Fuji is at 16 megapixels on APS-C sensors...makes NO FX sensor cameras, and has a small but dedicated following. Olympus has built a small and dedicated following using 16 megapixel m4/3 sensors. 95% of all Canon and Nikon d-slr cameras sold are APS-C models. The huge preponderance of interchangeable lens cameras actually BOUGHT, world-wide, use small sensors, either m4/3, or APS-C, with a few other even smaller sensor cameras adding some sales. For the most part, APS-C sales are the lion's share, due to the 40-33 percent split of Canon and Nikon as market leaders. Right now, I would estimate that 95 out of 100 higher-end digital camera sold are using an APS-C or m4/3 sensor size.


----------



## Solarflare (Mar 2, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> cameras _*started*_ large format.  .


 Digital cameras started with large format ? Interesting.

Seriously, if you dont bother to actually read what I wrote, please dont bother to answer either. Thank you.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 2, 2015)

So what's this thread about????


----------



## unpopular (Mar 3, 2015)




----------



## MartinCrabtree (Mar 3, 2015)

Nikon's next step is the F7. A MF roll film camera.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 4, 2015)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Nikon's next step is the F7. A MF roll film camera.


Lets hope so


----------

