Now that Canon is going to use their 18MP sensor on a few models, will they go even higher next year, do you think Sony/Nikon or Samsung/Pentax will match or go even higher.
Anyway at what MP number do you think it will stop
Pete
In the MP Race, how many MP will the APS-C Sensor end up with
(26 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Pete - Here's something I think you might find illuminating, check out the top selling cameras over at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/photo/3017941/ref=pd_ts_zgc_p_3017941_more?pf_rd_p=496482631&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=507846&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1AE5PGR48G0CXZG6ZEFB
Even though none of their consumer SLR's go above 12 mp, Nikon gets four of the top five spots. The only other camera in the top five? Canon's 12mp Rebel XSi. Of course the lower end models are going to sell better, but I think the take-away here is that consumers are getting the message that MP's don't make much of a difference any more. Now that everybody is shooting raw, I think consumers are asking themselves if they really need file sizes north of 7mb just to take some pictures of their kids.
12mp Prints nicely, so consumers don't care as much. Where will it all settle out? Probably around 24mp's Definitely no more than 30. My guess though is that consumers will probably get annoyed at the gluttonous hard drive consumption at these sizes and dial back the quality settings. 18 mp's is probably as high as you will ever see consumer APS-c cameras go.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Actually I don't want to have the highest MP, but the best IQ. But special Canon is hell bend on going ever higher on the MP war, because they know lots of people buy on camera specs
I was just wondering when will the MP madness stop, and I really don't think it will stop at 18 and not even sure it will be 20, just look at P&S cameras they went down a bit last year, but now lots are up to 14.1 MP
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
APS-C will stop around 20-24, I think. I'll bet FF will stop around 36 MP (a bit less than twice the APS-C number).
Posted 3 years ago # -
I thought the resolution match for film was around 35.5M or something. I would like to know that they could at least reach that res. I mean I agree with everyone completely, its the quality of the pixels and bit depth not the amount. Less noise!
Posted 3 years ago # -
The lowest price and the better specs are what sell the most cameras and Nikon is now out gunned on both.
Posted 3 years ago # -
So Niko do you really want a 20MP Nikon D6000 or something like that, or should Nikon just make one just to win/lead the MP race
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
You tell me Pete. What do your customers want most when they walk into the store? The lowest price or the most megapixels? Or the most MP for the lowest price?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hey Niko, did you click the Link? I'm not saying Amazon is the definitive source, but the anecdotal evidence is telling: Nikon seems to be doing just fine in the markets where it competes. I'm actually shocked that the D90 is doing so well this long after its introduction.
Consumers don't appear to be biting for more MP's if it means paying more. That wasn't always the case.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
Yes Willis but higher MP has meant more $$$ until todays announcement of a $799 camera body with 18mp. On top of that it shoots 1080p HD video. As I said in the other thread it is a D5000 killer.
When people ask me what is better the T2i or the D5000 what am I suppose to say other than, "Nikon is just better".
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think the APS-C will max out somewhere near the 20MP depending on how technology evolves to handle high ISO capability. Who would want a 20+MP camera that limits usable ISO to 400-800. The other option ofcourse is for the camer companies to offset ISO issues with fast and stabilized lenses for cropped sensors but at what price.
While Canon has certainly upped the ante in resolution, Nikon keeps pushing the envelope on ISO performance. For me....I'd like to see some higher resolution stuff from Nikon but ISO is far more critical to me.
Posted 3 years ago # -
DX sensor resolution will not stop before reaching 100mp.
I would not underestimate the potential for technology to deliver and for designers and users to find applications that demand resolution that matches technological capability.
The Coolpix P6000 has a pixel resolution of 548 pixels per millimeter, which yields a density of about 300,000 pixels per square millimeter.
The D300 has about 33,000 pixels per square millimeter today, a little better than the D3x.
Based on Nikon's published dimensions, the APS-C sensor in the D300 has 372.9 square millimeters, so at the same density as the Coolpix we get about 110 MP for the APS-C sensor, and 258 MP for DX.
At about 1/2 this density we will be pushing 400 lines per millimeter, the lens center resolution of today's best lenses for this format, but I fully expect that to be improved as well.
When will we see this resolution? Sometime between 2020 and 2025 if current trends in resolution continue. We started this decade with the 2.7 MP D1, with a DX-sized sensor; we now have 18MP in a slightly smaller sensor in Canons and expect to see similar resolution in Nikon this year or next.
Perhaps not all these pixels will be used just for resolution, but some could be used to increase dynamic range, color depth, noise control. There's no reason all the sensor sites have to be the same size. With this resolution, why use an antialiasing filter - pull the full resolution and do AA in software.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ah screw all this megapixel jibba jabba! I'm going back to film full-time! :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Dude Niko, did you check out the specs on that new Cool Scan? id does like 4000 dpi! That's like 20 Megapixels... oh wait...
Posted 3 years ago # -
4000 optical DPI with each pixel having full RGB color info is far better than 20mp of bayer patterned demosaic-ed pixels.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah I tried to make a large format digital camera out of my wife's flat bed scanner but she found out in time to stop me :^(
Posted 3 years ago # -
The high MP - high ISO debate reminds me of the Miller "less filling" - "taste great" ads. I think you'll get both someday. I see DX reaching 50MP. But by using a technique called binning, which is used in scientific cameras today, you combine the signal from 4 pixels (2 x 2) in chip. You've then quadruple ISO while halving linear resolution. So what you'll have is a camera that can switch from being 50MP to 12MP with more sensitivity.
But this may need to wait until the elimination of the Bayer filters to be really useful.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:
Pete - Here's something I think you might find illuminating, check out the top selling cameras over at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/photo/3017941/ref=pd_ts_zgc_p_3017941_more?pf_rd_p=496482631&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=507846&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1AE5PGR48G0CXZG6ZEFBEven though none of their consumer SLR's go above 12 mp, Nikon gets four of the top five spots. The only other camera in the top five? Canon's 12mp Rebel XSi. Of course the lower end models are going to sell better, but I think the take-away here is that consumers are getting the message that MP's don't make much of a difference any more. Now that everybody is shooting raw, I think consumers are asking themselves if they really need file sizes north of 7mb just to take some pictures of their kids.
12mp Prints nicely, so consumers don't care as much. Where will it all settle out? Probably around 24mp's Definitely no more than 30. My guess though is that consumers will probably get annoyed at the gluttonous hard drive consumption at these sizes and dial back the quality settings. 18 mp's is probably as high as you will ever see consumer APS-c cameras go.
Hard drives are cheap! :-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
astrophotographer said:
The high MP - high ISO debate reminds me of the Miller "less filling" - "taste great" ads. I think you'll get both someday. I see DX reaching 50MP. But by using a technique called binning, which is used in scientific cameras today, you combine the signal from 4 pixels (2 x 2) in chip. You've then quadruple ISO while halving linear resolution. So what you'll have is a camera that can switch from being 50MP to 12MP with more sensitivity.But this may need to wait until the elimination of the Bayer filters to be really useful.
I agree. The thing is, things like this (MP in cameras, computer clock speed, hard drive storage space) tend to increase steadily without really hitting any ceilings. I guess MP are a bit different since there can be physical limitations like diffraction effects, but there will always be new technology and new tricks used by chip manufacturers to make improvements. File size isn't really a big deal since HD space will get cheaper just as fast as file sizes get bigger.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ronin.1 said:
Hard drives are cheap! :-)Its not just storage space. Working with large images is a pain. It takes longer to copy them, longer to render them, processing an image slows down eponentially as resolution increases.
Ever try uploading a gig of photos before? We had to a couple weeks ago and it took around 4 hours (Time Warner is pretty crappy when it comes to upload speed). It took the client another hour or so to download it... it would have been easier to just overnight a disk.
My only point is that even at 12mp, the first thing you generally do with a photo before using it is to downsize it. Printing is probably the highest pixel density application we have, and it tends to top out around 600 dpi and generally happens around 300 dpi. Viewing an image on your computer? Your going to be lucky to have a screen better than 100ppi. News print? Forget about it.
For almost all applications other than giant printouts or extreme cropping, 12mp is enough... you'll still wind up throwing away pixels.
I'm not knocking high resolution, I'm just saying it is no longer a consumer feature. Nobody wants giant print-outs of their snap-shots. Pro's that actually need higher resolution are the ones who will actually pay for it.
Consumers are getting wise to the game. They'll take it as an add-on, but they don't seem to be willing to pay for it anymore as evidenced by the current sales.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It is the pro end we should see the mpx rise (maybe the prosumer too). I findv that 12mpx (Dx) isn't nearly enough for what I do
Posted 3 years ago # -
I guess that the MP war will stop at 24Mpx for DX and around 36Mpx for FF, anyway I like to have more Mpx - especially if the cost of having them is not getting lower quality on higher iso... and it looks like it's not in the case of the new canon 550d, I've seen the pictures on dpreview.com and from the first looks it has a fully usable iso 3200.
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's a first for canon
Posted 3 years ago # -
The resolution of Nikon's latest pro lenses (14-24, 16-35, 70-200) is designed to support at least 60 MP on FX and 24 on DX, which we should see by 2014, on our way to 120/50 by 2020. Nikon's MTF charts will have to start using 20 and 60 l/mm to show off the resolution of the new pro lenses. The cameras at 1/2 the maximum resolution will be the high-ISO PJ/Performance/Sports cameras just like today, the studio/landscape cameras will have the ultimate resolution, and we will still be complaining that we have to spend over $5,000 for the latest top-of-the-line FX Nikon, in spite of the fact that the entry-level 24 megapixel DX SLR and its EVIL twin have pretty good 12,000 ISO, built-in HDR, 360-degree panorama stitching and XD video.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
