-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the megapixel race over?
- Thread starter sunscream
- Start date
Jimmy Chen
Senior Member
Far from it, the real war is just starting ...
Canon just announced the 11.1mp full frame sensor ...
Kodak has in the oven a 10mp full frame sensor ...
Who knows what Sony is cooking?
Major camera mfg'ers such as Nikon/Oly/Kodak are not going to sit there and not come out with a 35mm DSLR while Canon grabs the market ...
The war is just starting ... IMHO.
--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
I would define it as arms race not war. It's gonna be just like an arms race - pointless and exhausting. Would you rather have 6mp sensor or wireless remote and saturation control on F727? And what it's going to be?
Jimmy Chen
Senior Member
However we view it, my point is the real race is finally starting ... As of this point all we have seen are racers warming up with P&Ss, sub-35mm sized sensors ... Contax introduced the first full frame DSLR, but on their own there is no race. Canon is now joining the race, and others will follow for sure.
Whatever you want to call it, the end result is we consumers will end up with better digital cameras at lower prices ... and at the end we win ...
As for the F727, if Sony takes another year on it, I dont think I'll be waiting for it because by then the 35mm DSLR war/race and associated price wars will be well under way.
Who knows, the gun make just go off in couple weeks with even more racers.
--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
DarrenH
Senior Member
But the point of the article, Jimmy, is that demand will slow the so-called "megapixel race". It's not really about what is possible or not. The market is always the captain of that ship.
And we know this will happen, because a similar thing has happened in the home computing market. People are no longer buying computers in the same numbers that they used to because there's simply no need for a 3GHz machine if they have a 1.7GHz and they're happy with it.
Similarly to the home computing market, these higher resolution cameras will begin to be important to an increasingly small percentage of the market as a whole. Digicam resolutions beyond 6MP will be less driven by the consumer market and more by the professional market...which means sales will begin to slow down dramatically in the next couple of years.
To imagine everything is a simple straight line that goes on forever is to be naive. Where was Microsoft stock and the Dow Jones supposed to be right now according to 1999 predictions?
Cheers,
D
And we know this will happen, because a similar thing has happened in the home computing market. People are no longer buying computers in the same numbers that they used to because there's simply no need for a 3GHz machine if they have a 1.7GHz and they're happy with it.
Similarly to the home computing market, these higher resolution cameras will begin to be important to an increasingly small percentage of the market as a whole. Digicam resolutions beyond 6MP will be less driven by the consumer market and more by the professional market...which means sales will begin to slow down dramatically in the next couple of years.
To imagine everything is a simple straight line that goes on forever is to be naive. Where was Microsoft stock and the Dow Jones supposed to be right now according to 1999 predictions?
Cheers,
D
DarrenH
Senior Member
Let's put it this way: Not many people graduated to MF film after using 35mm. In fact, many went the other way, to APS. Similarly, the demand for digital has a resolution ceiling, and we're coming up on it quickly.
Jimmy Chen
Senior Member
Lets not limit our visions to the limits of films ... You will be darn lucky if you can get good shots at ISO 400 with films, but ISO 400 is common with APS sizes D-SLRs. If APS sized sensor can produce quality ISO 1600 shots, picture what even larger sensors can do. Ever wonder what kind of shots you will be able to take with ISO 6400?
While there is a point where enough mp is enough, I dont think in d-cameras, we have reach that point yet. After all, 35mm film SLR is not limited only to professionals, so why should DSLR stop at that level? Right now you are just begining to see mfg'ers to show some real 35mm DSLRs priced at 6k and 7k.
Just wait another two or three years when enough mfg'ers are out there, technology cost drops. It may be possible to see 35mm DSLRs are priced below $1,500 and APS DSLR asking for only hundreds ... By then, you tell me if you still want to stay with a 5 or 6 mp fixed lens camera like the F717. ;p
--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
Capital Man
Senior Member
Medium format cameras provide better resolution than 35mm. A Pentax 645 costs $2000.
Why do people think the top end digital camera will ever cost less than that? At the top end of the market, demand is very small, so prices need to be high to recover R&D costs.
The 4MP camera can be manufactured inexpensively because of the small sensor size, but it provides a quality 8 x 10 print that looks as good as film to most people.
Only serious photographers are willing to pay hundreds of dollars and carry around big and heavy equipment in order to get a better looking 11 x 14 or 16 x 20 print.
The size of the F707 is already a deterent to most people. I told my sister it's the best digital camera to get and she said something like "no way would I carry that thing around!!!".
With little demand for an 11MP full frame camera, the price will probably stay high and out of the reach of most.
U
Ulysses
Guest
Exactly. After everyone breathing for a bit during the past year, it seems like the next steps in megapixel counting is about to begin again.
And don't count Foveon out. There are things being heard on the winds....
Ulysses
And don't count Foveon out. There are things being heard on the winds....
--
Ulysses
Capital Man
Senior Member
Sales of SLRs have been declining for a long time. People prefer the small point and shoot cameras over the SLRs.
The model of SLRs for sale at all but speciality camera shops are the low end models that come with a cheap zoom lens and a built in flash. Most people who buy them use only the cheap zoom lens and never buy another lens. They use cheap SLRs like a point and shoot.
(The cheap SLRs are actually fine photographic tools... I've been researching an SLR purchase, and nowhere has anyone shown any evidence at all that you could tell that a photo was taken with the cheapest SLR or the most expensive... so long as the same lens was use on each camera.)
I found pre-digital film photography very disappointing because I either got lousy looking prints, or I got slides that I could look at through a magnifying lens but I couldn't share with anyone. I'm sure everyone shares my experience. People won't feel compelled to buy an SLR digital camera when the prosumer non-SLR digital camera does such a great job.
I say this as someone who is NOT anti-film. I think film is cool and "retro".
Capital Man
Senior Member
Canon is announcing a new 11 MP full frame, Canon Fuji Nikon all have 6MP DSLRS out for many months.
The Sigma SD9 is OOA: obsolete on arrival. Who will buy it unless it costs a lot less money than a D60 or D100?
If the new OlyDak comes out at the same time as the SD9, I predict that OlyDak will trounce it. I suspect the OlyDak at 5MP at will do equally as well in tests as the much less convenient to use SD9.
Steve Cavigliano
Veteran Member
Good reading, thanks for posting the link, sunscream 
I agree with Darren. The market will determine how many pixels are required. More pixels is good, but it's not the only factor that determines image quality. That the 3mp SLR's have image quality better than the 5mp 707 demonstrates this point. The article cites diminishing returns as one reason that consumer/pro-sumer DC's won't see as much emphasis on mega-pixels. I have to agree. I mean why would you need a 10 or 20mp image for most shots? The extra pixels won't make it look any better as an 8X10. IMO, DC makers need to concentrate on making sensors that produce more film-like images, under almost all conditions Like the article said, point, shoot and be happy with the image. Just like the film world, but better. Since you get instant gratification. I expect most high-end DC's to be around the 5-8mp level for the forseeable future. IMO, the cost versus benefit just isn't there. Without major benefits (in terms of image quality), why up-grade?
Just my opinion and thx again sunscream,
Steve
--
http://www.pbase.com/slo2k
I agree with Darren. The market will determine how many pixels are required. More pixels is good, but it's not the only factor that determines image quality. That the 3mp SLR's have image quality better than the 5mp 707 demonstrates this point. The article cites diminishing returns as one reason that consumer/pro-sumer DC's won't see as much emphasis on mega-pixels. I have to agree. I mean why would you need a 10 or 20mp image for most shots? The extra pixels won't make it look any better as an 8X10. IMO, DC makers need to concentrate on making sensors that produce more film-like images, under almost all conditions Like the article said, point, shoot and be happy with the image. Just like the film world, but better. Since you get instant gratification. I expect most high-end DC's to be around the 5-8mp level for the forseeable future. IMO, the cost versus benefit just isn't there. Without major benefits (in terms of image quality), why up-grade?
Just my opinion and thx again sunscream,
Steve
--
http://www.pbase.com/slo2k
Jimmy Chen
Senior Member
And I am sure digital cameras didnt help on that part either. I know digital was the reaon why I ever got involved, hence the F707.
Agreed, especially when you price those DSLRs at prices beyond the reach of a typical hobbyist. But now, lets go back and modify your two points a little ...
1. cheap SLR can be as good as quality SLR as long as you have good lenses.
2. People currently do not buy DSLR because it is expensive ...
What do you think will happen when point 2 vanishes in a few years, as in, we can get existing APS sized DSLR for hundreds ... I see plenty of people dying to jump into the DSLR world.
Let me ask you this ... If today you can buy the D60/D100/S2 Pro for say under $1000, would you buy the F717, or the D60/D100/S2 Pro?
--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
U
Ulysses
Guest
hahahahahahah... CM, you could say the same for Canon's $6,000+ camera. With the D100 and D60, many would have thought the day of cameras needing to cost that much were over. But here we have Canon following the Contax lead.
Price perhaps, not final image quality. Heheheh... you guys must think I sit around guessing about this stuff.
Less convenient, why? Because it uses Sigma lenses only? You get the lenses that work with your camera. Unless you already have a ton of greenery invested in the Nikon system or the Canon system, then who cares? You can get some very nice lenses from Sigma. The only thing is that as Andreas P would say, "sometimes they break."
)--
Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
I wonder what the latest stats are, when looking at 35mm cameras, SLR cameras, and how digital (all types of models) have impacted on film camera sales. It's been a while since I've seen some stats gathered.
--
Ulysses
you didn't say how much F717 was, maybe $450? then i'll get D60 and F717
Capital Man
Senior Member
SLRs have been out of favor since point and shoot cameras with autofocus were introduced in the 1980s.
Maybe everyone who posts on this forum would like to buy a DSLR. How many people is that? 100? Not enought to support a market.
Why do people buy SLRs now? The market has just evolved that way. Point and shoot cameras have no manual control options at all. No one is willing to pay extra for such features unless it comes with a reflex mirror.
The digital market is evolving differently. The "prosumer" cameras have advanced functionality that cheap film point and shoots don't have. You only need a DSLR to see through the lens. You don't need a DSLR in order to have control over aperture and shutter speed.
JimB
Leading Member
Best part of the article:
"And in a welcome digital-camera-only milestone, some companies are offering install-it-yourself firmware upgrades. For example, Minolta recently released an upgrade that allows customers to add some of this year's features to last year's cameras."
Jump on the bandwagon Sony!!!!!! Or you will be left behind in the dust.....
"And in a welcome digital-camera-only milestone, some companies are offering install-it-yourself firmware upgrades. For example, Minolta recently released an upgrade that allows customers to add some of this year's features to last year's cameras."
Jump on the bandwagon Sony!!!!!! Or you will be left behind in the dust.....
Steve Ives
Senior Member
I think a re-think is needed on the digital SLR-type stuff. In the 21st century, should we really be trying to emulate technology decades old?
SLRs only look the way they do because they have fillm to be wound from one spool to another - do we need to emulate that?
Maybe the rumoured new Olympus/Kodak thing is the way to go. However, it would be nice to be able to use all the vast range of 35mm accessories.
Steve
SLRs only look the way they do because they have fillm to be wound from one spool to another - do we need to emulate that?
Maybe the rumoured new Olympus/Kodak thing is the way to go. However, it would be nice to be able to use all the vast range of 35mm accessories.
Steve
Jimmy Chen
Senior Member
These may be two different issues ... The ture term SLR itself is still the best method to see exactly what you are aiming at, you are seeing exactly what the lens is seeing. How the camera body looks is another story all together. But you are correct, there is no need to maint. the existing body shape.
--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum