1 year later still only 1 high MP and 1 high price

I grew up loving muscle cars and owned a '94 LT1 powered firebird through most of college. But life changed, sold the car, eventually got married, etc. but still loved the muscle car look, feel, and handling.

I next needed a "family" car, but I also wanted one fun to drive. That meant RWD, preferably with a V8. I went to GM and Pontiac -being my favorite brands- and they had NOTHING to offer (I couldn't afford the new models, like CTS and G8). Back in the late 90s Pontiac and GM weren't too concerned with the RWD sedan market (like Nikon isn't concerned with cheaper-built high MP FX cams).

I resisted and resisted the urge to change from my loyal car company, but the opportunity came to test drive a 2002 BMW 540i with medium miles and a ridiculously low price. I couldn't have cared less about the BMW's "luxury image" or the "badge factor" of the car, but it offered something I wanted: A mid-sized RWD sedan with V8 or straight 6 with decent gas-mileage and excellent handling, for a price I could afford.

I bought it and never looked back.

True, Nikon is ignoring the high MP cheap DSLR market. Just like in the late 90's to early 2000s American manufacturer's ignored the RWD car market. The best thing a consumer can do in the meantime is switch brands. Nikon knows about the A950 and 5Dm2 just like GM knew about the 3 and 5 series cars. We don't need to tell them about it. Just get what works for you!
 
No contradiction here. Sorry to burst your bubble but, 'not scouring these forums for a marketing strategy' is NOT 'ignoring market demands'.

Besides where in the marketing rule book does it state that internet forums = market demands. As important as market demands are, Nikon, like any company can't just push out products in reply to 'market demands'. They need to be smarter than that to remain sustainable in the long term.

Canon are more a 'market demands' company, and Nikon do not have to compete on the same grounds just because they have competing products....marketing 101, somewhat. Nikon are not obligated to make anythig you think up in your head Anthony, nor will they even try.....there is a bigger picture to all of this

Making cameras isn't as simple as making sandwiches, contrary to popular belief on these forums.
Nikon are not scouring these forums looking for advice on marketing strategy. They know what they're doing and learning from Canon's mistakes as well as their own, and will release when they are ready, not necessarily when the market is ready. The market was ready yesterday and always will be in today's environment.
You contradict yourself here. Nikon is pursuing what you consider a good marketing strategy by ignoring market demands. Perhaps you mean Nikon should continue to resist consumers and budget constrained enthusiasts who want D3x quality sensors to placate their more well-heeled enthusiasts and professional customers, and that is good because that is what you want.
Anthony Beach
 
Funny stuff! Thanks, Thom. But it won't work, sigh! ;)
Whereas this forum continually fills with lookalike threads demanding "more pixels",

And whereas the "more pixels" threads typically repeat things that have already been written and eventually degrade into personal commentary rather than camera commentary,

Be it hereby resolved that anyone creating any new thread claiming to need more pixels must prior to starting the thread submit the following evidence: a NEF file from a 12mp Nikon DSLR that said person is using to establish their claim that they need more pixels. In addition to providing said image, prospective more pixel poster must also provide the following information: the number of prints they've made larger than 24" on the long axis in the past 12 months, and the number of prints larger than 24" on the long axis they expect to make in the coming 12 months.

Upon reviewing said material, the prospective more pixel poster will be either denied or accepted in his request for creating another new "I need more pixels" thread.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
Look Nikon, just put 1080 HD video in a D3X and give it the high iso IQ of the D3s and charge $9,000, i'll buy it, I promise.
High ISO performance and high resolution may be in conflict with one another for reasons other than just the size of the photosites. Color separation is also an issue.
Right. The problem is not about just putting something in the camera - you need to first develop the technology to do it. Current state-of-the-art 12 MP FX is approximately two stops ahead of current 24 MP FX in terms of SNR (after averaging pixels corresponding to equal size area in print) at equal ISOs. This puts the 24 MP cameras in a position of being inferior for most uses apart from tripod-bound base ISO shooting of still subjects.
I'm not sure that is the most useful way of looking at it. The D3s is ahead of other FF cameras (including the D3), and happens to be 12MP. We don't know whether the same technology applied to a 24MP sensor will yield similar results, so the inferred conclusion that 12MP FX generically is ahead of 24MP FX is not really substantiated.

In any case, it is important to be precise what you mean by 'SNR', and I don't think you are, because the D3s is not two stops ahead of the D3x in any characteristic that an engineer would recognise as SNR. The 'at equal ISO's' is misleading also. The D3x has a significant advantage at low ISO's because of the nature of it's Sony column ADC's. If we are to believe Marianne Oelund's figures, the D3s efficiency gains would be insufficient to overcome that advantage.
What Nikon is likely to do is put the D3s sensor in the D700s body in six-to-ten months. Higher resolution in a compact body would be expected in the next generation in 2012.
Possibly, even probably, since it would seem an expensive option to manufacture two different 12MP FX sensors at the same time. However, putting the D3s sensor in the D700 does not preclude them also putting in the D3x sensor,
Equally well we could be complaining Canon for not competing in color separation and producing cameras that generate lifeless high ISO images.
If you look at DxO's analysis of the D5000 vs the 500D, it seems that Nikon simply has better CFA technology. The Nikon filters both transmit more light (as large area under the graph) and have better colour separation. Similarly, the efficiency of the D3s suggests that their microlens tech is better.
 
It really gets me thinking here....people are complaining about wanting to replace their 11x14's with 20x30's with cameras costing thousands of dollars every few years, when there are people in their own countries and 3rd world countries who have legitimate concerns, like not being abole to find food to feed their children.

Seriously, after you spend $3000 on a camera, can't you at leats be happy for a couple of years? Is a 20x30 inch print going to make the quality of your life that much better? Imagine what you could do with $3000, other than spend it to satisfy your constant need to upgrade a 'lighbox' which is what a camera essentially is.

My advice is to not take this upgrading thing too seriously and learn to enjoy the priveldges you have in life.....and yes, owning a camera is a priveldge. Those less fortunate did not ask to be born into poverty, war, disease and starvation. I have been guilty of 'constantly wanting more' and it really is time to sit back, be patient and enjoy what is available now, instead of whinning about what you 'think you need' yesterday....it's only a camera afterall.
 
Well, I've been iterating through all these 'need more pixels' threads and finally realized I don't need more pixels...

No need to buy another expensive digital slr in 2010 or even 2011. That is a big load off both my brain and my wallet.

But it took a few turns 'round and 'round before everything fell into place for my feeble brain. The siren call of '25 mp' marvelously clouds the mind.
 
Hi Kristian:

I'm also starting to really get into just how good an 11x14 can be. Having to work within limits can be a good thing - and lead to real creative breakthroughs.

Stephen
 
Don't want full sized peices of my work floating out there.

Numbers....now thats a GREAT idea.

I would have to say close to 45 prints so far last year larger than 24" on the long side. (would have to check the books for actual number...but sure its close) That dosnt include files testing large printing and the RIP.

I can only HOPE more next year (given the poor economy! ; )

Well put.

Roman
--

One of dem Nik...Nike.....er....um... Fhoto Boxes...wit dat der flashy things....and a stick to rest it on.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Some of us donate a LOT of our work to help worthy causes.

I would ask what you have used your gear to help with recently.

Not assuming the worst or the best...just asking.

Roman
--

One of dem Nik...Nike.....er....um... Fhoto Boxes...wit dat der flashy things....and a stick to rest it on.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Dont forget that most people who wants more MP are the one who would always shoot with a 10mm lens and crop a head right in the middle and would like to view this over a cheap Dell 20 inches monitor... LOL

I'm kidding but not that much hehehehe
--
Word and Ideas CAN change the world.
 
how often do you feel a shot taken with a D3 or D3s has been compromised because of resolution?
Depends upon what I'm shooting. Landscapes and scenics, I'd like the extra pixels, even when I'm doing stitching. Most other stuff, I shoot, no, 12mp is enough.
Before the D3x was available, were you feeling a bit limited because of the 12MP limit?
Yes and no. A single frame of a landscape pushed large in print shows its 12mp origin versus MF cameras and even some of the Canon FX bodies prior to the D3x intro. It's one of the things that led me to panos.
Now that you have a D3s and D3x, are there times when you use the D3s (maybe high ISO situations) where you wish you had that 24MP to print larger?
No, though that's a slightly qualified no. If I were shooting for money more than I am I'm pretty sure there are opportunities where I'd like more pixels. Consider, for instance, sports. We're somewhat limited in position on sidelines and thus don't always have enough lens for the action. Then something remarkable happens. You got it, but every editor will crop it. And then the poster company calls and wants that image for a poster. Now 12mp cropped starts to feel a bit weak. The good news is that it isn't the detail people will look at. But still, more pixels give you some flexibility in that situation to honor requests for larger reproduction. That said, I'm confident that 12mp is more than enough, even cropped, for something like a Sports Illustrated two-page spread.
Since you make a portion of your living with large prints
Actually, not at the moment. I did for awhile, but when the Web site started consuming all my time I backed off from that for awhile. I think I've done two or three big posters (48" or more, and from 10 and 12mp cameras) for charitable organizations in the last three years, but no print sales. I'll probably return to it sometime in the next year or two, though.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com
 
Don't want full sized peices of my work floating out there.
We'll do our evaluation privately and securely ;~). All bits that remain undamaged will be returned to the originator.
I would have to say close to 45 prints so far last year larger than 24" on the long side. (would have to check the books for actual number...but sure its close) That dosnt include files testing large printing and the RIP.
Excellent. So Roman can start a new thread on "more pixels" any time he'd like. Only person so authorized so far... ;~).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com
 
The 5DM2, 21 MP 1080 HD video very good high iso and only $2,700

There is not one good reason that Nikon has not answered other than...??? Greed? A company philosophy and agenda that is focused more on premium prices for all products in the pro range? Who knows? But they probably do think that offering anything like the 5DM2 will hurt their bottom line, in that, for whatever reason, a reason Canon clearly does NOT fear, Nikon believes offering one high MP 1080 HD video camera for under $3,000 will end all sales of the D3X and probably seriously hurt all sales of the D3s; and they may be right. In this economy, with the anger over the price of the D3X, sure, they could believe sales of the D3X would go to zero if they released a 5DM2 type camera and price. Are they right? No. Are they right for them, to fear it to the point of never releasing a camera like that and never releasing a D700X either, probably yes, and so far, that's proven 100% true, they have no moderately or low priced high MP camera and I don't see one coming.

In addition, the car metaphor is getting old and makes no sense, implying that you can only have a high MP camera if you can afford a Bentley over a VW or whatever, it's not about money it's about choice. The Canon and Nikon prices and features are very similar and the 5DM2 is actually more feature laden than the D3X, hardly what you would say about a VW vrs. a Bentley. Besides the camera prices, Nikon and Canon, are nothing like a luxury car to an economy car, bad metaphor.

The race for, or lust for high MP complaint also holds no water, this comes from not shooting MF which has had over 21 MP and 16 bit depth for many years, and the desire to believe 12 MP is good enough for everything, well sorry, it's not good enough for a lot of things.

I know my needs and my style of shooting is not the D3, I know that puts me in the minority, I want a hi mp 35mm Nikon with HD video that's moderately priced, just like the 5DM2 which proves it can be done. That's my only complaint, and only need.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top