Are we witnessing the end of some camera evolution period?

1Dx is a step backward in terms of pixel count. It means that - like in good film days - this kind of cameras are dedicated to A3-A2 sized printouts. The ISO game started, but we will see its results in a near future ( comparing D3s with new Canon sensor). Only new feature is video - i'm not sure of it's importance for most users.

There was a time, when in a relatively short period of time a number of camera brands vanished from 35mm. Mamiya, Konica - to name the few. In some way it was a result of lack of market's interest. And the market is the same in terms of "new toy hunger". Just observe DPR forums in times, when no new cameras announcements for a longer period of time. In such cases we see 15 post a day, comparing to 30..50 after announcement of new product.

This doesn't apply to the proffessional users - but I'm sure, that most 'pro' equipment is used by amateurs - and most of them are gadget lovers.

What do You think - will we face the early-80's-like situation in near future?
--
Marcin_3M

Marcin 3M said:

1Dx is a step backward in terms of pixel count. It means that - like in good film days - this kind of cameras are dedicated to A3-A2 sized printouts. The ISO game started, but we will see its results in a near future ( comparing D3s with new Canon sensor). Only new feature is video - i'm not sure of it's importance for most users.

There was a time, when in a relatively short period of time a number of camera brands vanished from 35mm. Mamiya, Konica - to name the few. In some way it was a result of lack of market's interest. And the market is the same in terms of "new toy hunger". Just observe DPR forums in times, when no new cameras announcements for a longer period of time. In such cases we see 15 post a day, comparing to 30..50 after announcement of new product.

This doesn't apply to the proffessional users - but I'm sure, that most 'pro' equipment is used by amateurs - and most of them are gadget lovers.

What do You think - will we face the early-80's-like situation in near future?

Click to expand...

I agree, all products go through an exciting time of development where customers struggle to keep up with the change, home computers went through 20 years of this, but now almost anything can browse the web and lasts for years, except for hard core gamers, most people seldom upgrade the computer anymore. We are approaching this stage with the digital camera I suspect, where almost any camera including camera phones are completely adequate for the average person, no need to upgrade unless it breaks.

You can certainly sense the lack of excitment on these forums. When each new camera is announced here, you can almost hear people screaming out, oh no, I don't have to upgrade again, do I?

Brian

If this all Canon has, then yes. But perhaps this only a video optimized DSLR and others will follow, hopefully a resolution optimized model with video.

Isn't there a Sony/Nikon model caming with 36Mpix, or was I dreaming? If this is Canon's answer to that, then goodbye Canon.

It looks like an excellent photojournalist camera, particularly with its high ISO performance and fast frame rate. It also has a number of interesting focus modes which ought to help increase the number of ‘keepers’. Apparently, Canon has also made switching modes considerably faster, as well as adding controls to make shooting more convenient.

Higher quality pixels, captured more quickly. Sounds like a win.

May not be the optimal fine-art Canon camera though; the 5D Mk. II still has the edge, perhaps.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

This camera is designed to be fast with what is touted as an excellent high ISO, low light performance. Remember that this is aimed at professionals, not gadget geeks.

Canon is one of the companies that "get it". Pixels aren't everything.

Canon's cheap A800 entry model comes with only a 10MP sensor. Not a 14 or 16MP sensor like like a lot of the other low cost models. It's IQ is much higher than the competition. Canon does use the 14 and 16MP in a couple of low end models, but it is probably just to satisfy the numbers freaks.

Canon now uses the 12mp BSI sensor in much of their point and shoot line. They even dropped the new SX40 model back to 12mp BSI for better performance.

If Canon chooses to leave the megapixel race, I applaud them, I can only see good come out of it.

Marcin 3M said:

1Dx is a step backward in terms of pixel count. It means that - like in good film days - this kind of cameras are dedicated to A3-A2 sized printouts. The ISO game started, but we will see its results in a near future ( comparing D3s with new Canon sensor). Only new feature is video - i'm not sure of it's importance for most users.

Click to expand...

Most experienced users know that 18mp is plenty. When shooting weddings with my 18mp Canon 60D, I shoot almost the entire wedding at 10mp M-RAW. That's all I need for most shots. I only switch to 18mp RAW for the portraits or large group shots. I just don't need more than that.

To put things into perspective for you, when Joe McNally shot the very first all-digital National Geographic Magazine story, he was using a 5.4mp Nikon D1X. He was able to produce stunning images, including five double trucks and a four-page gatefold in the magazine. In addition, he printed up beautiful gallery prints that were put on exhibition. All from a 5.4mp DSLR back in 2002:







If you know what you're doing, megapixels really aren't a limitation. So to hear people whining and moaning that the ultra high quality 18mp sensors of 2011 aren't good enough, even for very large prints, is silly. Today's 18mp images can easily go larger than A2 size printouts while delivering superb image quality, and will look much better than "like in good film days". It's not a step backward. Frankly, I think moving to higher and higher pixel counts just for the sake of higher and higher pixel counts is the step backward.

And as for video, Canon DSLRs are HUGE in the video market! All the wedding videographers I've worked with in the last year have all been using Canon DSLRs for their videography, in most cases ditching conventional video cameras in favor of Canon DSLRs. Videography is a large, and growing, market for DSLRs. Photographers may not realize this. But videographers...and Canon... definitely know that new video-capable DSLRs are a big opportunity for both videographers and Canon. So when you say "I'm not sure of it's importance for most users", you're clearly speaking from a narrow-minded tunnel-vision perspective. Today's DSLRs are being bought by many users outside of the photographic market. In other words, it's not just photographers who are buying DSLRs these days. Cinematographers, movie and television production studios, amateur film makers, etc, are all in the market for DSLRs these days. So the video features of the 1D X are hugely important and should not be dismissed as some useless gimmick of limited value.

Simon97 said:

Pixels aren't everything.

Click to expand...

^THIS. A thousand times over, this.

I will pray every night for an affordable version of the 1D X until Canon announces it.

T3 said:

If you know what you're doing, megapixels really aren't a limitation. So to hear people whining and moaning that the ultra high quality 18mp sensors of 2011 aren't good enough, even for very large prints, is silly. Today's 18mp images can easily go larger than A2 size printouts while delivering superb image quality, and will look much better than "like in good film days". It's not a step backward. Frankly, I think moving to higher and higher pixel counts just for the sake of higher and higher pixel counts is the step backward.

Click to expand...

That's nice sounding(loved the pictures btw) but it sounds as though you're arguing that development of the digital camera was somehow built around film. However... I think that since we've all seen what good and great output looks like, that we are now ready to set our sights on the amazing. To which I would add... if you're happy with a 10 or 16mp solution then that's great. - But some of us(many I think) could benefit from not having to deal with issues such as stitching scenes together(for example).

PS. I myself find 40MP to be very good for large prints and the difference between that and my 16mp kit is nothing short of breathtaking in print.

This consolidation is way overdue. It seems to be following the Nikon D3 pattern. Low res, low noise high speed camera. No doubt Canon will be bringing out a high res model to match expected one from Nikon.

I would say that it's on market for several Years. Will not name it, to avoid accusation of being fanboy
--
Marcin_3M

Well, from Nikon and Sony.

I will be surprised, if rumoured 39MPX will be any better than 24MPX... Hopefully we will se it in a near future. But if there will be no or marginal difference it will be a sign of a dead end in megapixel race.
--
Marcin_3M

no text here

johnbee said:

T3 said:

If you know what you're doing, megapixels really aren't a limitation. So to hear people whining and moaning that the ultra high quality 18mp sensors of 2011 aren't good enough, even for very large prints, is silly. Today's 18mp images can easily go larger than A2 size printouts while delivering superb image quality, and will look much better than "like in good film days". It's not a step backward. Frankly, I think moving to higher and higher pixel counts just for the sake of higher and higher pixel counts is the step backward.

Click to expand...

That's nice sounding(loved the pictures btw) but it sounds as though you're arguing that development of the digital camera was somehow built around film. However... I think that since we've all seen what good and great output looks like, that we are now ready to set our sights on the amazing. To which I would add... if you're happy with a 10 or 16mp solution then that's great. - But some of us(many I think) could benefit from not having to deal with issues such as stitching scenes together(for example).

Click to expand...

LOL. I'd love to know just how many people feel the need to stitch scenes together! And BTW, not everyone looks at A0 prints from 2 inches away. You don't need to view such images with a loupe! Plus, the last thing I need is to shoot an entire wedding at 40mp. And I'd much rather have high quality high ISO than 40mp, because high quality high ISO means I can get high image quality at practically any ISO. It's almost like having limitless ISO quality, whereas in the past image quality was strongly limited by ISO. So basically, there are various ways to arrive at "great output". And for many of us, the ,more practical and useful way of arriving at "great output" is with what Canon has done with the 1D X: 18mp, full frame, huge pixels, high sensitivity, phenomenal high ISO quality.

T3 said:

Plus, the last thing I need is to shoot an entire wedding at 40mp.

Click to expand...

You could always shoot sRAW and get 10mp. That is what I do (5.2) with people pictures, but it is sure nice to have 21mp when landscaping. I would love to have 40mp+ out of the camera, to manage that now I have to stitch (when possible) for the A1 sized prints. My 550D is about that total stitching my 24TSEII... the 5D2 is only throwing that resolution away.

--
-CW

As an industry, we no longer have any "sizzle" in the average consumer's eyes. Sure, avid photo buffs and pros get sweaty palms when the majors release details on a new product, but photography is no longer cool (if it ever was) to average Joe. The buzz is all about smart phones. It's the "phone guys" selling the sizzle, and subsequently, most of the "steak". How do we (those of us in the photo industry) get consumers, especially the young generation to take notice of photography as an interesting hobby or career?

T3 said:

LOL. I'd love to know just how many people feel the need to stitch scenes together! And BTW, not everyone looks at A0 prints from 2 inches away. You don't need to view such images with a loupe! Plus, the last thing I need is to shoot an entire wedding at 40mp. And I'd much rather have high quality high ISO than 40mp, because high quality high ISO means I can get high image quality at practically any ISO. It's almost like having limitless ISO quality, whereas in the past image quality was strongly limited by ISO. So basically, there are various ways to arrive at "great output". And for many of us, the ,more practical and useful way of arriving at "great output" is with what Canon has done with the 1D X: 18mp, full frame, huge pixels, high sensitivity, phenomenal high ISO quality.

Click to expand...

Well you see, this is likely where your presentation doesn't measure-up to the market as a whole. And I say this as it seems as though you're based your observations around your own needs and experiences. However... this doesn't make those feelings universally true either. The simple fact it is, that not everyone shoots weddings. Just as not everyone does studio work, low light stage gigs and nature(see). Additionally... since we have a number of scenery shooters out there making use equipment such as; pano heads, gigapan software and a host of other tools to help achieve their goals, I think it's safe to say that there is still room left at the MP end of the spectrum.\

Having said all that, I think a good objective with resolution and digital image capture devices would be to achieve a threshold that would allow for a system with a sensor capable of TTL reproductions. While giving the users full control over attributes such as; pixel density, file size and quality etc etc. Which would effectively meet the needs of most any photographer without the unnecessary clutter specific to the job. Likewise... as you yourself mentioned, there are no doubts that we still have a ways to go in terms of sensor development, as DR, color and low light performance still all fall short against RW values.

As for the Canon 1Dx I have no clue, though I'm not sure how appealing it will be for scenery shooters.

Sure, it's fun to play the spec game, but in terms of capturing better photographs for web display (how most photos are displayed) or A3/A4 print, is the 1Dx really that much better than the original 5D or a 1DsII? Does it open the door to a lot of photos you'd like to capture, but can't?

Not really. We are seeing a bit of a plateau in raw specs, where the new models really don't deliver that much more in terms of practical benefits. DR could still stand some improvement, but MP, ISO... improvements over last year are more noticable in a dpr spec debate than in the field.

Perhaps one can argue for more crop space, but just like in film days, if you didn't get it right in the VF, you probably won't get it right with massive cropping.

Where improvements are making a difference is in bringing smaller sensors up to the performance levels that satisfy most amateurs. Thus, the onset of the micro/mirrorless cameras: 10-16mp, ISO6400-25600, in a small package. Even FF's shallow DOF will soon be replicatable in software.

So things are changing, they're just changing in a different direction.

johnbee said:

As for the Canon 1Dx I have no clue, though I'm not sure how appealing it will be for scenery shooters.

Click to expand...

I suspect a good many will find the 1DX great for scenery shooting. After all, not every scenery shooter views A0 prints from 2 inches away. It's not all about pixel peeping, you know. I've seen stunning prints shot with a 5D with only 12mp, LOL. I think that if you can't sell a good print made from a 1DX with only 18mp, its more likely that the issue is with the photographer rather than with the resolution of the camera. People have been able to produce and sell gorgeous prints from cameras with far less resolution. Again, lets remember Joe McNally shooting the first all digital National Geographic story with a lowly 5.4mp D1X:



That isn't to say we should all go back to shooting with 5.4mp DSLRs. I'm just saying that 18mp is a bit more than 5.4mp, and as such, we're able to produce beautiful prints from even a paltry number of pixels as 18mp. So to say infer that scenery shooters just won't be interested in a 1DX because it only has 18mp is rather silly. Sure, there are probably some who feel its inadequate for their needs. But there will be plenty of others who will find it just fine. In fact, it's amazing that we're even arguing over the inadequacy of 18 megapixels! But for those who need more, there are other cameras out there.

T3 said:

I've seen stunning prints shot with a 5D with only 12mp, LOL.

Click to expand...

I believe that, and we could add that we've seen stunning images from 6mp point and shoot camera's too. To which I would posit... where does that leaves us? Surely you can see the limitations surrounding such arguments. - However on the topic of Canon's new 18MP FF, my guess is that it will likely draw onto the the sport crowd, though I'm reluctant to think it could match a 40MP solution at this point in the game(D800 maybe, but 18mp is unlikely). ie. the closest solution I've seen to the 645D would have to be the Sigma SD1 at this time.

johnbee said:

T3 said:

I've seen stunning prints shot with a 5D with only 12mp, LOL.

Click to expand...

I believe that, and we could add that we've seen stunning images from 6mp point and shoot camera's too. To which I would posit... where does that leaves us? Surely you can see the limitations surrounding such arguments. - However on the topic of Canon's new 18MP FF, my guess is that it will likely draw onto the the sport crowd,

Click to expand...

Jeez, you act like this is a first gen 4mp Canon 1D, the original "sports" camera. LOL.

The 1D X is basically designed to be an all-rounder camera. Weddings, portraits, journalism, sports, birding, landscape, videography, etc. I don't really see anything that this camera couldn't be applied towards. To take a camera like this and assert that its mainly something for the sports crowd is rather silly. You're going to see this camera in the hands of all genres of photographers...and videographers, too.

As for the question of "where does that leave us?"...it leaves us where photography has always left us...it's left us to be photographers capturing great images. If you really have to ask that question, then you've lost sight of what photography is really about. "If I can't get more pixels, then what the heck am I going to do with a camera?!? Where does that leave me!?! I've nothing else to obsess over!" Well, how about going out and taking some photos? The pursuit of pixels and resolution for resolution's sake isn't really what photography is about. That's merely been an obsession that has gained strength in the pixel-peeping digital era, to the point that some "photographers" seem to think that that's all that matters. There's more to photograph than just pixels, pixels, and more pixels.

Furthermore, we can see that with the 1D X, there are improvements that can be made to a camera aside from just adding more pixels. So to the question of "where does that leave us", well, it leaves Canon to improve other aspects of the camera aside from more and more pixels.