WAL

Report this to your doctors. They will get a paper on how many pixels it takes to keep a man going. Canon will probably give them a grant.
Enjoy your new equipment.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

In addition to what you mentioned, there is also terrific pride of ownership, and wonderful fodder for on-line discussion foeums. It also makes a hefty contribution to the photo-equipment acquisition syndrome! :roll:

W3KLS Loc: PA USA

Hi Doug and welcome back. I had a 4 vessel bypass in 2005 "with complications" so I have a good idea how you feel. Here's hoping your recovery goes as well as mine did. On the 50 mp Canon, I am a Canon guy but I'm gonna pass. For one I like to eat and further I have my hands full breaking in my Fuji S1 bridge. Take care and listen to the docs; they are right often enough to be useful.

Ken
W3KLS

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There are Canon lenses that can resolve an image for a 50 MP sensor. But not all Canon lenses are able to resolve an image for a 50 MP sensor, especially the cheaper and older lenses. Yes, the image will be amazing within the limits of the sensor with the proper lense. And the image will still be good without the proper lense resolution. The image will just not be optimal. The best way to get the best image is to buy a lense optimized for the abilities of the sensor.

Jolly Roger Loc: Dorset. UK

Glad that you are home and on the mend.

Longhorn Loc: Austin, Texas

Attached file:
(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Must have been using a Canon L lens.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

I saw it, Craig. ;)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There's a similar thread running in one of the pro photographer forums on LinkedIn. One of the most common complaints is that the sensor sites on the 50 MP chip are so small and tightly packed that they have a lot less dynamic range (sensitivity).

Give me BIG sensor sites! I'd rather have a full frame 24MP sensor than a full frame 50 MP sensor OR an APS-C 24MP sensor. The bigger sensors suck more photons per pixel! That means more signal relative to noise, a higher dynamic range, better color, less noise, better detail and definition...

It would make more sense for camera companies to do what m43 consortium did and gang up to create a new, mirror-less medium format system with BIG sensors (HD aspect ratio, 64 mm wide x 36mm tall, or so). It would be expensive, but would give video producers an unbelievable tool, while still photographers would have high MP nirvana as well.

That said, I'd rather have an m43 system for the portability.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I'm happy for you particularly since that means that Nikon will have to come up with something bigger in the next year or two.

That said, I was thrilled with the 36 megapixel Nikon D800 and like you I was among the first to buy in. The camera was everything I expected and the images were amazing particularly since I do mostly macro.

But the camera also came at a cost. That amazing resolution captured even the smallest defects too. Thankfully most of my glass is professional grade so that wasn't completely a problem. However the slightest amount of dust on the lens or the sensor was also faithfully reproduced.

With 50 megapixels you'll have an even higher resolution than my D800 so be prepared to do a lot of lens cleaning and sensor cleaning too. That old saying there is no free lunch is particularly true with those high resolution cameras it seems.

Good luck with it, I'm envious but never mind, Nikon will catch up just as Canon has caught up and surpassed Nikon at the moment.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

That makes sense Bill, do you suppose Nikon might understand that and made the D4 and Df 16.2 MP?

Phil

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I'd like to think that Nikon probably does understand this need for large pixel circuits. After all why would they not make their top model with a higher resolution if it didn't affect quality adversely. But the more important question is whether the buying public understands this. So far the feeling has always been the more pixels the better.

Canon has now responded to Nikon's 36 megapixel offering by providing a 50 megapixel one. So the way it's going to go as far as I can see is that consumers are going to put Nikon under pressure to now come up with something in the 75 megapixel range to stay competitive.

I don't think the public appreciates that even at 36 mp Nikon was already pushing it's luck and it definitely doesn't understand that Canon has taken an even higher risk now in the interests of remaining competitive.

I'm sure that both companies know quite clearly what the limits are to physical pixel circuit size but it's not the engineers and the designers who have anything to say. If the bottom line and/or the market share starts to slip, the marketers will simply demand a new design that outdoes the competition again and gets the consumer buying more new bodies even if they're worse than the ones being replaced.

So, count on Nikon trumping Canon in the next year or two and we'll start the next resolution wars like ten years ago. The only positive thing in this is that we don't have to buy those new bodies, we can stay with our reliable cameras who have larger pixel circuits.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

That has been a strategy of theirs for years. The D3 was what, 12 CLEAN MP? Canon's original 5D was 12 CLEAN MP as well. Those files were easy to work with. Nikon kept their MP count low until Sony could supply higher res chips with low noise.

It's even the same strategy Apple's used with the iPhone, keeping it at 8 MP while making the pixels bigger and the lens aperture wider, while the other phone manufacturers hit 40+ MP. It's paid off — more pictures are made with iPhones, by volume, than with any other camera, period.

Size matters in the right context. But when you get below five or six micron sensor site size, things can deteriorate quickly.

It took the sensor manufacturers a long time to get the yields up on full frame chips. Maybe we're not there yet, but hopefully, at some point, medium format sensors like I fantasized about will become a reality.

One trick will be to dissipate the heat they generate. Panasonic is able to let the GH4, a Micro-Four-Thirds model, record video as long as the user can fill up storage. But most dSLRs on the market generally have to be cooled off after 12 to 30 minutes.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

Glad your doing well, keep up the good work. Nikon just announced the D12000 , 55 MP, next year the d12001 will be out with the 60 MP In reality what good would 50 MP do me?
really will I get better pics with 50 MP???? I thought more MP was good if I was going to blow up the pic....with 50 MP I could be making billboards for the highway.


My next purchase will be a full frame and that will be the last camera I'll ever buy ( unless I drop it overboard or something stupid like that)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, they'll do this for a while. I imagine they'll just get paradigm-shifted off their high horses if they do that for long, however.

Remember Kodak? I do, I worked in a huge photo lab for 33 years. They were paradigm-shifted right into bankruptcy, because they refused to capitalize properly on their own digital photography technology inventions! They clung to film and paper for a decade longer than they should have.

The Kodak DCS 760 was a decent 6MP professional digital camera in its day (2001). But the Nikon D1x was arguably as good or better. Kodak knew they had to do something, and fast.

Unfortunately, Kodak's 760 was followed by the 14n, a complete disaster that sent everyone running away from Kodak as fast as they could say Canikon! The 14n was half-baked, and full of surprising disappointments.

The Kodak marketing folks had insisted on using a third-party full frame chip from Israel that wasn't fully vetted, wasn't fully tested, and resulted in overheating after a few minutes' use. The $5500 body was virtually USELESS after several minutes, or at ISOs higher than 200. The color shifted unpredictably from green to magenta across the frame, and the noise levels were worse than point-and-shoot cameras of the day.

Their "market and marketing-driven" approach was such a blunder that Nikon, Canon, and others cleaned their clocks with lower MP cameras that actually took professionally-usable images!

I know this because my company sold the 14n. When he called to complain about horrible noise and color shifts, I had to tell one of our largest customers to sell his two 14n bodies on eBay and buy Nikons. He did, after pitching a fit, and then thanked me!