With the new 12+ megapixel dSLRs being crop sensor cameras, I feel that these entry level offerings are not going to be great for stock. Can you say 'chromatic abberation'?

The fact that the Canon 5D still has not been seriously challenged on IQ (at least at lower ISOs) speaks to the fact that the laws of physics have not yet been made moot.

Yes, you're right there sharpshot.  At present the 5D appears to be the 'perfect' instrument for microstock in terms of quality and price.

I don't think it makes any sense to go beyond that, unless one wants to contribute to the RM agencies of course which is a different kettle of fish.

I certainly don't think Yuri's strategy of changing to Hasselblad makes any sense at all for microstock.

If Nikon launch a '5D equivalent' I'd buy it immediately, but the prospect of that looks like being a year or more away.

If Nikon launch a '5D equivalent' I'd buy it immediately, but the prospect of that looks like being a year or more away.

  So true, it seems more than 1 year for sure. We can hope for Fuji S6 with F mount though.

Quote from: Bateleur on January 25, 2008, 01:54

Isn't the D3 Nikon's equivalent?

5D is an mid priced full-frame. D3 is over twice as much.

agree and I'd call D300 is more equal to 5D rather than D3.my personal choice will be 5D though:)

5D is definately an attractive option. But I'm carrying the Nikon flag so I'm pretty anxious to see what's coming out at PMA. If it's only a D40X replacement then I'm picking up a D300.

I was tempted to pick up the d300 but sincerely I don't find the 14 bits enough of a reason to spend 1300-1400 euro and get rid of my beloved d80 whose 10mb I can get as noiseless as they can possibly be for still life images with the appropriate postproduction tecniques.

I'd spend that money more productevely on a 85mm micro tilt lens and wait for a full frame for people who don't need to shot sports or news.

This whole Megapixel craze has really outlived it's usefulness, in my opinion.  As stated above, the 5D proves that a bigger sensor with less pixels will far out-perform the APS-C sized sensors with more pixels crammed in, even if the bit depth is greater.  I was a hair away from buying a 5D, but chose the cheaper 40D, as I am just getting started in MS, but had I had another $800 to drop, the 5D would have been my choice, hands down.  I also have a few EF-S lenses that I didn't want to lose use of with the full frame of the 5d, even though I still have my 350D (which feels like a toy compared to the 40D). 

Bottom line is that I think that, just like SLR users measure focal lengths according to a 35mm standard rather than the 2x, 3x, 4x of a P&S, there should be a different measuring stick for sensors than the "effective pixels".  Any suggestions on what that measuring stick terminology might be?  I like the the "LPH" system that DPreview uses to show the the resolution up to 4000 LPH.  That is a great measuring tool.

The rumors does speak pretty strongly for a D40X replacement as Nazdravie says. And just as the argument against a 'FX D300' - it would effectively be a D3 - so I think the model you mention would be too close to a D300, eating into sales while its selling like mad at the moment. Nikon should know better than compete against itself - but, we'll see in a weeks time 

Nikon obviously knows very well that they shouldn't compete against themselves, so a cheaper FX camera would probably be much cheaper, even cheaper than the D300, and with a limited feature-set. Probably something in the direction of an FX D40 or D80, but for almost D300 price. That would be an ideal camera for studio use, stock photography, weddings etc., and would sell in huge volumes, probably more than the relatively successful 5D.

I'm always surprised to see this MP war in DSLR area. I understand why they do it in PSs. People buy those without knowing much. And the more MP you have on the flashy sticky thing on your camera, the more  buyers you will get.

Much more educated buyers go for DSLRs, so I don't think anyone is really looking for more pixels they would have to pay for with IQ.

Just my 2 cents: I shoot 12+ MP, but most of my sales are smaller sizes(whether that says something about my work or about 12MP I don't know). I dream of shooting 20 or 30 MP, but I wonder if it would really increase sales that much...

I want a Nikon FX 16 mpx... I don't talk about the D3x here. The D3x will have more than 20. It's time that Nikon move for the professional in my opinion.

Yep - they appear to be launching twenty new compact cameras...

... but more importantly THREE new tilt/shift lenses.

Yep - they appear to be launching twenty new compact cameras...

... but more importantly THREE new tilt/shift lenses.

I'd take one of those tilt/shift lenses over a new camera any day. Perfect for product as well as architectural photography. The only problem is: They are not cheap, and I've forgotten where I've hidden that large pile of money   

Well I'm drooling over the new Nikkon 24mm F3.5 Tilt/shift.

Sony now announce what seem to be the sensor who will equip the D3x

It's a 24x36 Cmos sensor of 24.81mpx whit continuous shooting ability of 6.3 pictures/second if I understand. (There the Dpreview link)


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013001sony35mmcmossensor.asp

But I still want a 16mpx FX from Nikon

Quote from: Vonkara on January 30, 2008, 10:36

But I still want a 16mpx FX from Nikon

You just bought a spanking new D300, stop yourself before I grow too much envious 

Unfortunately the D300 is not that much what i was waiting for. Now I can see the limits of a DX sensor.

While the D3 is good for stock at around 800 iso and sometimes even at 1600iso, I have to keep the D300 at a maximum of 400 iso and Shutterstock will probably not approve them above 200iso. Keeping in mind that I never use anti noise software.

But it still a very good camera whit very interesting features. The only thing I was expecting to be better is the low iso noise, because the high iso is a great improvement in my opinion, but still not usable in stock

I will probably upgrade to the D300.  I am not expecting any improvement in low ISO noise, but as I get very good results from my D200, so long as the D300 is as good as that I can then supply XL images to iStock.

For microstock the D3 has the wrong image size/price point.

All my Nikkor lenses are full frame so I shall be able to utilise a Nikon 5D equivalent when it is launched, but unless that camera is 16mp I'll stay with a D300.

It seems that a new FX will be launched before the olympics, but that will probably not be a medium price point camera; for that we'll have to wait at least another year.

The plot thickens with Sony's announcement of a 14mp DSLR today....

... and according to dpreview the body will retail for US $800 (surely that must be a misprint?).

Sony announces 24mp flagship DSLR, full frame, available this Autumn.....

Sony announces 24mp flagship DSLR, full frame, available this Autumn.....

Yikes... The sleeping giant is awake. This looks like they're out for the kill and that this won't be a community sensor. So no 24MP D3X. A 24MP full frame is pretty compelling. And given their aggressive pricing this could really hit Canon and Nikon hard.

Except for stock photography, megapixels as such have lost their value. In a way, it's a good thing and very democratic. What camera people can afford will no longer be important for the quality of the photos. The abilities of the photographer still will.

I agree with Epixx. At what point is it that megapixels stops mattering? This strikes me much like the Intel/AMD wars a few years back with both trying to produce the fastest processor. When they hit 3 GHz, it stopped mattering because the processors were faster than most people needed. I think that is about where digital cameras are now. Let's face it, a 10 MP camera can put out a pretty striking 10X13 photo which is about as large as the average person's printer can put out.

Where I see this heading in the next two or three years is less toward the Megapixel side and more toward the quality/speed issues. I see companies like Nikon and Canon developing even better sensors with less noise and faster image processing and storage. I think you'll see this on both the professional end and the consumer end of cameras, but especially at the consumer end once the average Joe realizes that he doesn't really need a 16 MP camera, but a high quality 12 MP sensor to do the same job. Consumers are much smarter than about their purchases than they were  even 10 years ago, but digital photography is new to many of them and they are not "in the know" - yet.

That does not mean that there will not be a market for higher Megapixel cameras, merely that the people who need or want them will be more specialized. Just like a gamer or a digital designer often needs a faster processor and memory, an avid amateur photographer will seek out higher end P&S cameras or low to medium end dSLRs.

On the professional end of the spectrum, I believe you will see the MP craze slow when 20-30 MP cameras become the norm. What will become ultimately important is the sensor quality. In the next several years, I would not even be surprised to see "specialty" sensors with embedded firmware that excel at one thing - perhaps super-fast sensors for capturing action such as sports, sensors designed for indoor/lowlight situations, sensors for outside/landscape shots, etc. Ideally, these sensors would be easily swappable (essentially plug-and-play), but specialty cameras would probably be the norm - at least at the low end of the dSLRs. Think of it this way: Right now you buy the best general camera you can and then buy a lens for the type of photography you intend to do and come out with some great shots. But imagine if you bought a lens and sensor combination that were intended to work together exclusively. For that matter, the sensor might be built into the lens itself rather than the camera body. Of course, this scenario is quite a ways out into the future, but as people continue to specialize more and more, I can't help but seeing it become magnified in the photography industry in the coming years. You are already seeing it, and have been for some time now, with companies like Fuji making cameras designed primarily for "forensic photography". This will make it easier for people with little or no training to take extraordinary images. The upside is that the images will all be "perfect" (take that with a grain of salt). The downside is that all the photos will look the same.

That's the "business" end of things. At the other end of the spectrum, you will still see the "artists" who require more flexibility than these specialty sensors/lenses provide. I believe the big name companies will always cater to these folks as these are the ones that give a company its reputation. Sure there will be companies that say "our camera is the best macro or telephoto or panoramic camera on the market", but companies like Canon and Nikon will be able to point to the best photographic art and say "Hey, that was taken with our camera" which will always translate into sales for those who are committed to the art-side of the industry.

Remember, these are really super-simplified scenarios, but from what I've seen, this is the direction almost every industry is taking. The reality is surely going to include something entirely unexpected. That is what makes the future so captivating.

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned, but last year Kodak announced a replacement for the bayer filters (developed by Kodak) used on virtually every imaging sensor from camera phones to high end DSLR's and beyond (the Sigma sensor being one big exception).  The new filter pattern dramatically reduces noise by using light more efficiently (clear is used for luminosity data, not green, there is less interpolation of the color channels used to recreate the image), side by side comparisons with basically the same sensor but different filters (the examples that I have seen have been PnS sensors) showed 800 ISO pictures with the new filter having equal to or less noise than 200 ISO shots with the old filter.  The results are so stunning that it leads me to believe that the new filter pattern will be the biggest single step forward in sensor design, possibly in decades, while replacing one of the cheapest parts (firmware will need adjustment, but adaptation of the technology is relatively easy).  Since the old filter is universal it leads me to believe that the new filter will be adopted by all the major players relatively quickly (if not they will be left in the dust), the first models are expected out later this year.  I expect to see the noise in all imaging sensors, no matter what the size, to be dramatically slashed within two years.  Kodak is going to make a fortune licensing the technology (same as the bayer filter).  Unless my current body gives out, I'm going to hold off on a new one until the new filter is out, the cost difference will be minor compared to old bodies, yet the improvement will be dramatic, any body bought this year will be obsolete in the noise department within a year or two.

Camera manufacturers already acknowledge (privately to themselves or other industry insiders, the public is still blissfully unaware for the most part) that they have passed the useful MP point on a decent % of cameras, the sensor resolution being beyond lens resolution for all but the highest quality glass, PnS cameras passed that point a while ago, even the best PnS glass can't resolve 8mp, and the highest resolution consumer DSLRs are beyond what cheap lenses can resolve, the push for MPs is degrading IQ for the most part because of the signal to noise ratio getting worse with more MPs, creating noise and shrinking dynamic range, but they sell more if there is a bigger # on the sticker, until the public stops buying based on the MP rating alone, camera manufacturers are stuck, unlike computer chips where solid benchmarking can prove the speed of a computer, image quality is much more subjective, changing the attitudes of the public will be difficult, 95% of the public have no idea how to interpret IQ tests performed on cameras, and imaging test shots for the most part are woefully pitiful, only taking shots that trained eyes can understand instead of side by sides of pretty things that the pubic can understand.

Here is one that specifically talks about the new filter and not the sensor that Kodak is pairing with it for themselves.  With the Bayer filter being industry standard, it isn't too hard to imagine that this will be the industry standard shortly.

http://www.apertureprofessional.com/showthread.php?t=4172

I don't want more I want better.

This seems to be the overall feeling of all users except for the consumer P&S range.

We're on the limit of some lense capabilities so the Kodak path is really interesting, the 24mb Sony sensor doesn't sincerely wet my pants.