Would You Switch to D800 for more MP?

Nikon Rumors is pretty sure the D800 will be 36MP, due for announcement within the next few days, I'm hearing 7th or 9th.

If the new 5D was only 22MP, would you consider switching to the D800 as a portrait or landscape photographer?

The D800 will very likely have superior AF and possibly superior ISO, so if it has far superior resolution I worry Canon might lose market share...

The Megapixel war is officially over. Not sure why nikon decided to cram 38 MP into the sensor. Also, don't you get less noise with less megapickles?

If Nikon manage to provide the same high iso performance as the 5dm III, then I would seriously consider swapping, but selling the existing L lens investment would definitely make it an expensive proposition

L lenses do sell well though. I made a joke about switching and then I kind of throughout about it for a second and got kind of scared, ha! I have to believe the new 5D will get a decent bump in resolution and it really won't be an issue.

But concerning market share, if these two cameras aren't even close in resolution I'm very worried Canon could lose a lot of market share, especially from new photographers who haven't committed to a system.

But why would you need 36 megapixels?

Also as a note:

Canon is cramming a good AF system into the next 5D iteration, so don't sweat that point.

I would never say never but from a business point of view it is a no brainer. Cost to replace would be too much. Plus the day after I sold all my Canon gear, Canon would announce the best camera ever made which would be perfect in every way.

Whoever thinks that the race for more MP is over or that we will never need more is living in a dream world. Technology will always be improving, thats the nature of the beast. We will be offered 3 figure MP counts before long and wondering how we ever managed with less.

Back to the OP's question: No, I would not switch because I have several EF L lenses and the expense of moving to Nikon, with it's over priced glass would be more than I would want to afford. I have switched from Nikon to Canon in the past and it was a difficult transition, I've no wish to repeat it any time soon.

For the size prints I make (between 8x10 and 20x30) and the types of things I shoot, I do not see much use for higher megapixels. I was satisfied at 8MP and perfectly happy with 12.8MP.

I put up with sluggish processing at 12.8MP for a long time and finally got a faster computer to deal with 16MP. One could shoot sRAW as a work around, but then why would I go out of my way to get a 36MP camera and then shoot sRAW all the time?

I think the D800 is made to serve a niche, and that niche does not include me. I'd rather have a camera with a bigger functional buffer and higher maximum frame rate at 16-20MP than this.

Back in the day of the 20D/30D a lot of people considered its 6.4 micron sensel to be the ideal size. The technology and the market have moved on, but I am still enamored of the 6.4 micron sensel, which is exactly what the 5D2 has. It is certainly worth noting that with the 1DX Canon has gone to a 6.9 micron sensel.

jaszek wrote in post #13811276
But why would you need 36 megapixels?

The 38 MP FF sensor will have the same sensel size and density as a 15 MP 1.6 cropper. There seem to be plenty of satisfied consumers for this level of sensor resolution and even higher. My 5D2 has a native print size of 10.4x15.6 inches at 360 ppi for my Epson and I print mostly at 11x16.5, so the uprez is not great and very little IQ is lost. The Nikon will be native for Epson at 14x21 and that would mean a downrez, so I doubt I would see much difference. The occasional 20x30 or larger would be better under close examination, but, again, I doubt the gain would be great at normal viewing distance.
Those 217 MB 16 bit tifs will for sure have more people finishing up in LR/ACR and avoiding the extra touch in PS.

Why do people buy Phase One IQ180 80 megapixel backs?
And delightedly shell out $35,000 for them.

It's not so much how many pixels but pixel density, sensor size and a combination of both.

If you print very large, the more the better. To a certain degree, if you need to crop, more pixels allows you to crop more severely.

Those, cosmetic and fashion, street level billboards are pretty much all done with MF digital backs.

I could use 36 mpixels in the D800 assuming all else being equal or better (high ISO).

For people who output poster sized prints, more MPs is a blessing. For the rest of us (and I am pretty sure we are 90% of the camera users) 21 MP is more than enough. I think it is silly for Nikon to go that route in the D800. They might end up having the same issues as Canon with the 7D - just look at all the noise complaining threads about the 7D right here on POTN.

Until they come out with a 36mp D800 and the camera is reviewed, we can only speculate.

To me it's about print size. Most of my work is 16x20 with occasional 30x40. My 1DS3 handles this fine. In fact the native resolution of the 1DS3 (or 5D2) is 16x20. I use the analogy from my film days. Many years ago you needed 4x5 film to get a decent 16x20. As technology improved you could move down to 120 film for the same output and ultimately you could get by with 35mm. If Canon or Nikon released a 30, 40, or 50mp camera I'm not going to start selling billboards. Sure there would be more headroom, but at what cost?