Megapixel war is not a war at all

I have been dumfounded by the actions of Canon to increase mega pixels. Why would they do this? Is it because they are trying to beat Nikon? Is it because they can? Why do this when you can have awesome imaging at lower mega pixels?

So why are they doing this? I think its for an entirely different reason. With the relase of the 5DMII and 7D, what have all the complaints been about? Oh there are to many pixels and the high ISO will be noisy. Wait, to many pixels! In lies the real reason.

I believe that high mega pixels sells more expensive glass. This is the real marketing reason to up the mega pixels.

So what do you think? Am I right or is there another overwhelming reason?

davidfig wrote in post #8676280
I have been dumfounded by the actions of Canon to increase mega pixels. Why would they do this? Is it because they are trying to beat Nikon? Is it because they can? Why do this when you can have awesome imaging at lower mega pixels?

So why are they doing this? I think its for an entirely different reason. With the relase of the 5DMII and 7D, what have all the complaints been about? Oh there are to many pixels and the high ISO will be noisy. Wait, to many pixels! In lies the real reason.

I believe that high mega pixels sells more expensive glass. This is the real marketing reason to up the mega pixels.

So what do you think? Am I right or is there another overwhelming reason?

From a working commercial/advertising perspective you can never have to many MPs.

I'm guessing that consumer market demand drives the design specifications and since the uneducated general public believes more MP has got to be better Canon complies with the market demand while providing technoogy (DIGIC IV) that will clean up the image and please the masses.

If any camera manufacturer were to come out with a 8MP APS-C DSLR body it would probably never achieve the sales dollars of another having more MP. We may know better, but the general consumer doesn't.

Well, I'm not sure if this in the right forum but I'll post anyway.

Canon going to 21mp with the MKII was a natural choice. Canon already knew that they weren't going to do anything crazy (with the exception of video) with the 5D series. They found all the things people liked about the original and just gave them more of it. (simple FF camera with excellent IQ) Instead of designing a new sensor, or using a really old sensor (the 16mp from the 1 series that people were looking for) they used a sensor/design that they know works. You have to keep in mind that Sony had the 25mp (high resolution for commercial) sensor coming and the d700 stayed at 12mp. (high iso for versatility)

In relation to the 7D, they needed an answer to the d300. The 50d wasn't cutting it, and they have other plans for the 60D. (don't be surprised if they use the 50D's sensor and squeeze better high ISO out if it) The new 18mp sensor seems to be pretty amazing, and judging from the high-iso images from Imaging-Resource, it does FAR better than the d300. Why 18mp? Because they can. They can offer an acceptable signal-noise ratio while delivering resolutions that people can use.

As far as lenses go? It'll definitely push people towards better glass. I don't know how necessary it'll be though. I recently compared the 5dMkii with a 35mm F2 lens in comparable conditions with my 5D classic and it performed admirably. The lens itself is fairly cheap, but the added resolution made a pretty big difference.

It's the big number on the front of the box that 99% of people will judge the camera by. They'll keep making it bigger until they're given a compelling reason not to.

I doubt that selling lenses is the main reason. The fact that they continue to package the new insane-megapixel crop cameras with cheap kit lenses and superzooms, suggests that they're not too keen to point out to customers that certain lenses might not take advantage of the full resolution.

Why does it say in big letters right on top of the vacuum cleaner, 10 amps? Same thing.

+1

Used to have to stitch 6-12 shots from a 400D, now I have only to do 2-4 on the 5D2; big time saver.
Or I could could stitch more for even more detail. Not uncommon for me to have something like 8000x5000px files up to 15k pixels.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if after releasing the 1D(s) IV Canon will start work on a MF system to push the limit even higher.

gasrocks wrote in post #8676342
Why does it say in big letters right on top of the vacuum cleaner, 10 amps? Same thing.

Well if you need 300 DPI to size most art directors and designers want as much as they can get. I think 12 or so MPs with the 5D is fine, more than enough, but thats me.

The new M9 is 18.. PERFECT!!!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8676292
=airfrogusmc;8676292]From a working commercial/advertising perspective you can never have to many MPs.

i think it's really that simple. whenever someone sees one of my cameras they say something like: "nice camera! how many MPs is it?"

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #8676378
i think it's really that simple. whenever someone sees one of my cameras they say something like: "nice camera! how many MPs is it?"

ed rader

Yeah funny ain't it?

jetcode wrote in post #8676321
The fact that I can print 300dpi images full frame on 17x22 is enough incentive for 22mp in my world. I have L glass and for once I can finally see what it is capable of. I shot MF and LF prior to get the kind of resolution found in the 5DII and the flexibility of this system is like no other. Image View alone has given me eyes that I never had before. I can finally get a precise focus on a subject. As far as I'm concerned the 5DII is the end of the road for me unless a 32mp version with even more precision and flexibility makes it's way to the market. Beyond that is a diminishing return for me.

i do believe that FF is an exception....for now anyway. but the 1.6 crop sensors have hit the wall and i think returns are diminishing.

ed rader

I agree with ed rader, as far as IQ is concerned. the returns canon is more concerned with are monetary, and I am afraid that wall has not been met yet. There will soon be photographers that bought their first camera when 30 megapixels became affordable. and canon wants those dollars even if the IQ suffers.

Though one can get nice, larger-than-expected pictures printed from modest-megapixel cameras, high megapixels come in handy for heavily cropped images.

ed rader wrote in post #8676385
i do believe that FF is an exception....for now anyway. but the 1.6 crop sensors have hit the wall and i think returns are diminishing.

ed rader

You would know more about that than I Ed. I meant full frame meaning filling a 17x22 sheet with an inch or so border, not full frame as in sensor size, though yes I fully appreciate that aspect.

The quest for the next cash stream is a fact of life in high tech.

The first laptops I saw in 1995 would run $4500 and up for a 12"-14" color 66Mhz PC. I picked up a Gateway gaming laptop earlier this year with 2.2G dual core, 320G 7200rpm, 1000Mhz front side bus, 1920x1200 HD 17", 4G 800mhz ram, 1G graphics card, HDMI, ESata, Firewire, USB2.0 for $1100 new. Best machine I've ever owned. Would I go back? Not in a million years.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #8676354
Used to have to stitch 6-12 shots from a 400D, now I have only to do 2-4 on the 5D2; big time saver.
Or I could could stitch more for even more detail. Not uncommon for me to have something like 8000x5000px files up to 15k pixels.

Did you ever wonder if perhaps a medium format camera might be the proper tool for your niche?