Megapixel conundrum

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']There's a couple of recent threads that deal with issues related to your question.  I have a keen interest in this as well, since I may have reasons to buy the new 16.7 MP Canon and the 12 MP Nikon.  At this point, however, there is simply no definitive information available to base an intellegent decision on.  Hopefully Michael (the owner of this site and forum) will soon be reviewing both these cameras so we can all have a better idea what's what.  I'll probably wait until these cameras have been out for a year or so in any case, so that the price (especially used) will be substantially less.  At this point, however, I'm not convinced that I'd want either camera regardless of price.  I have a 1ds and there's no convincing information that the 1dsM2 is enough better with most lenses to justify (for me) the big expense.  It remains to be seen how close to 1ds (with a super good lens) quality the Nikon 12 MP camera will turn out to be and how good the new lenses really are.

If you go for something as soon as possible you're really shooting in the dark.[/font]

[MatthewCromer]

[font color=\'#000000\']One more comment:  why is the image quality on the 20D better than the 1D2?  Build a pro-level camera on the APS sensor.  Your sports and wildlife shooters will love you for it!  You're going to lose your big advantage among wildlife, sports, and birders if you can't match the D2X here.  Assuming decent IQ, Nikon is going to offer a heck of a lot with this camera for that crowd that you aren't offering.  If they had 400, 500, and 600 with VR, you would be in big trouble.  Those lenses are coming.[/font]

[MatthewCromer]

[font color=\'#000000\']Lin,

Are you referring to the IS variant of the 70/200?

Anyway my list of "complaints" about Canon is more a list of how they could improve their already dominant standing.  I do think Canon, overall, offers the best dSLR systems out there today.[/font]

[BJL]

[font color=\'#000000\']5) Why sell a farging digital camera with a 95% viewfinder?[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']While I do appreciate the near 100% viewfinder coverage of my E-1, I have heard an explanation of why it costs more. It is a matter of the precise alignment needed in assembly of the VF. With 95% coverage, the VF can be slightly misaligned and still everything you seen in the VF will be recorded, so alignment errors can be taken care of with slight cropping. On the other hand, if a 100% VF is misaligned, the camera might fail to record something that you saw in the VF, and wanted to be in the picture.

My proposed solution is to go a bit in the direction of a sports finder, with electronically projected frame. Make the VF image cover a bit more than 100% (easy enough in the smaller formats), and then have a calibration process that works out where the edge of the recorded frame is, and projects this rectangle onto the VF image. This could be combined with a projected alignment grid option, as already offered in the Nikon D100.[/font]

[water1]

[font color=\'#000000\']Here we go, I'm at the "fork in the road." I 've been shooting with the D100 with two zoom lenses, I haven't gone overboard and don't feel overly committed by expense. Have been shooting Nikon forever with old primes and 35mm. Resisted the Digital plunge, but with the tradition and primes went Nikon and I am a complete and total convert to pixels.

Digital has not only revived my passion for landscape, it has fueled an income source for fine art print sales. A lot of great indicators have happened in a short time. I've pushed the limit of the D100 and I am at that point that many are asking. If I am to choose an ideal DSLR combination and commit to the new 16.7 mg Canon or the 12.7 Nikon, which way to go? I hear Canon for file size and quality, but the Wide angle zooms have much to be desired, where the smaller file size and the wide angle zooms for Nikon are better.

The ideal Landscape combination of wide angle zoom and body? What do you think?  Thanks.[/font]

[MatthewCromer]

[font color=\'#000000\']Canon is a dominant market leader, but they seem to be slipping in a number of areas.

1) Wide zooms -- the Nikkors are a lot better, esp. in the corners.  The 70-200/2.8L IS USM is sub-par vis a vis the Nikkor offering.

2) Emphasis on blurrish images with STRONG AA filters and low noise, versus some others with sharper images, less (or no) AA, and more noise.  Canon seems to think that applying more and more smearing to high-ISO images = image quality.  So far, it seems like a lot of buyers are buying that interpretation of IQ.

3) No live preview (the new S3 is the first dSLR with the beginnings this capability).  Live preview and live histogram means shooting kids at eye level without hunching your back.  It means shooting landscape without having to peer into a viewfinder that might be 12 inches above the ground, or even above a stream.  Every consumer digicam can do this.

4) No in-camera IS like the new Dynax D7.

5) Why sell a farging digital camera with a 95% viewfinder?  The E1 has a 100% finder, and it doesn't cost $4000.  These AREN'T SLIDES, you doofs.  No frame mounts.  Cover the farging frame.

6) 300D vs. D70 -- come on, don't dumb down features via software!!!!!

7) OK, you've been selling these cameras for almost 5 years now, and haven't done anything about the DUST.  Gimme a break!  The Olympus E1 has done something about it, but you haven't.

SMALLER CAMERAS!!!   Every professional doesn't want to have to carry a 3 pound clonker just to get good image quality!  Look at the Pentax if you need assistance here.

9) The little things.  Like a spotmeter and a flipping MLU.  Don't cripple expensive dSLRs by leaving out these features.

10) $1500 cameras shouldn't have cheap, loud, clonky mirrors with subpar buffers.[/font]

[Lin Evans]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Matthew,

Just a couple comments. The Canon 70-200 F2.8 is really a dynamite lens. I've no problems at all with mine in terms of precise focus, edge to edge sharpness, etc., with any of my Canon dSLR's (5 in all). I'm not certain the Nikon equivalent is any better - but if it is, it's a dynamite lens indeed.

The issue of having stabilization in the camera body is a bit problematic for me. By nature, stabilizaton is somewhat a fragile thing. I could stand dropping a stabilized lens on a job then switching lenses until it was repaired, but I find it much more likely that over a course of time one will drop the camera body with a lens attached. One significant drop and your camera with a stabilization built-in is likely to go away for service for quite a while. The one thing both Canon and Nikon have going for them in their professional bodies is that they generally will take some pretty severe treatment and still function.  

I love the idea of having built-in stabilization but I fear it even more.

Lin[/font]

[Bobtrips]

[font color=\'#000000\']Lin,

I'm not so sure that "in-body" stabilization is quite as fragile as "in-lens".  Minolta's stabilization system is solid state, not gyroscopically controlled.[/font]

[Lin Evans]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I'm not so sure that "in-body" stabilization is quite as fragile as "in-lens".  Minolta's stabilization system is solid state, not gyroscopically controlled.

Hi Bob,

Maybe I've got this wrong, and I haven't seen the technical specifications on the IS system for the 7d but my understanding was that the sensor is "shifted" to compensate for horizontal and vertical movement. That would seem to imply some sort of mounting which allows sensor movement which would appear, at least on the surface, to be a weak point for "G" force shock in a drop. Maybe it's more rugged than it would appear, but pro cameras sometimes take some pretty rough bounces and I'd worry about it unless it's shown conclusively that it could take a "lick'en and keep on tick'en" :-)

Lin[/font]

[Bobtrips]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Lin,

When the A1 was introduced Phil posted a brief article describing how the system worked.  I can't find that page via the DPR search facility, perhaps he took it down.

I recall him commenting on the build quality of the sensor mount and connectors.  As I remember he felt that it was substantially made.  And by this time Minolta has certainly had opportunity to 'field test' the device via the A1s and A2s that must have taken their share of tumbles.

There is some information on the A1 review at DPR.  From what I can see the sensor seems to be attached to a rather substantial metal plate and the actuators are some distance from the sensor.  I think it likely that the AS/IS system would be no more likely to break than would the metering system or any other component.  

(I suppose one could argue that it does add one more system that might fail.  ;o)[/font]