The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute

[eronald]

I've been told Hasselblad is heavily building up staffing in its R&D department and intending to announce in 2012. The new stuff is said to be cheaper.

Nikon is rumored to be announcing a 36MP $3K prosumer model in a few weeks, and a D4 or similar 18MP Pro sports camera later this year, in time for next year's London olympics.

Canon seem to be gearing up for a 1Ds4 launch pronto, and are said to be showing around a 5DMarkIII.

Sony have a firm grip on the high end mirrorless market segment, and will doubtless bring out some new fullframe 36MP bodies, one of which may be mirrorless.

Leica is laying the rangefinder to rest, but seems intent on keeping manual focus abilities on the next M-compatible body. How they will do this reminds to be ... seen.

Edmund

[design_freak]

Edmund,
Very interesting times were followed
We look forward 

[bcooter]

I've been told ..........................

Image creation has always been art accomplished by science.

The initial creative thought is easy, compared to executing and delivering on budget, on deadline "while" not losing the original creative goal.

In other words, cameras, clients, committees, money, should not get in the way of delivering the original creative plan.

I'm looking forward to what equipment is coming our way, but I hope the next round of cameras comes with a different mindset that previous generations.

On the most part, previous cameras gave me what I needed last week, sometimes what I need today, but the camera system I want to buy is what I need tomorrow.

Cheaper is good . . . I guess . . . though more usability is better, or better put camera that let's me do something that no other camera system does now is the most intriguing.




IMO

BC

[wolfnowl]

Being the next 'crop' of cameras, should we assume smaller sensors? I hope Russ doesn't hear about anyone cropping cameras...

Sorry, couldn't resist...  

Mike.

[fotometria gr]

I've been told Hasselblad is heavily building up staffing in its R&D department and intending to announce in 2012. The new stuff is said to be cheaper.

Nikon is rumored to be announcing a 36MP $3K prosumer model in a few weeks, and a D4 or similar 18MP Pro sports camera later this year, in time for next year's London olympics.

Canon seem to be gearing up for a 1Ds4 launch pronto, and are said to be showing around a 5DMarkIII.

Sony have a firm grip on the high end mirrorless market segment, and will doubtless bring out some new fullframe 36MP bodies, one of which may be mirrorless.

Leica is laying the rangefinder to rest, but seems intent on keeping manual focus abilities on the next M-compatible body. How they will do this reminds to be ... seen.

Edmund

But its only rumors isn't it? I mean do you really believe that Nikon will use a simply multiplied area sensor (I mean the 16.2 one of the D7K) and ...produce a FF 36mpx camera which will perform worst than the D7K? I don't have them for being naive! Rumors are rumors..... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[design_freak]

I've been told Hasselblad is heavily building up staffing in its R&D department and intending to announce in 2012. The new stuff is said to be cheaper.


Edmund

Even the best R & D department, someone has to manage. Determine the direction of development. You know who would it be? I have no idea. I say this with all due respect to people and their past achievements. There is a need someone with vision. Then it can go.

[stevesanacore]

Sounds exciting, Nikon/Sony 36MP rumor has been going around for a few months now. No info on Canon but it's logical to assume if they double the 18MP APS sensor into full frame, then they too will have a 36MP offering. Only issue is what lenses will they have that can resolve the detail at that level? I imagine it will also force Phase and Hasse to drop prices on the 40MP cameras quite a bit in order to compete. Sounds like a win win for us.

[Erick Boileau]

I imagine it will also force Phase and Hasse to drop prices on the 40MP cameras quite a bit in order to compete. Sounds like a win win for us.

or I am afraid we will not find anymore MF with 40 mp, that's bad

[yaya]

Shall we start betting on the next Canon/ Nikon flagships?

$0.50 says ~36MP, faster processors, high-speed video, better sound, built-in GPS

No mirrorless bodies and no EVF. Canon brings some new lenses based on same tech as the 8-15mm fisheye zoom, which is exciting

Yair

[BernardLanguillier]

It sounds pretty certain that the next DSLRs will be around 36mp, if not Nikon then Sony and Canon.

I also don't see why this is a concern.

The D7000 already has a DR that is only exceeded clearly by that of the IQ160/IQ180 and uses a cheap sensor that is a year old.

I don't see how they could not go beyond D3x DR with a 36 megapixel sensor. They will probably be able to improve color response at the same time. :-)

Now, we will only know for sure in a few weeks. I will probably keep my d3x though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fotometria gr]

It sounds pretty certain that the next DSLRs will be around 36mp, if not Nikon then Sony and Canon.

I also don't see why this is a concern.

The D7000 already has a DR that is only exceeded clearly by that of the IQ160/IQ180 and uses a cheap sensor that is a year old.

I don't see how they could not go beyond D3x DR with a 36 megapixel sensor. They will probably be able to improve color response at the same time. :-)

Now, we will only know for sure in a few weeks. I will probably keep my d3x though.

Cheers,
Bernard

If you refer to DR as it is measured from DXO, my experience is totally different. I do own D7K and its highlight is clearly worst from D700 and more so than Fuji S5pro, actually the Fuji is in a class of its own in that matter among DSLRs and is the only one that can compare with my Imacon 528c MFDB. This doesn't mean that DXO measurments are wrong, its only an observation that DR is a subjective aspect that depends on the individual's appreciation on low light noise (what may be accepted by some..., may not be accepted by others). IMO highlight DR latitude is much more important than DR as total measured in stops. Unfortunately, all digital is at least a stop behind good quality negative film in that aspect but its improving as tech advances. If they where to upsize an APS-c sensor to FF, it would be a disaster for the extra area of the frame, where projected light will have to enter the cells in a much increased angle, thus the whole image would be worst than its APS-c counterpart. This is not the case with MF because there the sensor is moved further away the more it is increased in size, but in DSLRs the sensor is at the same distance from the mount either if its FF or APS-c. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[eronald]

It sounds pretty certain that the next DSLRs will be around 36mp, if not Nikon then Sony and Canon.

I also don't see why this is a concern.

The D7000 already has a DR that is only exceeded clearly by that of the IQ160/IQ180 and uses a cheap sensor that is a year old.

I don't see how they could not go beyond D3x DR with a 36 megapixel sensor. They will probably be able to improve color response at the same time. :-)

Now, we will only know for sure in a few weeks. I will probably keep my d3x though.

Cheers,

Bernard

I would like to downgrade to a D3s from the X, so I will be looking for the new pro model.
Slowly, I've come to realize that in real life I need to shoot at 1600 ISO at least 6 months of the year, and I'd prefer to be at 3200.
Global warming has definitely erased a lot of winter light in the city of lights.
Also, the huge enlargements I used to make never found a home while I sold and gave away a lot of A3 prints
Wonderful thing about the D3x is the super accurate focus and its ability to let me crop the shots but I think a lower-rez model would still be more useful if it is faster.
Also, my impression on the D3s is the color is better, the D3x had resolution and good speed but mediocre color.
I'll look at new pro model, and maybe get a used D3s. I don't think I really want more pixels - probably getting old and doddery in my outlook.

Edmund

PS. At the Paris photo show most of the amateur attendants yesterday were  male in their 50s with a lot of 60s and no 20s

[DaveCurtis]

Edmund,

The "20s" are probably out shooting with there iPhone. Dont need no DSLR

[DaveCurtis]

Im still reasonably happy with my 1DS3. It's getting on in years though.

It will be interesting to see what Canon has to offer and whether they can catch up to Nikon. And also whether it will be worth going to a 1DS4 or will the 5D3 be good enough. Only time will tell.

Nothing like a new toy to play with.

[yaya]

PS. At the Paris photo show most of the amateur attendants yesterday were  male in their 50s with a lot of 60s and no 20s

Quite a few 20's here today....maybe because it's Friday?

(some are even looking at MF...sheeesh...)

[EricWHiss]

The prospect of new DSLR cameras with higher pixel counts and probably better DR and better video is exciting - the one thing I'm not excited about is the 3::2 format. 

[BernardLanguillier]

If you refer to DR as it is measured from DXO, my experience is totally different. I do own D7K and its highlight is clearly worst from D700 and more so than Fuji S5pro, actually the Fuji is in a class of its own in that matter among DSLRs and is the only one that can compare with my Imacon 528c MFDB. This doesn't mean that DXO measurments are wrong, its only an observation that DR is a subjective aspect that depends on the individual's appreciation on low light noise (what may be accepted by some..., may not be accepted by others). IMO highlight DR latitude is much more important than DR as total measured in stops. Unfortunately, all digital is at least a stop behind good quality negative film in that aspect but its improving as tech advances. If they where to upsize an APS-c sensor to FF, it would be a disaster for the extra area of the frame, where projected light will have to enter the cells in a much increased angle, thus the whole image would be worst than its APS-c counterpart. This is not the case with MF because there the sensor is moved further away the more it is increased in size, but in DSLRs the sensor is at the same distance from the mount either if its FF or APS-c. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Hum... highlight DR latitude does not exist with any of the digital sensors on the market today since they are all linear devices. True highlight recovery is not more or less there... it is zero, nitch for everybody. Whether you use an IQ180 or a Canon S95, it is the very same zero.

What differs is the calibration of the metering and gap between true ISO and calibrated one.

Check the true ISO measurement on DxOMark and you will see that phase backs have one stop more of highlight recovery simply because they "cheat" one stop on the ISO value. So in essence the back helps you to under-expose all your shots one stop which gives you the illusion that you can recover that one stop of highlight.

So we are back to square one, DR with digital linear sensors is 100% only about shadow noise, nothing else. The Fuji S5Pro is the same, it does its trick by having in fact 2 sensors into one with different real ISOs. The user ISO value is that of the large sensels, and recovery is only possible by using the information provided by the lower ISO smaller sensels. In essence you are under-exposing as well.

The backs and S5 Pro are therefore more forgiving, but high end DSLRs do actually provide a more useful histogram for those trying to really get the best out of their files.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fotometria gr]

Hum... highlight DR latitude does not exist with any of the digital sensors on the market today since they are all linear devices. True highlight recovery is not more or less there... it is zero, nitch for everybody. Whether you use an IQ180 or a Canon S95, it is the very same zero.

What differs is the calibration of the metering and gap between true ISO and calibrated one.

Check the true ISO measurement on DxOMark and you will see that phase backs have one stop more of highlight recovery simply because they "cheat" one stop on the ISO value. So in essence the back helps you to under-expose all your shots one stop which gives you the illusion that you can recover that one stop of highlight.

So we are back to square one, DR with digital linear sensors is 100% only about shadow noise, nothing else. The Fuji S5Pro is the same, it does its trick by having in fact 2 sensors into one with different real ISOs. The user ISO value is that of the large sensels, and recovery is only possible by using the information provided by the lower ISO smaller sensels. In essence you are under-exposing as well.

The backs and S5 Pro are therefore more forgiving, but high end DSLRs do actually provide a more useful histogram for those trying to really get the best out of their files.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard, the sensor may be a linear device, but is one that is acting linearly to produce a non linear result like the S-slope, the method is irrelevant and what you state up there may be true but is not the whole truth. There is a linear part left in the sensor that covers the mid tones, the aim of the manufacturers is to have the sensor acting like film did, I don't know exactly how they (try to) do it, but it looks to me that the pixels don't all have the same ISO but the sensitivity differs on pixels across the sensor and is distributed by the logic cirquit in a manner to cope with highlights and lowlights. I came to that conclusion because noise becomes evident in the deep shadows even with a D700 at 200 iso, which it shouldn't if ISO was only as different as DXO claims. It must be part of the reason why NR is not turned off to any DSLR even if its instructed from menu to do so (not even in Raw). S5pro is different story because the info that is recorded by its small pixels is only used to instruct the big pixels, the info then is thrown away and its replaced by the resulting average (that i don't suspect, I know...) of the four large pixels that are around it by interpolating it (25% of each), this means that the result is one of true 12mpx since the info recorded by the small pixels is equal in size but different than the rest of the large pixels, it also explains why the camera is slow to record the info and why its raws are so huge. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[ondebanks]

Unfortunately, all digital is at least a stop behind good quality negative film in that aspect but its improving as tech advances.

So if you set an extra -1 or -1.5 stop exposure compensation (underexpose) on all your shots with a good digital sensor, would they not match negative film for highlight range? The only question then is whether they at least match the film S/N in the mid-tones and shadows. I suspect they would, even with the underexposure handicap.

As Bernard says, this is basically what many of the digital backs are set up to do.

Being in a position to underexpose also helps with things like camera shake (use a faster shutter speed) or increasing DOF (use a smaller aperture).

Ray

[ondebanks]

Cheaper is good . . . I guess . . . though more usability is better, or better put camera that let's me do something that no other camera system does now is the most intriguing.

BC, I always like the way your posts are rooted in real-world usage.

Have you identified a camera/system-imposed limitation in your photography - is there something that you wish you could do, but until that "camera that let's me do something that no other camera system does now" materialises, you are unable to do it?

I think that's an interesting question to put to the whole forum.

My answer would be: Yes. Due to current MFD limitations, I am unable to shoot MF-sized long exposure images with the low readout noise, low dark noise, and untinkered RAW file output (no bias subtraction, and the option to turn off dark subtraction) of my Canon 5DII.

Ray