<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Hi Megapixel Camera in General Discussion</title>
    <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45765#M23846</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I mean no offense to your friends, they may be great photographers, but just because someone is a “Pro” doesn’t mean they know their pixels from their pentaprisms.&amp;nbsp; There’s an overwhelmingly large contingent in photography that buys whatever is new and has an impressive looking specifications sheet. &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;In my opinion there’s also an overwhelming large amount of photographers creating entirely underwhelming photography from a rather expensive kit.&amp;nbsp; Again, I’m not implying these are your friends, but just establishing that just because some Pro photographers jumped ship for the D800 doesn’t make for an objective argument.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The D800 looks like a fantastic product photography camera.&amp;nbsp; Controlled lighting situations of static objects where you want maximum resolution.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;But the difference isn’t going to be very apparent until you blow it up large (or do crazy amount of cropping, which you’d never do with product photography).&amp;nbsp; So, some will really take advantage of the huge res, most will shoot with it and then compress all those pixels down to 8x10 or even down to computer monitor size.&amp;nbsp; Conversely, there’s hardly a wedding photographer on this planet that doesn’t look to minimize noise at high ISO.&amp;nbsp; Some photographers almost entirely shoot at high(ish) ISOs.&amp;nbsp; Providing that you don’t want to make giant enlargements of final product, the 5D3 is going to serve you better here than the D800.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I’d have no problem if Canon offered a high megapixel camera and a high ISO camera.&amp;nbsp; But given that they only produced one of those options this year, I’m glad they put their time into high ISO.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And we didn’t even get into discussing the D800 severe AF issues.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:33:58 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Skirball</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-10-24T18:33:58Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Megapixel Camera</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45743#M23841</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;At present, Nikon is leading the way in hi-resolution cameras. When is Canon stepping up it's pixel count to compete?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:59:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45743#M23841</guid>
      <dc:creator>gdonoghue20</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T16:59:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hi Megapixel Camera</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45749#M23842</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;There's rumors that Canon will have a high-pixel camera next year.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are many arguments for why more isn’t necessarily better when it comes to pixels.&amp;nbsp; Plenty of discussion on this online if you’re interested.&amp;nbsp; I have no interest in a 40+ megapixel (35mm) camera, unless I was doing work specific for large print (e.g. posters and billboards).&amp;nbsp; I much prefer high-ISO capabilities.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I’m no Canon fanboy, I’d buy Nikon cameras without hesitation if my lenses worked on them.&amp;nbsp; But I’d take a Canon 5d3 over a Nikon D800 any day of the week.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:22:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45749#M23842</guid>
      <dc:creator>Skirball</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T17:22:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hi Megapixel Camera</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45751#M23843</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;That has not been the case with the Pro's I know. They jumped off Canon for Nikon's. I have too much invested in the L-Lenses to change Manufacturers, but I would consider upgrading to a higher pixel Canon when it does arrive provided it is affordable and in the class of the Mark II and III.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:49:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45751#M23843</guid>
      <dc:creator>gdonoghue20</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T17:49:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hi Megapixel Camera</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45757#M23844</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;More megapixels are not necessarily better (there are only certain circumstances when they are better) -- I consider the high-megapixel count to be a bit of a marketing game and Nikon knows it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The "rumors" for Canon are that they're investigating high megapixel... but doing it via a medium format sensor and not a 35mm size sensor. &amp;nbsp;That would be the correct way to do it, but it would likely be an expensive camera.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The reason for this has to do with laws of physics and diffraction. &amp;nbsp;The "quality" of a product has nothing to do with it... there is no point at which good "quality" gets to violate the laws of physics. &amp;nbsp;They're called laws of physics for a reason.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you'd like to learn more about diffraction limited photography, here's a good place to start: &amp;nbsp;&lt;A target="_blank" href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm"&gt;http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A Canon 1D-X or 5D III starts to become diffraction limited at f/11. &amp;nbsp;At f/16 it is diffraction limited (meaning if you really zoom in on an image and inspect it, you'll see the details in the image are no longer technically clearly resolved.)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A Nikon D800 becomes diffraction limited at by f/8 and is generally not regarded as diffraction limited at f/5.6.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The lower the focal ratio, the more you can dodge the diffraction problem. &amp;nbsp;Also.. the physically large the sensor and photo-sites the more you can dodge the problem as well.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The next problem is that you generally never use "all" your data. &amp;nbsp;An exceptionally high end display wont use 10 megapixels of the data. &amp;nbsp;Canon is over 20. &amp;nbsp;Nikon is over 30... and the display can't even use 10. &amp;nbsp;All you're doing with the data is taking up more hard drive space.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you print, you use more data, but you usually don't use all the data unless you're makling REALLY big prints (e.g. 20" x 30" and larger) but those are rare. &amp;nbsp;Most people don't make such large prints. &amp;nbsp;And even then... I hope they aren't landscapes because if they are, they're going be soft -- suffering from diffraction.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:18:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45757#M23844</guid>
      <dc:creator>TCampbell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T18:18:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hi Megapixel Camera</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45763#M23845</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'd like a higher Mpixel camera too &amp;amp; although I've shot Canon since the mid 70's I bought a Nikon this summer based on the following reasoning after a discussion with a Nikon user.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I shoot R/C flying events &amp;amp; do a lot of cropping so after some thinking about his 24 Mpixel 1.5&amp;nbsp; crop camera &amp;amp; my 16+ mpixel 1.3 crop body I decided he had more pixels on target at 300 MM than I did at 400 MM and that does prove to be true. Unfortunately that 50% increase in pixel count also creates a 50% larger smear to everything IF you don't get a perfect focus lock &amp;amp; pan. I also learned that although Nikon does have some Pro quality lenses (zooms) in the 24-70 &amp;amp; 70-200 range they don't have anything longer that's equal, or even close to the Canon 35-350 L, 28-300 L IS or 100-400 L IS which are the lenses I depend on. Their 70-300 VR &amp;amp; 28-300 VR aren't very good at what I shoot &amp;amp; were the most often recommended lenses when I polled the different forums I belong to. So far I've read that the new 80-400 VR is both much better than the 100-400 L IS &amp;amp; I've read it isn't so until more hit the store shelves I have no idea whether or not that lens could shoot R/C.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My keeper rate with Canon is well over 80% and with Nikon it's been under 25% using identical settings. No way I can use a higher pixel count image if everything is a slight bit soft.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:27:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45763#M23845</guid>
      <dc:creator>cicopo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T18:27:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hi Megapixel Camera</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45765#M23846</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I mean no offense to your friends, they may be great photographers, but just because someone is a “Pro” doesn’t mean they know their pixels from their pentaprisms.&amp;nbsp; There’s an overwhelmingly large contingent in photography that buys whatever is new and has an impressive looking specifications sheet. &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;In my opinion there’s also an overwhelming large amount of photographers creating entirely underwhelming photography from a rather expensive kit.&amp;nbsp; Again, I’m not implying these are your friends, but just establishing that just because some Pro photographers jumped ship for the D800 doesn’t make for an objective argument.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The D800 looks like a fantastic product photography camera.&amp;nbsp; Controlled lighting situations of static objects where you want maximum resolution.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;But the difference isn’t going to be very apparent until you blow it up large (or do crazy amount of cropping, which you’d never do with product photography).&amp;nbsp; So, some will really take advantage of the huge res, most will shoot with it and then compress all those pixels down to 8x10 or even down to computer monitor size.&amp;nbsp; Conversely, there’s hardly a wedding photographer on this planet that doesn’t look to minimize noise at high ISO.&amp;nbsp; Some photographers almost entirely shoot at high(ish) ISOs.&amp;nbsp; Providing that you don’t want to make giant enlargements of final product, the 5D3 is going to serve you better here than the D800.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I’d have no problem if Canon offered a high megapixel camera and a high ISO camera.&amp;nbsp; But given that they only produced one of those options this year, I’m glad they put their time into high ISO.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And we didn’t even get into discussing the D800 severe AF issues.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:33:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/45765#M23846</guid>
      <dc:creator>Skirball</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-24T18:33:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hi Megapixel Camera</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/46859#M23847</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Tim: Thanks for the post and the Cambridge site, it was enlightening to say the least. Not one of the Cambell's from this side of the pond are you?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:51:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Discussion/Hi-Megapixel-Camera/m-p/46859#M23847</guid>
      <dc:creator>gdonoghue20</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-11-01T14:51:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

