Cameras and Photography Explained

Yep, the email really has been piling up on this one. Did I hit a nerve? Sorry, I meant to put some Novocaine in there before drilling ;~).

• Would the D3s sensor go away with the D4 intro? No, I think not. But some might not like the answer: it'll be in a D700s. If you think about it, launching a D700s later this year and a D4 next year allows the D3s sensor to live past the D4 intro and still provide Nikon with a "low light champ." This would also explain why the D700 follow-up is a bit later than we all originally expected. Think about this progression:
  • 2007 D3
  • 2008 D700
  • 2009 D3s
  • 2010 D700s
  • 2011 D4
  • 2012 D800
• What's the best overall camera body? This came up in one email conversation. The emailer said D700. I say D300. Every camera design is a range of compromises. In looking at my use statistics the D700 is the least used of my Nikon prosumer/pro bodies (if I were a wedding or event photographer that statistic might be different). The D300 is a little smaller, has a wider AF array, has higher pixel density, and basically all the features of the D700 (and these days, with the D300s, has some features the D700 doesn't have, like dual card slots and video). This actually may explain why the demand for a more 5DII-like D700 body exists: the D700 is perceived as missing a few things in today's world. Add the slot, video, and the D3s sensor and I suspect most of the demand would be filled. That would really only leave megapixels as the thing the 5DII has the D700 series doesn't. And you know what I think about megapixels ;~).
• Will sensors go the way of music, where no one is really interested in more sound quality any more? Yes. That's sort of my point with megapixels and high ISO noise. Who really needs 24mp and ISO 256,000? Each press upwards removes a few more from the "need better" roster. At some point you satisfy 90%+ of the market, and for companies aiming at large volume (Nikon makes 14 million cameras a year, that's large volume), pursuing the last bits of sensor physics has smaller and smaller payoffs. Note that modular, communicating, and programmable don't have this restricting aspect. If anything, they restore providing new things to the mass market.
• Big prints redux. Okay, let's say that you do print big. And by big I mean 36" or more on the long axis. You need 24mp, right? Mostly wrong, I think. Portraits for instance: with 24mp at 36" you're going to be post processing out facial pore detail, big time. As long as you can achieve reasonable hair edge acuity you don't need more pixels, they only get you into trouble. Something similar happens with macro work. I'd also say that you need focus stacking more than you need pixels in macro. And landscapes? 24mp probably isn't enough. Here's the one area where detail is important. MF and panos win over 24mp. And if you're doing panos, the only thing 24mp gives you is fewer images to stitch. Put another way, having 24mp doesn't necessarily mean that you're now "big print enabled" when you weren't with 12mp.
• "Any problem with the pictures is due to my use of the camera, not the camera itself." I just had to run this little quote from one of the emails I received, as in it resides the truth for most of us (amateurs and pros alike). Note that if the camera companies were to agree, they wouldn't manage to sell you a new camera, would they? For ten years now I've been writing about the difference between "need" and "want." Make sure that you don't blithely believe marketing claims and have that well up into a "want." Instead, evaluate your needs and look at specifications and performance to make sure that something achieves what you "need." On a related note: one of the primary roles of marketing is to make you fall in love with something. A product. An idea. A design. A fad. Something. Save the love for your spouse and family. Get real with your purchases.
• Four years is better than eight. With film, we got a new pro generation every eight years. With digital, we're getting them twice as often. What's wrong with that? Are we really that impatient?
• Want an 18mp D700 so that the complaints will stop. One emailer didn't want a camera at all, he just wanted all the Internet discussion about Nikon's missing camera to stop. Well, it won't, even if there's a D700x in our near future. The people that are hung up on brute number/feature comparisons will always be hung up on it. They'll just start asking why Nikon doesn't have something else (and given that Canon has some new announcements coming up, there will be plenty for them to choose as their next argument target ;~).
• "Pros seem to be more dispassionate about their gear." You bet they are. From what I've seen, more pros switch back and forth between Canon and Nikon than do amateurs. If a pro needs something and they can only get it in one place, they go there. It's the amateurs that are doing most of the complaining, as they perceive themselves to have an "investment" in lenses that they can't afford to abandon. Thus, when Canon doesn't deliver a D3s or Nikon a 5DII, they complain and write Internet posts labeled "When will X come out with a Y?"
• "I'm competing with pros that shoot with higher megapixel counts. Clients don't buy that you don't need such high pixel counts." While true for some subsets of clients (e.g. ad agencies), note that the client is usually the one with the problem here. They've bought into something that maybe isn't true. Even in film we saw this ("unless you shoot MF we're not interested," and this from someone who was using photos at about 4" wide on not-state-of-the-art magazine press/paper). Some clients use size or some similar "requirement" to weed out the non-pros. They can just reject you by saying "you don't work with the right equipment." Funny thing is, even if you used the "right equipment" you'd probably be rejected ;~). There's another aspect buried here, though. Most people who write me saying they need 18 or 24mp to "compete" are missing another point. Do they have a unique style? One that stands out from the crowd? Probably not, otherwise the client wouldn't care what you used. Do you have exceedingly fine presentation, always? Also probably not, otherwise the client wouldn't care what you used. Someone who cares about images, cares about images. Yes, sometimes they have plans for an image that might require going big, but frankly, most of those clients are actually used to paying for going big. Note that Annie Liebowitz has been using a D3 a lot lately. Think her clients complain about her not having 24mp?
• "Places go away. We need to capture them now with as much resolution as possible." True. Almost everywhere I've been in the wild world over my career is less wild today. Things I captured on film or video in the 90's in some cases aren't possible to re-capture. However, if you're really into that argument, then you shouldn't be waiting for an 18mp Nikon DSLR with 1080P video. You should be using a MF camera for stills and a RED recording 4k video. "But that's not affordable!" Right. It isn't. Thus, what you want to do may be out of your ability do actually do. An affordable no-compromise solution isn't possible. And no maker will ever have all the choices that you seek at any given time. You either pay or your compromise, your choice. Right now one of the compromises is that you switch to Canon if you need the 5DII's resolution in an affordable body.
• The list: lenses can't handle more pixels, aberrations cross more pixels, DOF and diffraction may change, capture discipline has to be higher, crop isn't the same as perspective. Thanks Tomas. I've written about these things before. Just having more pixels isn't all that changes. Other issues flare up and need to be dealt with. Some people use more pixels to bury pixel-peeping ("hey, if I can't see it in my 4x5" print, it isn't there!"). But those of us who do venture into the more pixel territory because of need realize that we trade off other things.
• "If I'm satisfied, what else is important?" Thank you Allen. Nail hit on head. This is really the key to all the complaints, isn't it? What exactly is it that the complainers are not satisfied with? 18mp instead of 12mp? Really? The satisfaction should be in the images you make, not the equipment you use to make them. There are times when I look at an image and wish that I had something else, but it's rarely "more pixels" or "better noise handling." My images have enough pixels and the noise is controlled well enough, thank you. Of course, having to use UniWB to understand what the camera is recording instead of the camera maker giving me the tools I need, well, that I'm not satisfied with.
• And I learned a new term. Gou Pi. In literal Chinese translation it probably means "dog butt" (some say "dog fart"), but apparently the Chinese use it as their equivalent to our BS. Ah, the joys of the Internet! Where learning new gou pi can be fun...Hmm, I'm wonder if you can teach an old gou new pi tricks?