Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 21, 2012, 3:16 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

I won't presume to answer for John, but I would say that the difference in market share is not accounted for by product capabilities. Rather more a case of having the advertising money to promote the products.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2012, 3:25 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

... and having the best interchangeable lens camera isn't going to help if you don't have good versions of the kinds of lenses people need.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 3:21 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 875
Default

The craze for more megapixels reminds me of the craze - I think it was in the 1940s - of the American craze for more tubes (valves to English folk) in domestic radios. 5, or at the most 6, were entirely adequate but I recall seeing adverts for radios with over 100 tubes.

Several years ago it was already understood that crowding too many megapixels onto a tiny sensor gave inferior results especially in low light. That was what persuaded me to buy my Nikon Coolpox 8800. I still have it and I can see no reason whatsoever to own anything supposedly 'better'.

Last edited by Herb; Nov 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM. Reason: correction
Herb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 4:02 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The same is true for jewels in watches in the '50s and '60s. A mechanical clock needs 17 jewels; a watch needs 21. Most people didn't know that the jewels were little pieces of gemstones, machined to form inexpensive but reliable bearings. Some manufacturers started putting 25 jewels in their watches and people thought those were more reliable and valuable than watches that only had 21 jewels. The craze continued for years, with some manufacturers simply gluing extra jewels inside the watch and advertising more jewels than their competitors. I actually saw a watch with "35 Jewels" printed on the face, and inside there were 14 extra jewels glued to the watch movement.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 4:17 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

What it comes down to is this: Where is the bottleneck in image quality? Sometimes it's the lens, and sometimes it's the sensor. When you improve one, the other is holding you back.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2012, 7:12 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
What it comes down to is this: Where is the bottleneck in image quality? Sometimes it's the lens, and sometimes it's the sensor. When you improve one, the other is holding you back.
But, from what? What was inadequate about your previous pictures? Or is it just the fact that now there is something "better", and we think we have to have it?

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 12:16 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 142
Default

I have to agree 100% with what "Herb" from Victoria, B.C., Canada said in his post: " Several years ago it was already understood that crowding too many megapixels onto a tiny sensor gave inferior results especially in low light". MORE is NOT always necessarily better. I can still recall my first digital camera. It was the Fuji S602 Zoom bridge camera. It had what Fuji called the Super CCD sensor. It was rated at a mere 3.1 megapixels. To this day I am still amazed at the incredible image quality that this camera could produce. Today, many experts agree that the $6,000 dollar Nikon D4 profeessional DSLR is still one of the best cameras ever produced for suberb image quality and somehow the Nikon D4 managed to do this with a measly 16.2 megapixel rating. Something to think about.
surplusshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 1:41 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
What it comes down to is this: Where is the bottleneck in image quality? Sometimes it's the lens, and sometimes it's the sensor. When you improve one, the other is holding you back.
But, from what? What was inadequate about your previous pictures? Or is it just the fact that now there is something "better", and we think we have to have it?
In my dining room, I have two 8x10 photos on the wall. They are both very much alike. They are both of my wife competing in the equestrian sport of Dressage. One we bought from a professional that was captured on film. The other I took with my 3MP Nikon CoolPix 880 and cropped to about 2MP. You need an eye loupe to tell which is which.

It's not about what's inadequate; it's about where the opportunity to improve presents itself. If you need or want something better, with an interchangeable lens camera, you can go in two directions. Pick one, but sooner or later the direction you didn't choose will hold you back.

You don't have to do anything you don't want to do, but if you want "better", you need to know where your money, time and effort will do the most good.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 1:50 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surplusshooter View Post
I have to agree 100% with what "Herb" from Victoria, B.C., Canada said in his post: " Several years ago it was already understood that crowding too many megapixels onto a tiny sensor gave inferior results especially in low light". MORE is NOT always necessarily better. I can still recall my first digital camera. It was the Fuji S602 Zoom bridge camera. It had what Fuji called the Super CCD sensor. It was rated at a mere 3.1 megapixels. To this day I am still amazed at the incredible image quality that this camera could produce. Today, many experts agree that the $6,000 dollar Nikon D4 profeessional DSLR is still one of the best cameras ever produced for suberb image quality and somehow the Nikon D4 managed to do this with a measly 16.2 megapixel rating. Something to think about.
... but the 16MP D4 is an improvement over the 12MP D3s. Doesn't that run contrary to your position?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 2:24 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 142
Default

"TCav", you are right, Nikon's 16 mp D4 was an improvement over the 12 MP sensor of the D3, and this does in fact run contary to my position, however, Nikon did not go completely crazy and increase the MP's by a whopping 50% like Nikon did when they went from the 16 MP small crop sensor on the D5100 to the whopping 24 Mp sensor on the new D5200 which is still a small crop sensor camera. Big difference, especially on a small crop sensor camera, not so much on a full frame.
surplusshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:19 PM.