Nikon D3
Is Canon Winning the Battle but Fighting the Wrong War?
Sunday 31 August 2008 Filed in: Equipment
If you
are like me, you’ve been sitting waiting patiently
for Canon to produce a replacement for the 5D. Its
arrival has been rumoured to be “imminent” for over a
year now. In that time Nikon has brought full-frame
digital photography to a host of new users: first
with the D3, second with the D700. As Photokina – the
German-based photographic exhibition – approaches,
the rumours have intensified to a frenzy. Chief among
the attributes of the supposed new camera is the
pixel count. The Nikon D3 and the D700 both boast a
resolution of 12 megapixels, similar to the current
Canon 5D. If the rumours are to be believed, the
Canon 5D Mark II (or whatever it’s called) could have
anything from 16 to 21 megapixels.
And, yes, there’s a part of me that applauds that; a part of me that has been seduced by all the hype: bigger is better...at least when it comes to tax cuts, dessert portions and photographic file sizes. Except, when I stop and think about it, the reality is far different. I have a Canon D30, which produces a paltry 3 megapixel file – and yet the photos are of sufficient resolution that I’ve had them published in books, calendars, on magazine covers, and printed them as large as 24 x 16 inches. The main advantage of larger file sizes comes when cropping of an image may be desirable. Even so, 8-10 megapixels should provide enough latitude for cropping in most circumstances: if you need to do more than that, then you’ve probably used the wrong lens in the first instance or failed to give enough consideration to composition at the time the image is taken.
The reality is that for most of us all the time, and some of us most of the time, we only see the benefits of resolutions beyond 10 megapixels when we are pixel-peeping on a screen. Large-scale prints for landscape photography is one situation where really high resolutions are desirable – but come on, how many of us are really into doing that? The answer is: not many.
Nikon seems to understand this. A 12 megapixel D3 or D700 is more than adequate for most. A new camera with a 24 megapixel sensor will satisfy those that need to print really large (and those that cannot be bothered with lens choice or composition too). Nikon understands that it is the features that affect the usability of the camera that are important once adequate resolution has been achieved. Included among these are speed – such as the autofocus and tracking abilities; the resolution of the LCD monitor for reviewing captured images; the waterproofing and sealing of the camera; lowlight capabilities -– especially as enhanced by high ISO performance. In all these areas, the Nikon D3 and D700 trounce the Canon 5D.
I have sufficient money tied up in Canon glass that it creates what appears to be loyalty but in reality is inertia. I really want Canon to produce a killer 5D replacement – but it is not increased resolution I am after, it is things that will help me capture images in situations where I might otherwise not be able to. I want fast and accurate autofocus, an LCD monitor that shows me what I’ve got rather than leaves me guessing, waterproofing and sealing that will allow me to use the camera in situations where I would hesitate now, and cleaner high ISO images for situations where I need to keep the shutter speed up or work in low light.
According to the rumours, we can put money on Canon staying ahead of their competition when it comes to resolution. But when it comes to the usability factors, it seems that Canon will be playing “catch-up” and, if the rumoured specs of the 5D Mark II are to be believed, in some areas it may struggle to get even close.
Canon reminds me a bit of those World War II Japanese soldiers isolated on Pacific islands and continuing to fight a war that had long since ended. It’s time for Canon to turn their considerable expertise to the enhancement of the camera as a tool rather than its transformation into a telescope. I hope the next few days will prove the rumour-mongers wrong and that Canon’s next iteration of the 5D will concentrate on features that allow me to take better photographs more easily, rather than just larger ones. Otherwise, a Nikon or, even, an Olympus E3 may be in my future.
And, yes, there’s a part of me that applauds that; a part of me that has been seduced by all the hype: bigger is better...at least when it comes to tax cuts, dessert portions and photographic file sizes. Except, when I stop and think about it, the reality is far different. I have a Canon D30, which produces a paltry 3 megapixel file – and yet the photos are of sufficient resolution that I’ve had them published in books, calendars, on magazine covers, and printed them as large as 24 x 16 inches. The main advantage of larger file sizes comes when cropping of an image may be desirable. Even so, 8-10 megapixels should provide enough latitude for cropping in most circumstances: if you need to do more than that, then you’ve probably used the wrong lens in the first instance or failed to give enough consideration to composition at the time the image is taken.
The reality is that for most of us all the time, and some of us most of the time, we only see the benefits of resolutions beyond 10 megapixels when we are pixel-peeping on a screen. Large-scale prints for landscape photography is one situation where really high resolutions are desirable – but come on, how many of us are really into doing that? The answer is: not many.
Nikon seems to understand this. A 12 megapixel D3 or D700 is more than adequate for most. A new camera with a 24 megapixel sensor will satisfy those that need to print really large (and those that cannot be bothered with lens choice or composition too). Nikon understands that it is the features that affect the usability of the camera that are important once adequate resolution has been achieved. Included among these are speed – such as the autofocus and tracking abilities; the resolution of the LCD monitor for reviewing captured images; the waterproofing and sealing of the camera; lowlight capabilities -– especially as enhanced by high ISO performance. In all these areas, the Nikon D3 and D700 trounce the Canon 5D.
I have sufficient money tied up in Canon glass that it creates what appears to be loyalty but in reality is inertia. I really want Canon to produce a killer 5D replacement – but it is not increased resolution I am after, it is things that will help me capture images in situations where I might otherwise not be able to. I want fast and accurate autofocus, an LCD monitor that shows me what I’ve got rather than leaves me guessing, waterproofing and sealing that will allow me to use the camera in situations where I would hesitate now, and cleaner high ISO images for situations where I need to keep the shutter speed up or work in low light.
According to the rumours, we can put money on Canon staying ahead of their competition when it comes to resolution. But when it comes to the usability factors, it seems that Canon will be playing “catch-up” and, if the rumoured specs of the 5D Mark II are to be believed, in some areas it may struggle to get even close.
Canon reminds me a bit of those World War II Japanese soldiers isolated on Pacific islands and continuing to fight a war that had long since ended. It’s time for Canon to turn their considerable expertise to the enhancement of the camera as a tool rather than its transformation into a telescope. I hope the next few days will prove the rumour-mongers wrong and that Canon’s next iteration of the 5D will concentrate on features that allow me to take better photographs more easily, rather than just larger ones. Otherwise, a Nikon or, even, an Olympus E3 may be in my future.
