1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are Nikon and Canon falling behind in view of Sony launches?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by P_Stoddart, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    In view of the new products released today by Sony one of which can do 12fps and has a 2.3MP EVF. :)

    Are Nikon and Canon falling behind and possibly in trouble?
     
  2. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Was it the Nikon D2H that had a 12fps mode?.....and a proper viewfinder:eek:

    Canon have stuck at 10fps for as long as I've been shooting and abandonded the pellicule mirror thing long ago.

    Personally I hardly ever use 8fps on my 7D. I do play about with the 10fps mode on my Sony compact though.....it groups the bursts together and you can play them back by tilting the camera from side to side to make it look like a sort of flick-book animation. Most amusing;)

    Falling behind? Yeah, whatever:)
     
  3. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    What Andy says. Seriously, how many amateur snappers would need 12fps? On Luminous Landscape today the question is posed, is 24MP too much for most amateurs.
     
  4. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Can't see it in the specs. Max seems to be 8fps.

    I suspect making a mirror move at 12fps would be quite tricky. But you never know. :)

    Clearly pros must have wanted higher fps otherwise why develop camera at 10fps. Again the reason for 24MP is to threaten the MF market. IMHO.

    Thiing is that makers are running out of things to improve. They have at the same time launched CSCs with 24MP. Suggesting that they are try to tempt more pros and serious AP to the CSC market possibly. Again out pacing everybody else.
     
  5. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Nikon and Canon probably have enough of a lead in the market to prevent problems for themselves. In truth the product ranges they produce are more than adequate for most users needs without increasing pixel counts or frame rates.
     
  6. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    I'm sure it was a D2something that did it....it was a cropped sensor IIRC but you could use a smaller area of it to get a faster frame rate. To get 12fps you ended up with 4MP or something.
     
  7. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    The next full frame generation could be interesting. When Sony brought out the a900 it was twice the resolution and twice the sensor area of its APSc range. The talk has been for its successor having around 32MP, about double the highly aclaimed 16.2MP sensor. My view is that it will leap to 48MP, same density as these latest APSc sensors and in effect two of them side by side. Nikon will, presumably, buy in the next Sony sensor. The interest is whether Canon can keep up.
     
  8. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!


    I have my doubts as to how well many lenses will cope if, for example, Canon were to scale up their 18MP APS-C sensor to full frame as many seem to be a bit iffy at the edge of the wee sensor so I can only image that the iffyness will increase the further out you go with the image circle.

    If you've got broadband you can hopefully see what I mean by looking at the full size version of this shot taken with my 24mm f/2.8 at f/6.3 on a 7D.( or do I need to some web-friendly crops from it?) I'm not sure that lens would be worth putting on a full frame sensor with the pixel density of the 7D or most of the picture would be a detail-less mush with a sharp bit in the middle. From what I can remember it seemed OK on a 5D2 but don't have a full res shot to hand at the minute.

    Telephotos seem to fare a bit better than wides or zooms.....I suspect lens choice could be rather restricted on such high resolution full frame sensors. Also, on full frame I generally don't mind a bit less noise and bit more dynamic range in exchange for a pixel count that would be more of a burden than an asset.

    I think the safer bet is that smaller sensors will continue to to have higher pixel densities than larger sensors, broadly speaking;)

    PS. I'd love a FF sensor with the pixel density of my 7D even if I don't expect to get it any time soon
     
  9. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Neither Canon or Nikon have much to worry about, the EOS1DS MK (whatever we have got to) and the D3s/D3x are in daily use by large numbers of photographers. When they demand faster frame rates it will be time for Nikon and Canon to respond.

    Actually, 12 FPS is only achievable in really bright conditions or at higher ISO settings. That means fast lenses to get acceptable images with controlled depth of field. As far as I can see 12 FPS is more gimmick that feature. Also remember that for many people a 2.3MP EVF is nothing to cheer about, plenty still regard the optical viewfinder as king.

    Sony's SLT seem to be a solution looking for a problem. There is nothing wrong with the mirror/pentaprism viewfinder for the vast majority of applications so why replace it? Except of course that lower priced SLRs have been using pentamirrors for some time and replacing that with a sensor and monitor is probably even cheaper.

    I can't think of a Nikon with 12 FPS, the D2h and the D2X in high speed crop mode are both only 8 FPS.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011
  10. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Maybe I imagined it then:confused: Could've sworn....:eek:
     
  11. Skytalker

    Skytalker Active Member

    Some sample shots have been published on the DPR site. Hope the first released cameras will do better. For the moment one thing is sure: there is no need to worry if I stay with my D3 and D300s. :cool: 9-11 Fps is enough for me.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2011
  12. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Forget the massive mps, what sort of buffer and improved 'architecture' are you going to need for anything more than about eight frames at 12fps? And once you have got movie mode why do you need to up your frame rate? And on top of all that, some poor chump has got to edit the stuff. You can shoot so fast in half an hour as it is and end up stuck in front of the computer for a couple of days ...

    Decent pros don't need that stuff. Most sports guys reckon it is possible to miss the right bits of the action, anyway, by just pushing a button and letting the motor run. Only the spotty herberts who blitz some poor soul giving a press statement at 5 fps with a Metz45 in W mode (in the days of film) need that sort of thing to make them feel like proper photographers.

    Should be sent out with a plate camera and five flashbulbs, that'd teach 'em!
     
  13. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    The demand from pros for a much higher frame rate is very real....thats why they have a video mode......


    Graeme
     
  14. Steve52

    Steve52 Well-Known Member

    This is reminding me of the time when a photographer friend I knew, used super 8 (remember that?) and then printed pictures from individual frames!!

    At what point does FPS become 'movie mode'?
     
  15. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    24fps I think :D
     
  16. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    No, I don't think so. You can get an effect of motion at 8 FPS, which is well within the capabilities of the top Canons, Nikons and others already.
     
  17. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    You would have been nearly right. The D3 can manage 11 FPS in cropped (DX) mode.
     
  18. hech54

    hech54 Well-Known Member

    Only if Sony made their cameras available with Nikon or Canon mounts on the front. The dizzying array of mediocre or non-existent Sony-mount lenses will always leave Sony as third or fourth fiddle.
     
  19. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    I think Mr Stoddart (sorry, don't know your first name) was referring to the frame rate for movies, most of which are shot at 24fps - this is certainly the case in this country, though frame rates of 25fps and 30fps are used as well (most often in the states).
    You are right that movement (the illusion of..) can be achieved with fewer fps - I'm sure most of us here have, at one time or another, made one of those 'flick books' with the little stick men on the corner or edge of the page....
    There was an article about how HD 'video' cameras will be used in future to capture sequences of film, then the photographer selects the frame he or she wants for the still. When doing this in iMovie, the quality from my 1080p video camera is not there yet, but with 'proper' stuff being filmed on the likes of the 5D MkII, it won't be long.
    Personally, this 'fire and hope' technique takes some of the fun (pride?) out of setting up and getting the shot, but that's just a personal view.
    With my kit, I can get 8fps and usually fire 2 or 3 frame bursts (SAS style!!!:cool:) when photographing things like birds in flight.
    :D
     
  20. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    All this talk of FPS reminded me of this ad from 1997 which used over 200 36 shot rolls of 35mm:

    [video=youtube;hwv82GIrHOg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwv82GIrHOg[/video]
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2011

Share This Page