Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 5:33:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 23:05:19 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 02:53:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 15:54:58 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Akshally, 24MP seems to be ahead.
I'd vote for that, if I had any interest in Nikon camera gear.

Do the math silly and summarize above and bellow 25MP! :-ppp

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/erfl6wvs5v8mk3f/nr170522poll.png


I'm not sure why anyone wouldnt want the highest MP avaiable and just reduce
the maxium resultion to whatever suits you, is there any reason not to want
a 100MB or 1GB ?

because not everything needs the highest mp.

So don;t use teh highest I often reduce mine if I know it;s just a few pics to
send to someone. On the digital cameras I've owned thte;es always been
options to reduce the pixel count why don;t peole use those options.

... because I can't be bothered.

Virtually all of my shots are RAW and if I really need a smaller image
I do it in post-processing.

So why do camera makers have this option if it is of no use, or is it that
because you donlt have a need no one else should or does.

You asked a question,

No the qustion was (to nikon users) how many MP they need and I questioned
why people wouldn't want the highest possible/availible.

From a consumer standpoint, we've been conditioned to aways want "more",
even when we don't really need it. For example, look at the 0-60mph specifications
of automobiles sold today versus one sold in 1985 ... Grannie's modern but
mundane four door sedan is as quick as those past generation Ford Mustangs.

And where surveys like this fall short is informing the survey recipient on
what the trade-offs are. For example, product cost, or Signal/Noise ratio.


The option may be of use to some people for reasons which might
include the limits imposed by ISPs (and others) on the size of image
files.

Well I don't really see this link, I doubt anyone chooses a camera based
on their ISP, so I would reject that as a possibility.

Every time that any of us downsample an image for it to be emailed, or used
on a webpage ... we are doing so because of the knowledge that bandwidth
is limited and it will take forever to transmit a large data file.

Would it suprise me if you chose a camera based on your ISP, I would find
it rather strange but then again you do use a PC ;-)

And I use a Mac ... and regularly downsample my images when they're going
to be used on a webpage or emailed / texted / etc. Its a waste of resources
and manifests itself primarily as time, but may also be a higher service cost too.



I never said or implied what other people should or shouldn't do.

I'm pretty sure that if you need a high FPS it's better not to use RAW
but just use jpg which taks less time to write to the memory card or buffer.

The buffer is finite in storage capacity and because it is high speed, is a
expensive enough component for the camera manufacturer to keep track of
and 'optimize' financially.

Typically, today's cameras are configured at a fixed FPS and what will vary
depending on RAW vs JPEG is how many shots you get before the buffer
is full...eg, six versus sixteen, etc.

True but I have never felt that my photography has been limited by the
available frame rate. Specification frame rate is up to 6.5 fps

So why chose a camera like that as you say wouldn't a frame rate of 1 FPS
be enough for most shots you take.

A lower limit such as 1 FPS would allow the manufacturer to use a smaller
buffer and lower his manufacturing costs .. but the difference on just this
one factor (buffer memory) really isn't a primary cost driver today, so if not
enough consumers are willing to buy that 'slow' configuration, he's just shot
himself in his foot by raising his overall expenses through product fragmentation.


and
from everything I've read image size is not one of the things which
slows it down.

Bigger data files fill finite storage capacity (buffer) sooner, which outwardly
manifests itself as a difference in burst capacity.

So is there any reason to want to limit image size you can capture on a camera. ?

Because memory cards cost money too, even if that isn't immediately evident
as part of the trade-offs that this survey neglected to mention when they very
simplistically asked people, "do you want more?".


-hh