Six out of Ten Nikon Shooters Wants 36MP or More

At least among NRs readers. So to those shooters them D5 and D500 are
dead already:

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

or:

http://tinyurl.com/mknodeb

Via NR:

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/22/a...egapixels-do-y
ou-need-from-your-next-nikon-camera.aspx/

or:

http://tinyurl.com/mafaf7g
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Amateurs with no grasp of reality.

So you voted? How many times and how often?
--
teleportation kills

On 23/05/2017 3:26 @wiz, android wrote:


Via NR:

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/22/a...egapixels-do-y
ou-need-from-your-next-nikon-camera.aspx/


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

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 02:37:10 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

Amateurs with no grasp of reality.

So you voted? How many times and how often?
--
teleportation kills

Not as many as the average Democrat.

You yankies/canaduckians should reeeely try to find out the original
meaning of the words "democrat" and "republican"! ;-PPP
--
teleportation kills

On 24/05/2017 7:05 @wiz, Whisky-dave wrote:

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.

Because like good iphone users that most folks are, all they do use is
in-camera processing and just want the jpgs to plaster on Instagram or
Facebook.
Any post-processing is unheard of for that vast majority.

Just like in the good old days of film and Instamatics.


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.

Quite true for most cameras.
And WHY would any normal user need high FPS?
Oh hang on, I know: because the vast majority of normal users are
"sports" photographers!
Right...

On 23/05/2017 11:14 @wiz, android 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 did. And 24MP is still ahead.
I specifically indicated a single measurement.
Not a summary.
There is a difference. As you pointed out.

Noons Wrote in message:
On 23/05/2017 11:14 @wiz, android 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 did. And 24MP is still ahead.
I specifically indicated a single measurement.
Not a summary.
There is a difference. As you pointed out.

A single choice is pointless in determining here considering the
subject of the original post...
--
360 ain't enough


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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, and I gave an answer for my personal situation.
Now you have asked two further questions.

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.

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.

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

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 24/05/2017 11:08 @wiz, Whisky-dave wrote:


And that includes owners of professional camera gear does it.
Nikim 801 $5k worth of camera
5520 x 3680, 3680 x 2456; 1.2: 6144 x 4080, 4608 x 3056, 3072 x 2040; 5:4: 6144 x 4912, 4608 x 3680, 3072 x 2456; DX: 4800 x 3200, 3600 x 2400, 2400 x 1600

Why would they have the 2400 X 1600 when the camera is 7360 x 4912


There are "pros" who use jpg, depending on conditions of shooting and
what they want to do. Perfectly acceptable. Those will need it.
They will know when to use jpgs and for what.

They are just not that many that makers could consider them a "market".
For the vast majority of consumers jpg is not an option, it's a way of
life!


Just like in the good old days of film and Instamatics.

No it doesn't.

Oh yes it is. The whole "smartphone revolution" is perfect proof that
the mentality and consumer that created the need for Instamatics is
still with us.


Quite true for most cameras.
And WHY would any normal user need high FPS?

Depends what you mean by normal users. Who on thei NG is a normal user ?


Dunno! Definitely not me!


Oh hang on, I know: because the vast majority of normal users are
"sports" photographers!
Right...

I'm not and I was trying to get some parakeets in flight but 4 FPS just wasn't enough so I used slo-mo on my iphone 240FPS at 720P

Bingo! An Instamatic user!
)))
(just kidding, don't blow a gasket!)

Did you get the parakeets? As in "get them", not just blur them?

Read somewhere this week that the latest Panasonic GH5 can take 6K video
at large FPS and use any of the images as a photo?
Now, THAT is the CAMERA one could use for parakeets!