Uh huh. Please be more specific about what you consider to be misinformation. Perhaps I can clear up your confusion (unlikely, I agree).
I think you're the one who's confused.
Likely the compromises will be too great in terms of cost, battery life, burst rate, write times, and editing with large numbers of huge image files.
That's not a problem for those who even
contemplate purchasing one of these systems.
Cost? You mean a DSLR with the highest resolution is going to be expensive? Nobody actually interested in this end of the market will be surprised. The market interested in this type of camera will:
1. Know this before they take a careful look.
2. Be able to afford a fairly decent computer. They're not going to be editing on a Mac Mini, if that's what you're implying. Harddrive space is dirt cheap nowadays. The 7200 rpm drives are actually getting faster due to the denser platters. An octo-core Mac isn't unrealistic, nor is it cost prohibitive. It's downright cheap. After all, this is a serious camera for serious business. The standard Mac Pro configuration is Octo-core, and it only costs around $2800. Add on a few upgrades (not through Apple), and you may spend......$3500 to $4000.
Burst Rate? This is mostly a studio camera, although it would be useful for landscapes as well. Nobody is going to buy this camera and run around with it to shoot sports. How fast a burst rate do you need for studio work and/or landscapes?
3. Not care about these "compromises", as they obviously want the best results and have a specific application that requires such a high resolution.
There's a point of diminishing returns where the additional amount of detail you might get from such a large full-frame sensor is low enough that it's just not worth it to have.
Not worth it for who? You mean, "Not worth it for me".
Serious considerations of this camera would have determined this by now. Sure, you may find a few rich people who just buy it because it's one of the most expensive cameras on the market, and has the largest number of Megapixels, but the majority will know what they need. The extra resolution will obviously be required for potential customers.
True, there is a subset of photographers who could use such camera, but the segment of the dSLR market that would spend $8000 on such a camera is pretty small. The average dSLR buyer simply can't make use of what such a camera has to offer and would never spend the money.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. The size of the market that would spend $600,000 on a car is also quite small. Did you know that?
What do you think the market is for this camera? They're not making this camera for the typical consumer. I don't even know why you mention "average consumer" in your explanation. You clearly don't know the target market. Canon knew that this wouldn't be moving
millions of their 1Ds 16 MP and 21 MP cameras. Nikon and Sony know this too, and I bet they're still going into that market soon.
No, the average consumer won't be purchasing this camera.
No, the average consumer couldn't make use of what this camera has to offer, nor would they need to. This is why the average consumer is not the target market. That's why you're not the target market.
Thanks again, Captain Obvious.
Nikon's current sensor lineup is designed by Nikon. Just as they worked with Sony on the LBCAST sensor (which is a Nikon patent, not Sony), I'm sure they'll work with them on this 24 mp sensor, and the sensor that Nikon ultimately uses will be different than the one that Sony uses.
The sensor used in the D40, D40X, D60, D80, and D300 are made by Sony. Nikon only gets some say into several of the specifics, but it's still Sony technology in there. All their point and shoot sensors are made by Sony. That's why I said you're wrong.
The D3 sensor really
is designed by Nikon, but hired someone else to manufacture it for them. They rely on Sony for the rest of the lineup. Nikon do have a lot of say with regards to Sony's DSLR sensors, as they are Sony's biggest customers. However, these are small details, such as the minute difference between the D200 and D80 sensor. Even with regards to my D300, Nikon could only make the D300 as noise-free as Sony's technology allows them to. That's why the sensor in the D300 uses Sony's patented noise reduction process during read-out to minimize noise. The only difference between the D300 and A700 is the processing engine done to produce the JPEGs (the RAW data is essentially the same), and a very slight difference in the number of "effective" pixels utilized by each camera (the sensor is a 13.1 MP sensor, from which they use a bit less than that).
Nikon and Sony have always had a close business relationship, and everyone assumes that Sony makes Nikon's sensors, but it's never been announced as such by Nikon.
What?
