2012 has been, for me at least, the year of cameras we didn’t really need, or could afford. One company after another has announced cameras that have amazing features, with huge price tags, that dazzles us and makes us reach for wallets that are currently empty for many shooters across the country.

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to have a camera that shoots 17 frames per second, records 4k video, has a useable ISO that is so high that it can see into another dimension, and of course has a sticker price equal to a kidney in Mexico. I am pretty sure that is what I put that on my Christmas list in 2011.

All bad humor and sarcasm aside, I don’t think Canon or Nikon has really released a camera that many can afford, or maybe even needed, until the D800.

The D800, announced this week, has all the features that I think many pros, and serious hobbyists want out of a body. You can look at a list of features here, but the big ticket items are 36 mega pixels, full frame, and useable ISO in low light. Everything a growing photographer needs to become a man/women. (I know I said no more sarcasm, but I am only on my first cup of coffee).

Editors Note: As I have been writing this post, many others are doing the same. And with all gear announcements, you have those who shout praise for no reason, and then a group, that is growing, that constantly screams it is not about the gear, and that a camera will not make you a better photographer. Whether or not your need a new camera, or a camera like the D800, or any other expensive body, is always a decision a photographer should make on their own. Gear is not the end game of photography, but it is a big part of the solution.

This is not to say that Nikon and Canon didn’t get it totally wrong with the D4, (Nikon), and the 1DX, (Canon). I just don’t think that many shooters need or want cameras with those features right now. With price tags north of 6 thousand dollars, it is hard to find that kind of cash for many photographers.

I will give you a perfect example of this idea. A few weeks ago I was shooting a MMA fight, which I hardly do anymore, when I ran into another photographer who shoots Nikon. It was just a few days after the announcement of the D4, and I wanted to get his take on it. While we both agreed the D4 was awesome, he held his D3 close and said, “but I already have my action camera right here”.

The problem with both Canon and Nikon’s newly announced flagship cameras are that they are really pointed at sports photographers and journalists. Two types of shooters that are not really raking in the cash right now. And for many Nikon shooters, the D3 is so amazing, it is hard to justify what you get for another 6 grand investment.

To be fair, when I was criticizing these points on Twitter, many pointed out that photographers will buy these new bodies to naturally keep up with the competition. While the argument is sound, I don’t think either side has proof that those groups will actually bite on the D4 or 1DX. I certainly don’t see budgets growing for those types of photographers, and many journalists are being given video cameras instead of new DSLRs, even though the DSLRs shoot video.

The argument does makes more sense for Canon shooters, who have been looking for a quality action camera body since the 1D Mark II. Canon has yet to deliver the way that Nikon has. If the 1DX is in the same ballpark as the D4, you will see many Canon shooters start to buy that body, if they haven’t already switch to Nikon to get the D3 a few years ago.

But the D800 is a different beast all together. This is camera pointed at commercial, event, and wedding photographers. Many who want medium format size images, without dropping that kind of cash. In just looking at the buzz this morning on Twitter, I think those shooters are now taking notice, and checking for an extra 3 grand in the accounts.

Megapixels Don’t Matter

The new battle cry being shouted by many DSLR shooters is that “the megapixel war is over”. For me, that is the new, “film is not dead”, that we heard a few years ago, and just because it looks good on a tee shirt, doesn’t make true. Sure megapixels don’t matter to some shooters, but to many others, more is better.

I was out having drinks with a few friends, one of whome is an Art Director (AD), and I wanted to get some feedback on some of my images. One image, and his comments, in particular really stood out for me that night. It was of my friend Brittany, whose image has received a lot of feedback both on her portfolio and mine. It is one of those images I show off, because I really like it and I feel that it showcases my work perfectly. The AD took one look at it, and said, “I don’t like it when photographers crop the images”, and moved on to the next image. In that moment I understood the difference between the photographer and the creative designers using our images. They want to control what is and is not seen. So if I shot Brittany head to toe, then cropped the image, I would have gone from 12 megapixels to something closer to 6 megapixels or lower. Then the AD would now complain that the image is too low in resolution. His comment made sense, it also made me curled up into the fetal position and start to cry a bit.

If I only hadnt cropped this image. I could have been somebody.

If I only hadn't cropped this image. I could have been somebody.

If you ever wanted to know why so many commercial photographers shoot medium format, with all those megapixels, you now understand at least part of the reason. They shoot loose and let the creative’s make those crop decisions later. Sure there is a lot of directing on set, or even over the internet now, but many commercial photographers I know, still shoot lose and let the client or boss make the cropping choices. They are not paying 20-30 thousand dollars for big clunking cameras, which require tethering stations and special software just for the fun of it.

The same holds true for wedding photographers. My biggest problem in 2011 was shooting the right ratio, to give the client 4×5, 8×10, 16×20 size prints, instead of the natural ratio of 4×6, 8×12, 16×22, which many cannot find frames for. To solve this problem, I used the in camera ratio bars to help me out, but sometimes, I would shoot edge to edge, and be stuck with that ratio. Having more megapixels let’s me shoot loose, and then crop to the 4×5 ratio later, but still have a ton of image sensor information to use for enlargement of prints.

So for many photographers, megapixels do matter, and matter a lot. While the digital printing age is slowing that need down, and I do wonder what one does with 60 or 80 mega pixels, I think the sweet spot of high end megapixels in really in the 30-40 range. Art directors and commercial shooters have become accustomed to that amount of data, and they are not going to turn back.

Now if you are a photographer that doesn’t pay the bills with your photography, all those extra pixels are going to be more pain than pleasure, and a camera like the D800 is certainly not for you. Even the commercial shooter will hate having to fill up hard drive after hard drive in attempts to keep up with the storage and archiving of all that footage.

But it may not all be roses for the D800. No one has their hands on one, in real world testing, and there may be issues with the senor. Usually the more megapixels your jam into a space, the more noise you will see at high ISOs. The same may be true for video, in jamming all the information down into a 1080p resolution space. This may be a deal breaker on the D800, or there may not be an issue at all. We will see more this spring when the camera is released and it is put through some serious real world testing.

Regardless of any issues the camera may, or may not have. I am happy to see a camera release that is directed at my needs as a shooter. I am happy that both Nikon and Canon are pushing the bounds in high frames per second, crazy high ISO and stunning sensor quality. But they are not cameras I need right now. Right now, I need a D800, or more to the point, Canon to release the 5D Mark III.