Just when you thought the war was over! Sony 60 MP

[Range-rover]

I'm completely happy that things move fast in digital... because so do the used camera prices. At this rate... we are soon going to have 36mp FF cameras at $500 by next year (Sony A7R and Nikon D800).

That would be great JS!

 

[Range-rover]

Now Fuji making that 100 megapixel medium format, so you really think this is going
to end. We all just have to settle for what we want and that's it. Right now I have
a 16 megapixel for the highest I have and remember with these high megapixel
cameras you just can't slap any lens on it.

 

[peterm1]

Now Fuji making that 100 megapixel medium format, so you really think this is going
to end. We all just have to settle for what we want and that's it. Right now I have
a 16 megapixel for the highest I have and remember with these high megapixel
cameras you just can't slap any lens on it.

I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head - you can't just slap any old lens on a high megapixel count camera. And of course that is part of the strategy being pursued by these firms. It is not just about selling new cameras, it is about convincing the buying public to buy new lenses too. So it is all part of the strategy to keep the industry rolling along. Which is fair enough at one level so long as it delivers benefits (or perceived benefits at least) people will see the value in buying.

Here is an idea to throw out there........I suppose one thing that can be said of high megapixel count sensors is that they will also support radical cropping which will allow digital zooming in camera without undue loss of resolution in the final image. That could also mean a whole new range of extremely high resolution prime lenses that can work with the camera effectively as a zoom by having firmware that allows you to tell the camera how much of the image to save to the camera off the sensor. (Or it could still be done in post of course). That means less need for big, heavy, expensive, relatively slow zoom lenses which is an advantage for users of smaller sized mirrorless cameras. As an afterthought however it may be that camera companies will not be so keen to pursue this if it means cannibalizing their zoom markets but the advantages are obvious since "zooming" effectively becomes a software issue not a hardware one. But of course once one camera company does it, if it is successful they will all follow - after all it is not as if this is a new idea. On my D700 if I mount an APS lens the camera automatically crops the image taken from the sensor. So the technology to do this is already there. It just means using it more creatively.

BTW zooming like this can be done without excessive loss of pixel resolution so long as the starting pixel count is big enough. I think I read that a 42 megapixel full frame sensor cropped to APSC will render about a 24 megapixel final image (depends on the APS standard being used). That is a large loss of pixels but that final result is still extremely good in terms of over all final megapixel count. But that becomes quickly less possible with smaller pixel counts. A 16 megapixel sensor for example would crop to about 9 megapixels. This is not so good. It is easy to see how when you get beyond a certain point high megapixel sensors could be advantageous in this way apart from the obvious benefit of big images and files.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Petern, I have a 16mp APS-C X Pro 1 that I have cropped to a quarter of the frame and made 11x14 prints from. That's a 4mp camera effectively. The pix looked fine, good in fact.

 

[jsrockit]

There's a difference between acceptable or OK and still perfect after crop. 100mp cropped to 24mp... Jeez. That said we are in for some sloppy photography. Haha.

 

[Darthfeeble]

There's a difference between acceptable or OK and still perfect after crop. 100mp cropped to 24mp... Jeez. That said we are in for some sloppy photography. Haha.

I know, that's why I put in my order for the GFX 50R. I should have waited.

 

[Scrambler]

APSC is just under 1/2 the pixels. So this would be a high 20s MP APSC crop.

Another way of looking at it is that it would be a TRUE 15MP: each pixel of 15MP would be measured not estimated, so a cleaner 15MP result from a lesser lens, compared to a 15MP lens on a nominal 15MP camera.

I stuck a 1960s Takumar (Pentax) lens on my 20MP APSC Sony the other day, and was surprised to see individual pixel level definition. That lens would deliver a 50+ MP full frame image. There will be plenty of others.

 

[Tati]

More power to them. If we want more mp's they are available. I have been very content with the image quality from my olympus m1.2 and its 20mp sensor. Just bought a 24mp full frame. This will help with some difficult lighting situations and more cropping. It'll be here soon. I print small. It is perfectly fine for what I do. I could have bought 45mp's but it would be a waste of money and hard drive space for me.

A few years back I went to the BNF in Paris to see a show by Michael Kenna. I had seen lots of his work in books and in magazines. Never his prints. I was nearly shocked by how small the prints were. Most I'd say no bigger than 8x10. Maybe there was one on 11x14 paper. They were very small and beautiful. I had always imagined the originals to be large prints. Nope.

So. I print small and 24mp's is almost overkill, but not really if I crop. I tend to crop if need be. A lot sometimes.

Oh, nearly forgot, I have also been printing 16mp images done with a ricoh GR ll. Even with some cropping the image quality is really really good. I am thinking to upgrade in the spring to the GR lll for all the improvements. Just hope image quality is as good or better than the previous model.

I do take photos with my 12 mp phone camera, and some with my 12mp D700. The d700 is sweet still. But loud and big and heavy. I don't enjoy taking photos with the phone, though I am glad to have it at times.

Maybe one day I will try 36 or even 45mp's but it won't be for a while. It is good to see the photo industry trying new things though.

 

[FujiLove]

My last digital SLR was a Nikon D70 with 6MP, and my Pakon gives me roughly 6MP scans from 35mm film. Both produce great 15x11" prints which I've had hung around the house for years. My Epson P400 (and most other Epson consumer and semi-pro devices) prints at roughly 240dpi, which means the maximum file size required for a 16x12" print is about 10MP.

I can see how it would be handy to be able to make tiny crops, but in general, why would a photographer ever need a 60 megapixel camera? What's the point, when it will inevitably cost more money, require double size memory cards and the images will gobble up double the hard disk space compared to a 24MP camera?

 

[Michael Markey]

My last digital SLR was a Nikon D70 with 6MP, and my Pakon gives me roughly 6MP scans from 35mm film. Both produce great 15x11" prints which I've had hung around the house for years. My Epson P400 (and most other Epson consumer and semi-pro devices) prints at roughly 240dpi, which means the maximum file size required for a 16x12" print is about 10MP.

I can see how it would be handy to be able to make tiny crops, but in general, why would a photographer ever need a 60 megapixel camera? What's the point, when it will inevitably cost more money, require double size memory cards and the images will gobble up double the hard disk space compared to a 24MP camera?

I rarely print and when I do its 5x7`s from Ilford.
I have 6, 12, 24 and some cameras over 40mp.

The only reason why I might choose the over 40mp cameras is when it would be inconvenient to pack a long focal length .The resolution allows me to in effect have a number of focal lengths in one camera.

Other than that I don`t have any issues with lower mp count cameras .

 

[al1966]

My last digital SLR was a Nikon D70 with 6MP, and my Pakon gives me roughly 6MP scans from 35mm film. Both produce great 15x11" prints which I've had hung around the house for years. My Epson P400 (and most other Epson consumer and semi-pro devices) prints at roughly 240dpi, which means the maximum file size required for a 16x12" print is about 10MP.

I can see how it would be handy to be able to make tiny crops, but in general, why would a photographer ever need a 60 megapixel camera? What's the point, when it will inevitably cost more money, require double size memory cards and the images will gobble up double the hard disk space compared to a 24MP camera?

I think many will buy the highest MP camera just like those who buy super-cars and then get stuck in traffic jams, not because it serves the purpose but because they want to. I have talked to people with high res cameras and they have admitted they have never printed bigger than A4 but insisted they needed the resolution. Other users of such cameras have and do print big ie A0 so make use of the resolution. I would say for 99% of users 20mp or there about is the sweet spot, you can get a good A2 print easily from the files. Most would benefit from other areas of image quality being improved, colour rendition , dynamic range and so on. Lower res files has untold benefits for the still photographer for one you use a lot less hard drive space and require less computing power. I am biased though I see final output in terms of books and like A2 has a max print size.