[Rondec]

The problem with all of these discussions is that for those of us on the forum, we can see clearly what "the best" is. The best EVF, the largest sensor of reasonable cost (that would be full frame I guess), the best size (I guess whatever fits my hands), and the best sensors (made by Sony). But analyzing that based on my knowledge and what I wish for the market doesn't mean the market will go there.

How many cameras does Canon sell with their "not-as-good-as-Sony" sensors? An awful lot. As to what most folks want, they want to compose on the back LCD. They don't want EVFs or OVFs. As far as sensor size, I don't believe that most people who buy cameras care. They just want "good enough" sensor performance (better than their camera phone), no shutter lag. Once you get to a certain size, size differences aren't that big a deal and all of these cameras are too big to fit in a pocket when they have a zoom in place (zooms are what most folks shoot with).

Anyway, I ramble a lot, but I just think that this thread is full of a lot of what "we" want and that is a bad way of predicting where the market is really going.

[Tony Belding]

As to what most folks want, they want to compose on the back LCD. They don't want EVFs or OVFs.

I have a K-01 and a MX-1, and I like composing on the back LCD -- except outdoors in the sunlight, where glare becomes a problem. That was the only reason I ever wanted an EVF. I finally got a HoodLoupe, and it helps a great deal.

[LFLee]

What I think that most forget is that people are already taking pictures all the time with little tiny sensors inside their smartphones, and they are happy with it because they can quickly and easily post that picture for their friends to see. For now it is about the quick and easy connectivity, not the overall quality of the picture.

Throughout history convenience has always triumphed over quality. The ultimate image quality comes from very large negatives. One 16x20 negative will contact print a stunning picture. But it certainly isn't convenient.

Leica hit the scene in the 20s and 30s with convenience. Compared with almost everything else the Leica was the most convenient option out there. 35mm ruled the convenience roost for some time, until digital hit the scene.

Once digital became good enough then suddenly pocket digital cameras became the norm. Oh there were also other formats, APS-C and then full frame (35mm again.) But it was the ubiquitous pocket digital that ruled.

Now, the smartphone has replace the pocket digital.

Do you see the trend? Always moving toward smaller and more convenient. Even pro cameras have gone that same direction. Not as fast, but still small and convenient. We never go back to large and bulky, always towards small and convenient. There are still 16x20 cameras and there are still people using them. But not many.

Personally I have no crystal ball so I have no idea what will happen. But I do believe that, in the long run, Mike is right.

Two of my friends ask me what camera to "upgrade" from their smart phone recently, since they want their picture to 'look like mine'.
I explain to them why sensor size important, and why for them APSC might be a good size and price.

At the end, the most important feature they absolutely want in their upgraded camera is.......... "WIFI" so they can share the pics easily.

General consumer and photo enthusiast are different market segment.

[Parry]

An A7r and Novoflex M42 and PK adapter are nagging at me for mid-April delivery (read capital allowances for 2014/2015).

Also a Sony Carl Zeiss 55/1.8 FE.

I have no idea why I'm suffering these disturbing thoughts. Where's my lithium?

[Pioneer]

An A7r and Novoflex M42 and PK adapter are nagging at me for mid-April delivery (read capital allowances for 2014/2015).

Also a Sony Carl Zeiss 55/1.8 FE.

I have no idea why I'm suffering these disturbing thoughts. Where's my lithium?

I too have been drooling over that camera since it came out. So far I have resisted buy it is unknown how much longer that will last.

The Q7 is sufficient for the great majority of what I do, when that isn't enough I can use the K-01 or K5iiS. They are all certainly tremendous cameras but the idea of using one of my M42 lenses with that sensor is so very, very tempting.

Resist... Resist...

[Parry]

I too have been drooling over that camera since it came out. So far I have resisted buy it is unknown how much longer that will last.

The Q7 is sufficient for the great majority of what I do, when that isn't enough I can use the K-01 or K5iiS. They are all certainly tremendous cameras but the idea of using one of my M42 lenses with that sensor is so very, very tempting.

Resist... Resist...

New tax year approacheth!

[Barry Pearson]

We look to a stat we tend to ignore but actually becomes important in certain circumstances: megapixels. For purposes of printing, 8MP is more than anyone needs for HQ photographs, and for viewing on a computer, half of that allows for 50% viewing on 1080p (2.07MP) monitors.

What analysis or evidence led you to say "For purposes of printing, 8MP is more than anyone needs for HQ photographs"?

My routine print size is A3+ after cropping, and sometimes I use A2 paper. (I sometimes use just A4 for test prints). Even uncropped, 8MP isn't enough for exhibitions.

[MadMathMind]

What analysis or evidence led you to say "For purposes of printing, 8MP is more than anyone needs for HQ photographs"?

My routine print size is A3+ after cropping, and sometimes I use A2 paper. (I sometimes use just A4 for test prints). Even uncropped, 8MP isn't enough for exhibitions.

Most people aren't printing anything larger than 8x10 in most circumstances. 8x10 at 300dpi is 7.2MP. There can always be a counterexample. If you want to be the exception to a generalization, why don't you just say that you print things for billboards and pretend that's normal for everyone? Might as well go for the gusto.

[normhead]

What analysis or evidence led you to say "For purposes of printing, 8MP is more than anyone needs for HQ photographs"?

My routine print size is A3+ after cropping, and sometimes I use A2 paper. (I sometimes use just A4 for test prints). Even uncropped, 8MP isn't enough for exhibitions.

We have sold some 30x20 10 mp canvases though.

Most people aren't printing anything larger than 8x10 in most circumstances. 8x10 at 300dpi is 7.2MP. There can always be a counterexample. If you want to be the exception to a generalization, why don't you just say that you print things for billboards and pretend that's normal for everyone? Might as well go for the gusto.

Here's the thing... I like 16 Mp for printing , and I like 24 Mp so I can crop to 16 Mp.. but I definitely want the A3+ prints for the frames on my wall. And the thing is, maybe you don't want to go over 8x10 now, but wouldn't it be nice to know , if you do decide to go to a 20 x 16 frame at some point in the future, you have the Mp to do it and have it look good. One of my big disappointments right now is all the 6 Mp images I have from my *ist, that are now really only useful as web images. It's always better to have a bit too much than a bit too little. Right now my absolute minimum for what I print, for my walls, for personal use is my 12 Mp K-x. 16 is preferable for landscapes because it gives me a bit of cropping room.

What these guys with the D800s are printing, I have no idea. But I'm doing fine on 20x30 canvas with 14 Mp files from my old K20D.

[ElJamoquio]

....and I have been told that if I want to sell large prints (20x30) and charge for them, I need silly resolution. ..

Doesn't matter if it matters, sometimes.

[Barry Pearson]

Most people aren't printing anything larger than 8x10 in most circumstances. 8x10 at 300dpi is 7.2MP. There can always be a counterexample. If you want to be the exception to a generalization, why don't you just say that you print things for billboards and pretend that's normal for everyone? Might as well go for the gusto.

Because I don't print things for billboards!

I am a typical UK club photographer. Those of us (in the UK and otherwise) who print, of whom there are probably many 1000s, typical crop then print at A3 or upwards. For interest, here is a gallery of my images that were printed at A3+ for a UK photographic qualification.

(That is the danger with over-generalising, as in "8MP is more than anyone needs"! To a mathematician like myself, one counter-example is all that is needed to disprove the statement).

[philbaum]

....and I have been told that if I want to sell large prints (20x30) and charge for them, I need silly resolution. ..

Doesn't matter if it matters, sometimes.

That just isn't true. Like Norm, I've printed to 20x30 several times and sold them with 16mp K5 and even K20 will do the job. 2 years ago i printed to 24x36 with the K5 and sold that print for $350. I wasn't in a gallery at the time and sold it via a juried show in Edmonds, WA - a huge show that attracts a lot of visitors. The bicubic expansion techniques they have in LR are more than enough to do a quality job for enlargement

What i enjoy from 16 and 24mp is the ability to crop a lot and still have a good pic quality.

[ElJamoquio]

That just isn't true.

It's the gallery owner that said it. "It just is completely true". I could lie and/or upsample of course.

[philbaum]

It's the gallery owner that said it. "It just is completely true". I could lie and/or upsample of course.

You don't have to lie - just tell them he/she is a complete idiot :-)

I know, sometimes one must attempt some tact - always a problem with me :-(

Just joined a gallery where the husband, a photographer, told me i couldn't show a sailboat's name in a picture. Despite the picture being taken from public property and access. Thankfully his wife really runs the gallery and not him. Have been there 4 weeks, and they sold 4 of my pics - suddenly my credibility with them has gone up :-) Sales talk, and BS is, just, well, BS.

[EssJayEff]

Just as an aside.... Billboards are printed at very low resolution because the viewing distance is very far away.