[ElJamoquio]

Cell phones already go past the conventional-wisdom limits of the human eye.

My 4 MP monitor looks gads better than a 2 MP monitor. I can still see the effects of individual pixels.

My older 223 ppi cell phone has some pixel artifacts at arms length. My newer 306 ppi looks much better (but other things are also responsible).

300 * 300 * (27 * (3/5) * 27* (4/5)) = ~32 MP.

16 MP monitors are coming, the question is in what decade. That's only for a 27" monitor, too, I used to have a 42" monitor (but that was a bit much). One 42" replacing two 27"-ers would be nice.

[RobA_Oz]

It is easy for him to write about manufacturers. Because 99% of his readers and readers elsewhere can only understand that. Because they all live within that same thick forest.
So his aim is pointless from the beginning, and if he does not come to any conclusion, that is because it wasn't any even to start with.

Well, yes, but a conclusion isn't really necessary when you're providing commentary on a situation. People can draw their own conclusions, as they should.

[Nesster]

I think this begs the question why does anyone other than people who will actually print a photo need a DSLR, an ILC or even a Supercompact camera if max display resolution is 2Mp.

Why do I need a 200W pre-amp, multiple media read-devices, carefully-hidden wire all over my house, AR Reference loudspeakers (and my college AR-4's) etc. for what amounts to a transistor radio?

This brings to mind, before I became used to digital sound artifacts, I could clearly hear them even via a lousy TV set... And my tube radio mostly sits there in the basement, with two extra power amps and three extra pairs of speakers unconnected at any given time... Clearly I don't need that. But at one time I wanted that, as it was my hobby and interest. Size and no content creation eventually moved me back to photography.

Our needs are different than our wants; the mass market has differing needs and wants than do photo enthusiasts. If I were to simplify tremendously, the volks-quality-camera parallels the rise and fall of middle class capitalism (cars may be ahead of the curve in this)... the post war growth of middle class wealth + consumer product innovation brought in a golden age for many items... the consumer first was sold fixed lens range finders that are still excellent cameras, and then SLRs, then SLRs with ever greater automation. The drop in quality to an Instamatic was pretty big; and people started to associate SLR with High Quality.

Those days are currently over, there's the very high end and there's the general consumer/computer/phone device. Stand alone cameras - though they may still connote 'quality' don't offer the convenience of what most people use cameras for. And that's Thom Hogan's point, unless the SLR makers solve that problem their products will not command such a large part of such a large market.

[stevebrot]

Now look at the total lack of complaints about blurry pictures with the K-3.

Not a total lack. There are plenty of complaints about soft results, but most put the blame on the AF system. There are a few threads here regarding the 24 Mpx sensor and its unforgiving nature in regards to camera motion.


Steve

---------- Post added 02-27-14 at 02:24 PM ----------

My 4 MP monitor looks gads better

I am getting some serious monitor envy here. Mine is only 2.3 Mpx crammed into 24" diagonal.


Steve

[Uluru]

And that's Thom Hogan's point, unless the SLR makers solve that problem their products will not command such a large part of such a large market.

He had a point? Now, that’s something new.