[LensBeginner]

Yes, so imagine a Pentax FF DSLR with that hypersensitive 12mp A7s sensor, wicked processing and improved AF. That would instantly become a very helpful tool for shooters of indoor sports events. A camera with "pro" status that would actually be attainable for Pentax. Or at least more attainable then competing in the me-too high MP superconsumer camera race.

Btw, in my own studio I still don't care for more then my curent 36mp. 36mp is already much more then enough. Especially in the studio, I might add. Because I control each and every aspect of photography there, including the subject. so much less need for cropping as well.

I wouldn't care much for it, actually.
I'm all for manual lenses, carefully prepared macro shots (maybe with focus stack), landscapes etc.
Sony's choice (and, to a lesser extent, CaNikon's) to provide different alternatives for studio/sport (and video) makes sense to me.
I would personally go with 24-36MP tops in a FF.

[Kerrowdown]

So why do some people think that 50 megapixels for the next FF camera is a great idea

Cos we're all gonna do billboard advertising imagery in the future.

[Nicolas06]

ISO 100/200/400 images look practically the same with excellent detail, colors and, as expected, extremely little to zero noise, and therefore all print up to a maximum size of 24 x 36 inches. At this resolution, we are pushing the limits of the 12MP full-frame sensor, and at close inspection, you can see some pixelation. However at normal viewing distances of an arm-length or further, images look nice and crisp.

But this you can say from any DSLR really including a K10D... I mean I have no noise, I have more details and I have great colors on my K3. Technical tests show that the A7S perform better at high iso than my K3, mostly due from sensor size, a bit from their different photosite design, a bit from their reduced photosite density. For the rest, it is no better than the K3 and has less resolution than a K3. For dynamic range and color deph, this A7S get lower results than the other typical Sony sensor included a good old K5.

One can say we don't need that. After all Canon has only 12 EV worth of dynamic range on their sensor instead of the 14+ you can get from Nikon/Pentax.

This is just to say that the Sony A7s is really a compromise and that you loose technically more than what you gain: bit better high iso, half the pixel, a low pass filter, less dynamic range and less color deph. This is a specialized camera.

Even I know many dislike to admit that, the high pixel count camera are the best compromize we have right now because the pixel density has almost no impact on different sensor figures as the key concept is more the whole sensor area than the number of pixel it has.

If high iso performance is the most critical for you, you'll find yourself with a more interresting camera with a 645Z even through it has 51MP. I highly suspect it was not tested by DxO uppon request of some competitors. It would hurt them to have the #1 ranking on every category camera to be a Pentax.

[Clavius]

So why do some people think that 50 megapixels for the next FF camera is a great idea?

One advantage is cropping images from a 50mp camera with a 135mm lens might be cheaper then buying a 400mm lens for your lower mp camera. Quick glimpse of the future: 1 gigapixel camera with a fixed wide angle lens. Probably in a smartphone. Oh no...

---------- Post added 24-03-15 at 14:11 ----------

If high iso performance is the most critical for you, you'll find yourself with a more interresting camera with a 645Z even through it has 51MP. I highly suspect it was not tested by DxO uppon request of some competitors. It would hurt them to have the #1 ranking on every category camera to be a Pentax.

LOL! Lets see what I can buy for the price of that 645Z instead: Some nice compromise and a few pieces of terrific glass.

Interesting to see how this thread about 5mp being enough is bringing out some very convinced high MP evangelists.

[TaoMaas]

One advantage is cropping images...

I only quoted part of your post because I think that's the crucial point. Last night during the critique at our camera club competition, they zoomed in on a low-res image that had already been cropped. As expected, the resulting image was highly pixelated. Later in the critique, they did the same thing to someone who had used the whole frame with a higher-res camera. The image they got was still sharp.

[Winder]

If we make a photobook large size square, 30x30cm, that is almost 12x12 inch one only needs 5 megapixels for good quality. Yes it gets a little better at 8 megapixel and even just another notch better at 12 megapixel, but I doubt you will see this on a regular base.


So why do some people think that 50 megapixels for the next FF camera is a great idea?

Couldn't you make the same argument for m4/3? if you only need 5mps then the Q is more than enough.

[Digitalis]

I highly suspect it was not tested by DxO uppon request of some competitors. It would hurt them to have the #1 ranking on every category camera to be a Pentax.

And DxO simply wouldn't be able to withstand the withering heat of criticism from giving such a rating to a pentax camera.

[RonHendriks1966]

Couldn't you make the same argument for m4/3? if you only need 5mps then the Q is more than enough.

I wasn't taling about the sensorsize. You can put large pixels on a sensor or small once. the things is that some People want as many pixels as possible, and my question is WHY. It's also about the quality of the image.

About the sensorsize......I know a photographer that cuts his FF camera images almost always back to the sensorsize of aps-c, wich would be great for him to start with in the frist place.

[Nicolas06]

LOL! Lets see what I can buy for the price of that 645Z instead: Some nice compromise and a few pieces of terrific glass.

Interesting to see how this thread about 5mp being enough is bringing out some very convinced high MP evangelists.

Depend how much you call high. I'am quite happy with 24MP and don't feel much need for more. If there would be noticably higher pixel count on APSC sensor without much drawback AND it also for much more cropping while keeping enough sharpness, I might be interrested. If my F135 could keep up the increased resolution, I would have as much reach with a 48MP APSC sensor with my 135mm lense than a guy would have with with a 400mm on his A7s and 600mm on his istDL. Without improvement in sensor technology it might reduce the dynamic range/color deph of the photosite a bit too much to go that far through.

I don't like the size of the typicall only FF lenses we are provided that cover the 400-600mm range to be honest. Too big, too heavy. I don't like their price neither and the more affordable one are not that sharp. That's my way to stay light you see.

For now I can crop my F135 to 6MP so really 270mm framing and get a shoot that by Ron standard is more than good enouh. With the 1.4 TC, I might even achieve 380mm framing at 6MP.

So for sure 50MP on FF is not very interresting to me because well you have no more magnification than APSC and I think 24MP effective pixel or even 10MP effective pixel is enough. This is really the cropping capability that is key.

[Winder]

I wasn't taling about the sensorsize. You can put large pixels on a sensor or small once. the things is that some People want as many pixels as possible, and my question is WHY. It's also about the quality of the image.

About the sensorsize......I know a photographer that cuts his FF camera images almost always back to the sensorsize of aps-c, wich would be great for him to start with in the frist place.

Its the same argument. What is good enough? It doesn't matter if we are talking about sensor size or MP. Its the same argument and the answer is the same for both.

For printing a 12 x 12 you would be better off with the 4/3 aspect ratio of M4/3 and APS-C because you are throwing out too much with APS-C. A 5MP 4/3 sensor would give you better results than an 5MP APS-C sensor for printing a 12 x 12 book.

[LensBeginner]

One advantage is cropping images from a 50mp camera with a 135mm lens might be cheaper then buying a 400mm lens for your lower mp camera. Quick glimpse of the future: 1 gigapixel camera with a fixed wide angle lens. Probably in a smartphone. Oh no...

Probably, but then the 135mm would cost as much as the 400mm in order to be able to resolve all that detail...
There's no such thing as etc.

[osv]

So why do some people think that 50 megapixels for the next FF camera is a great idea?

most people don't understand the p.q. benefits that come with downrezzing.

even moving from, say, a k10d to a k3, they still don't get it.

[normhead]

One of the great things about the K-3 is, most of my crops end up being the same size as a K-5 image. And am happy printing K-5 images up to 30x40 inches. And I'm good with that. I could crop a lot more with a 50 MP FF, but based on what happens with my K-3 it's very rare I'd need to do that. What I want from he FF will be more dynamic range color depth and lower noise at higher ISOs. If they can match the D810 performance with 6 frames per second, I'll be cool with that. I'll still have my K-3 for cropped images, and unless the FF can hit 8 frames a second, I'm going to use it for crop images, even if the FF is available.

[Nicolas06]

Probably, but then the 135mm would cost as much as the 400mm in order to be able to resolve all that detail...
There's no such thing as etc.

If your lense can resolve 24MP on APSC, it can resolve 54MP on FF. It may fail to do so on borders but for an heavy crop that not that important.

From experience with K3 I get very sharp center performance from most lenses. I agree I have mostly prime but I can say an FA50 would do it, a DA50-135 or FA77 too. I think all macro lenses would have no issues and theses one are not that expensive typically.

[Macario]

If we make a photobook large size square, 30x30cm, that is almost 12x12 inch one only needs 5 megapixels for good quality. Yes it gets a little better at 8 megapixel and even just another notch better at 12 megapixel, but I doubt you will see this on a regular base.


So why do some people think that 50 megapixels for the next FF camera is a great idea?

because they are men, and they need to compensate for smaller things


On a serious note. Because photographers do not think what they can do with 5mpx, but think what they cannot do with 5mpx