[Rondec]

Isn't a 50mp full-frame basically equivalent to a 24mp APS-C, i.e. same-sized pixels? (Because "crop mode" on a full-frame gets you roughly half resolution, right?) So if we can handle it with the K-3, why not on a bigger sensor?

Have you shot 16 megapixel APS-C and really compared the files to 24 megapixel APS-C? Yes, the files are bigger, but most of them don't have any more detail. There are plenty of reasons where I recommend a K3 over a K5, but increased resolution is probably the smallest reason that I can see.

Certainly everyone knows there is a point of diminishing returns. How much more resolution would you really get from 50 megapixel APS-C as compared to 24 megapixel, or 80 megapixels? Eventually you get to the place where you just create extra noise (on a pixel level), but not a whole lot of real extra resolution.

[vonBaloney]

Have you shot 16 megapixel APS-C and really compared the files to 24 megapixel APS-C? Yes, the files are bigger, but most of them don't have any more detail. There are plenty of reasons where I recommend a K3 over a K5, but increased resolution is probably the smallest reason that I can see.

Certainly everyone knows there is a point of diminishing returns. How much more resolution would you really get from 50 megapixel APS-C as compared to 24 megapixel, or 80 megapixels? Eventually you get to the place where you just create extra noise (on a pixel level), but not a whole lot of real extra resolution.

All true, but the point I was making was this is essentially just a bigger K-3 sensor, whereas the comments above are about how it is a new threshold and it is going to outresolve the lenses, you'd have to use a tripod always etc. But we are already there with the K-3 (and other 24mp APS-C bodies), so it wouldn't be any tougher shooting or adding any more "stress" to the lenses (if you get my meaning) than what many here have already been doing with the K-3 for the last year.

For me, 24MP is the perfect APS-C camera, and 36MP would be the perfect full-frame (if I'm only shooting full-frame). Those would be about the reasonable limit of my needs, at least for the foreseeable future. But for a single body with 50mp full-frame and half that for APS-C crop mode, I'd definitely take that. Beyond that, it is indeed hard to make an argument (for now), but we will see what technology brings us...

[yusuf]

Have you shot 16 megapixel APS-C and really compared the files to 24 megapixel APS-C? Yes, the files are bigger, but most of them don't have any more detail.

Yes I did and NEX7 (24MP) pics certainly has more details than NEX6 (16MP).

[Rondec]

I just wish the megapixel wars were over. If they stuck a K5 sensor in a K3 body, I would buy that over a K3 and would recommend it to others. You get the dynamic range of the K5 sensor and at least 95 percent of the resolution and the files are smaller to boot.

Sorry to derail the thread, I just haven't seen any of the "improvements" in sensors since the K5/D800 sensor as being particularly beneficial to anyone except for new computer sales men.

[cooltouch]

You know, on the subject of not really being able to tell the difference between lower and higher megapixel images -- this subject isn't exactly new. Way back six years ago, when I bought my Canon 10.1mp EOS XS (aka 1000D), I compared images to those I had been taking with my Fuji Finepix 3000 (non-interchangeable-lens) DSLR, which produced "only" 3mp images. I'd been using the Fuji for a few years and really felt the need for more headroom. But after using the Canon for a bit and working with the images, I was kinda surprised that I wasn't seeing a bigger difference than I was between its images and the Fuji's. I even took pics of the identical subject and then analyzed them in my image processing software. I up-sized the Fuji's files such that they were the same size as the Canon's files at a 100% crop. Yes, there was a difference, but it was really small. I mean I was almost exasperated at how small the difference was. And yes, the EOS lens I was using was the 18-55 Mark II kit lens, which is actually a very good optic -- I can show you pics, if I have to -- so it wasn't really a difference in optics . . . although I'll admit, Fuji makes some really fine glass.

But anyway, I even posted my results over at Photography On the Net (a Canon Digital Photography site) and was widely derided for my obviously noobistic view on things. But when I started asking the tough questions, often the typical response was that the 18-55 was a junk lens and what did I expect? Which told me a lot about the respondents. There are L-lens elitists there who think that if your lenses don't have red stripes, then they're trash. But I didn't receive any replies that explained why it was that a 3mp file could look almost as good as a 10.1mp file. And I'm still curious about that, to be honest. And here we are now, discussing the differences between 16mp and 24mp and even 36mp files and wondering why we don't see much of a difference, and to me it's like deja vu all over again, except bigger.

[rawr]

Time to upgrade your computers guys

Indeed. Thankfully consumer computer technology is managing to keep up with the camera megapixel race.

[mrNewt]

Indeed. Thankfully consumer computer technology is managing to keep up with the camera megapixel race.

OMG feels like yesterday

[philbaum]

I can see the advantage of 36MP on a FF in that you don't need an AA filter at that resolution.
There is a creative advantage in that you can crop like crazy and still have a good print. You really don't need a mid range optical zoom since you can crop the 55mm to the FoV of an 85mm and still have a 20MP+ image.

... The 24MP sensor in the A7m2 has been awesome. I primarily photograph people and the resolution of the A7m2 has been more than enough.

Being able to crop down to the picture you want, vice carrying longer lenses - i agree - its an advantage.

i don't have any problems hand-holding a 36mp camera, and i don't understand how anyone could have an issue with it... if there are hand tremors or whatever, just speed up the shutter a bit.

remember that you have the benefits of downrezzing to compensate... it improves every single pq parameter, including iso noise.

The co-owner of the gallery i use, was complaining to me about the fuzzy pictures he was getting from his D800, so at the holidays, he gave it to his wife and bought himself a D750. He'd had it for awhile, so i was surprised about what the problem was. I do think its a heavier camera than than the D750.

[Christine Tham]

A slightly different perspective without necessarily contradicting anything that others have said.

When I first started using digital cameras, they had a resolution of 1 megapixel (and I paid $2000 for one - ouch!).

I remember reading an article that said the theoretical limit of resolution for 35mm film was 12 megapixels (assuming perfect conditions, ISO 50 etc.) A typical achievable resolution was 4 megapixels.

I remember when 4 megapixel digital cameras came out I thought well we've reached parity with film for practical purposes and when 12 megapixel digital cameras came out I thought well okay so digital should be at least as good as film for all circumstances.

However, with a Bayes sensor colour resolution is lower than luminance resolution and it takes 3-4 pixels to get 1 equivalent pixel of full colour resolution.

One thing that just occurred to me - if you divide 50 by 4 = 12.5

So perhaps the justification for 50 megapixel cameras is that we are finally getting a camera that truly surpasses film in every respect, including colour resolution.

Anyway, just putting the thought out there.

Personally, I would rather go for the successor to A7s (12 megapixel high ISO) rather than the successor to the A7r - if Sony releases an A7s with 10-15 fps stills burst and 4K video recording I am sold.

[normhead]

I just wish the megapixel wars were over. If they stuck a K5 sensor in a K3 body, I would buy that over a K3 and would recommend it to others. You get the dynamic range of the K5 sensor and at least 95 percent of the resolution and the files are smaller to boot.

Sorry to derail the thread, I just haven't seen any of the "improvements" in sensors since the K5/D800 sensor as being particularly beneficial to anyone except for new computer sales men.

That new D810 sensor has some serious Dynamic Range to it according to DxO. K-3 13.4 Evs #28- K-5 14.1 Evs, #9, Nikon D810 14.8 Evs.. #1, Nikon D750 14.5 Evs, #2.

The D810 has the most dynamic range as rated at DxO, and using the DxO software, this guy rates the 645z ahead of the D810, meaning the 645z should be the number 1 in DR if that what we're looking at.

[philbaum]

That new D810 sensor has some serious Dynamic Range to it according to DxO. K-3 13.4 Evs #28- K-5 14.1 Evs, #9, Nikon D810 14.8 Evs.. #1, Nikon D750 14.5 Evs, #2.

The D810 has the most dynamic range as rated at DxO, and using the DxO software, this guy rates the 645z ahead of the D810, meaning the 645z should be the number 1 in DR if that what we're looking at.

Yeah, but thats at base ISO. The Sony A7S has more DR from about 600 ISO (measured) on up to about 400,000 iso. Nikon doesn't want to talk about that.



I'm not sure the greater draw for me, the low light capability of the A7S or its silent shutter option. I've handled the A7S and i like it a lot. Still too pricey i think, but then i'm cheap :-)

[Clavius]

A slightly different perspective without necessarily contradicting anything that others have said.

When I first started using digital cameras, they had a resolution of 1 megapixel (and I paid $2000 for one - ouch!).

I remember reading an article that said the theoretical limit of resolution for 35mm film was 12 megapixels (assuming perfect conditions, ISO 50 etc.) A typical achievable resolution was 4 megapixels.

I remember when 4 megapixel digital cameras came out I thought well we've reached parity with film for practical purposes and when 12 megapixel digital cameras came out I thought well okay so digital should be at least as good as film for all circumstances.

However, with a Bayes sensor colour resolution is lower than luminance resolution and it takes 3-4 pixels to get 1 equivalent pixel of full colour resolution.

One thing that just occurred to me - if you divide 50 by 4 = 12.5

So perhaps the justification for 50 megapixel cameras is that we are finally getting a camera that truly surpasses film in every respect, including colour resolution.

Anyway, just putting the thought out there.

Personally, I would rather go for the successor to A7s (12 megapixel high ISO) rather than the successor to the A7r - if Sony releases an A7s with 10-15 fps stills burst and 4K video recording I am sold.

I think this is an excellent point. If the megapixel count starts to increase into the ridiculous, nobody will care about it anymore. Resolution would then become primarily dependant on the optics again, just like in the film days.

Yes, this was the last time I jumped on a camera as soon as it arrived. I got the A7r, but should have waited for the A7s, which is a much more attractive tool.

[cxdoo]

You might be imagining benefits that will never materialize. If you light room freezes with a 16 Mp file, image with a 50, you'll have time to eat your lunch.

But that's exactly my point. In order for 50mp files to be manageable, a lot needs to be improved in the whole pipeline, not just the sensor. Eventually that improvement can reach the masses, i.e. me.
If it never materializes, well, I'm sticking to my K5II anyway.

[normhead]

I think this is an excellent point. If the megapixel count starts to increase into the ridiculous, nobody will care about it anymore. Resolution would then become primarily dependant on the optics again, just like in the film days.

Yes, this was the last time I jumped on a camera as soon as it arrived. I got the A7r, but should have waited for the A7s, which is a much more attractive tool.

I'm hoping... there will be awesome sales on the A7s at some point... but it started so high, if there was an awesome sale, would I buy it, even discounted.

[Christine Tham]

I'm hoping... there will be awesome sales on the A7s at some point... but it started so high, if there was an awesome sale, would I buy it, even discounted.

Sony offered me a price that I nearly could not refuse last year, because they knew I wanted the camera.

I won't reveal the price here, but let's say I would have been able to buy the A7s for less than what I paid for the A7r, and I bought the A7r for less than the retail price of the A7.

BUT ... I really want 4K video recording. So I am hanging out for a Mark II.

I am sure the A7s price will drop once Mark II comes out.