[RGlasel]

Newspapers who need their still photographers to be able to shoot video for the website along with stills for the paper. TV stations who are looking to cut their equipment costs while expanding their look and capabilities. Corporations who can now afford to have their own in-house production group, where they had to always farm out that work in the past. Small production companies that start up because equipment that can give professional level results is no longer prohibitively expensive. Smartphones aren't going to work for those folks.

Phone cameras have taken over news visuals for roughly two decades, because the most important feature is to be there at the right time. Phone cameras connected to the Internet, so the images could be sent off without worrying about smuggling memory cards or hooking the phone up to a computer, just accelerated the process. Today's journalist is always packing a smartphone, the only field where professional equipment is mandatory is covering sports, because sports are really just unscripted entertainment and the viewer wants a reasonable facsimile of attending a live event, so the demand for HD broadcasts. I'm not an expert on pornography, but it seems that "amateur" and "homemade" is where it is at. You are right about small production companies needing something better than smartphones, to serve a couple of niche markets in between big-time video producers (multi-million dollar entertainment products) and redneck Youtube videos on welding techniques. Those niche markets are expensive private events; mainly weddings, but also corporate events where the client is willing to pay to own souvenirs that are obviously professionally made. Think of production teams of as few as three people to handle all the creative work and that's the market for video capable ILCs. Modern Fellinis need to pony up for RED and all its related infrastructure; the rest of us will use smartphones because we aren't going to invest the time, effort and emotional capital necessary to get superiour results from the camera equipment we are already using for stills.

I think we may be looking at the MILC trend too much from a still photography perspective

I agree with you, but there isn't a pot of gold at the end of the videography rainbow, either. To make a living as a photographer, most of them will have to pick up every bit of work they can find, some of which will be video, but that market doesn't compare to the hobbyist market and hobbyists will stick with what they know (and most of us are old enough to know about film photography).

[TaoMaas]

Phone cameras have taken over news visuals for roughly two decades, because the most important feature is to be there at the right time.

That's a pretty big exaggeration. No photog I know is using a phone to shoot his stories...and I know a LOT of them. It's true that phones are used for certain things, but they're not the workhorses of broadcast television. Now, if you mean that there is more and more cellphone video which was shot by the public being used on newscasts, then I would agree with that, but it's primarily been over the last 10+ years since the iphone came out.

[clackers]

That's a pretty big exaggeration. No photog I know is using a phone to shoot his stories...and I know a LOT of them. It's true that phones are used for certain things, but they're not the workhorses of broadcast television. Now, if you mean that there is more and more cellphone video which was shot by the public being used on newscasts, then I would agree with that, but it's primarily been over the last 10+ years since the iphone came out.

I think video is a false hope for manufacturers. Very, very few people of any brand shoot video, and even less make anything interesting that you want to lose precious minutes of your life unable to avoid. Obviously you do, Taomass, and your associates.

We need to remember that the phone has not just killed the compact camera market, it's destroyed a lot of the camcorder market, too. Families will use their phone rather than buy a sub $1000 video device.

[TaoMaas]

I think video is a false hope for manufacturers. Very, very few people of any brand shoot video, and even less make anything interesting that you want to lose precious minutes of your life unable to avoid. Obviously you do, Taomass, and your associates.

Well, you're right that video isn't going to be a savior for some of these manufacturer's, but it is an area that offers them an additional chance to bring in new users. And when your customer base has leveled off, you need new users. I'll also admit that the average person doesn't care much about video, but my goodness, YouTube is filled with folks creating their own videos. Yes, a fair share of those are shot with phones, i-pads, and GoPros...but thousands upon thousands are also shot using a DSLR or MILC...and a large part of that is because those cameras offer ways to capture good audio. There are lots of other reasons, too, just as there are reasons why we all choose to shoot DSLRs rather than use our cellphones for all our photography. Video is no different.

We need to remember that the phone has not just killed the compact camera market, it's destroyed a lot of the camcorder market, too. Families will use their phone rather than buy a sub $1000 video device.

I totally agree with this. Camcorders are a one-trick-pony in a multi-media world. Plus, phones are more convenient and they're always at hand. They will serve the purposes of 90% of the public out there. But that's not the entire market. That's simply public use vs commercial use.

[Zooland]

The Sony A7R4 was simply a way for Sony to stay one step ahead of the Panasonic S1R and Nikon Z7. More resolution, better AF, more native glass in a smaller package. Sony still has the sensor and AF tech advantage..... and those are the most important 2.

Until Canon’s new 80 MP is released.

Canon Plans to Rejoin the 'Spec Wars' with an 80MP EOS R Camera: Report

[Serkevan]

I am honestly more interested by Canon showing off what they've been putting their sensor developers up to for the last 3 or 4 years... 80MP is stupid and I'm not even sure it's doable without compromising on every other metric.

[biz-engineer]

80MP is stupid and I'm not even sure it's doable without compromising on every other metric.

it's gonna be lots a data to be cooked to make a picture that's going to be almost the same as the picture coming out of a K1, with less read noise, looking more like glassy / icy surfaces.

---------- Post added 03-08-19 at 15:18 ----------

When I zoom in to 100% images from the Panasonic S1R, Nikon Z7 and Sony A7RIV, I'm comforted that I made the right choice with the K1 and D-FA 28-105. And this remembers me when I upgraded my compact 2.5Mpixels with a 7Mpixels camera, the images out of 7Mpixels didn't look better, they looked worse because the 7 Mpixels sensor from Canon was even smaller than the 2.5Mp from Nikon!

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-03-2019 at 06:19 AM.

[Dan Rentea]

it's gonna be lots a data to be cooked to make a picture that's going to be almost the same as the picture coming out of a K1, with less read noise, looking more like glassy / icy surfaces.

---------- Post added 03-08-19 at 15:18 ----------

When I zoom in to 100% images from the Panasonic S1R, Nikon Z7 and Sony A7RIV, I'm comforted that I made the right choice with the K1 and D-FA 28-105. And this remembers me when I upgraded my compact 2.5Mpixels with a 7Mpixels camera, the images out of 7Mpixels didn't look better, they looked worse because the 7 Mpixels sensor from Canon was even smaller than the 2.5Mp from Nikon!

Why a 36mp camera is better than a 24mp camera or than a 45mp camera or than a 61mp camera? I remember when D800 came with a high resolution sensor at that time, the internet discussions were the same as the ones we have now: "36mp is overkill", "you need a good computer and lots of storage for the big files", etc. Yet, 4-5 years later 36mp cameras seems to be somehow the standard. Now, when companies bring to market 45mp, 61mp cameras and maybe even higher resolution cameras (if Canon rumors are true), we have the same conversations and "arguments" about why these new high resolution cameras aren't good for photographers...

We have trouble seeing a difference in files between 24mp and 36mp cameras and yet, we want 36mp cameras with no AA filter because we "need" to see every bit of detail when we edit the files so that we can scale them down to 2048px for Facebook or Instagram and maybe sometimes in the next 20 years we will print one image out of 40.000 at more than 30 inch in size. But, the same ones who want to see every detail in files are against higher mp cameras.

[Rondec]

Why a 36mp camera is better than a 24mp camera or than a 45mp camera or than a 61mp camera? I remember when D800 came with a high resolution sensor at that time, the internet discussions were the same as the ones we have now: "36mp is overkill", "you need a good computer and lots of storage for the big files", etc. Yet, 4-5 years later 36mp cameras seems to be somehow the standard. Now, when companies bring to market 45mp, 61mp cameras and maybe even higher resolution cameras (if Canon rumors are true), we have the same conversations and "arguments" about why these new high resolution cameras aren't good for photographers...

We have trouble seeing a difference in files between 24mp and 36mp cameras and yet, we want 36mp cameras with no AA filter because we "need" to see every bit of detail when we edit the files so that we can scale them down to 2048px for Facebook or Instagram and maybe sometimes in the next 20 years we will print one image out of 40.000 at more than 30 inch in size. But, the same ones who want to see every detail in files are against higher mp cameras.

I very much doubt whether there is truly more detail except maybe at iso 100 and 200. This is the problem. We are promised more detail, but what we actually get is more noise and bigger files. I remember moving from the K5 II to the K3 and I thought that going from 16 to 24 megapixels would be eye opening. The reality was there was some improvement in resolution at low isos, but dynamic range wasn't as good with the 24 megapixel images and at anything 400 iso and over there was no difference.

Storage is cheap so I guess that isn't a big deal any more, but I guess I would rather have better dynamic range and color depth than more megapixels. It's just a lot harder to improve those aspects of a sensor, but it's the reason that I make the effort to use pixel shift on landscape images.

[Serkevan]

I just printed for my parents (some at 20x30, most at the ubiquitous 10x15 cm format) some dozens of family/travel shots. All of them were taken with either a 14 MP K-7 or a 12 MP Canon 5D. The limiting factor was always the printer!
The only reason I will upgrade the K-7 is the ISO performance of the sensor... above 400 the noise is either too obvious or the NR too aggressive even at 10x15 cm prints, wallpaper use at 1920x1080 is totally out of the question.

[Dan Rentea]

I very much doubt whether there is truly more detail except maybe at iso 100 and 200. This is the problem. We are promised more detail, but what we actually get is more noise and bigger files. I remember moving from the K5 II to the K3 and I thought that going from 16 to 24 megapixels would be eye opening. The reality was there was some improvement in resolution at low isos, but dynamic range wasn't as good with the 24 megapixel images and at anything 400 iso and over there was no difference.

Storage is cheap so I guess that isn't a big deal any more, but I guess I would rather have better dynamic range and color depth than more megapixels. It's just a lot harder to improve those aspects of a sensor, but it's the reason that I make the effort to use pixel shift on landscape images.

Well, you have 4 or 16 files when comes to pixel shift on this new Sony. And the extra details at ISO 100 or 200 may be enough for someone shooting in studio.

[RonHendriks1966]

Yet, 4-5 years later 36mp cameras seems to be somehow the standard.

I don't think this is true. Yes maybe on internetfora and enthousiast photosites and pro's there is a surge for more pixels......but on average I think that 24mp is the standard, when counting the unit amount of sold fullframe camera's.

[Rondec]

Well, you have 4 or 16 files when comes to pixel shift on this new Sony. And the extra details at ISO 100 or 200 may be enough for someone shooting in studio.

Of course. And I'm sure that with pixel shift you can get close to medium format quality.

The question is what can you do with a single shot, because honestly pixel shift isn't useful in many situations. Even with a model in a studio, there may be enough movement over the thirty seconds the shots are captured that it will negate many of the benefits. Additionally, you would need to use continuous lighting rather than flash.

Certainly it would do great for product photography, but typically you won't need that kind of resolution for that type of photography.

[Dan Rentea]

Of course. And I'm sure that with pixel shift you can get close to medium format quality.

The question is what can you do with a single shot, because honestly pixel shift isn't useful in many situations. Even with a model in a studio, there may be enough movement over the thirty seconds the shots are captured that it will negate many of the benefits. Additionally, you would need to use continuous lighting rather than flash.

Certainly it would do great for product photography, but typically you won't need that kind of resolution for that type of photography.

The big question to me is why people shooting with 36mp cameras need this resolution? I'm asking because I'm testing Canon RP for 2 weeks and 26mp are already more than enough for me and my clients get the files at 4k resolution anyway. Let's find out the answer to this question first and maybe we can figure it out why people want even more resolution.

[Rondec]

The big question to me is why people shooting with 36mp cameras need this resolution? I'm asking because I'm testing Canon RP for 2 weeks and 26mp are already more than enough for me and my clients get the files at 4k resolution anyway. Let's find out the answer to this question first and maybe we can figure it out why people want even more resolution.

You understand that the point isn't the resolution. The image is still 36 megapixels after the fact. You just have way less noise at a given iso, better color depth and better dynamic range -- basically a better image as a starting place to work with.

I shoot a lot of landscapes and under expose to try to keep highlights in the sky. In the old days I always would bracket, but with pixel shift I typically can use a single exposure that is under exposed by 1.5 to 2 stops and still get plenty of detail from the shadows. I like these results a lot better than the HDR type blends I was doing in the past.

With Sony's 16 shot of course you are going to get higher resolution and I'm not sure how useful that will be (it wouldn't be for me).