[pepperberry farm]

I think we've entered the arena of want vs need - and the market will continue to supply the wants as long as they have the money....

[biz-engineer]

Actually, 100Mpixels is not enough. 250 to 350 Mpixels is fairly common for large prints / wall deco products, as you can see here: Landscapes: High resolution photos & prints - VAST
I've done 250Mp composites of the dolomite mountains, using my K-1 and 100 euros of extra components for my gimbal-tripod kit and the prints as truly spectacular.

Camera manufacturers lure customers with the mega pixels count, when in fact, 100Mpixel is only the double resolution of 24Mpixels, but the price difference is huge between a 24Mp camera system and 100Mp camera system.
On the other hand, when conditions allow, image stitching is an extremely cheap solution when done properly, with virtually unlimited Mega pixels count.

[surfar]

the market will continue to supply the wants as long as they have the money....

Fuji have only just caught up with supplying the PreOrders for the GFX100,they under estimated "the want",so had to play catch up.

While at it,they just happened to shrink it a touch.So 2022 will be year of the 100R(probably).U$4999.

[BigMackCam]

Simple. If I had to choose a large print of a famous subject, I would pick the one with the most details provided light is equally good in all options from which to choose.

OK... me too. I think most of us would, regardless of the resolution we're shooting with.

It is precisely the details which matter these days when 99.9% shoot the same landscapes (or anything else).

This is what I'm trying to understand... To whom do they matter - at this level - other than the photographer? Who are the companies with commercial requirements for this resolution, and who are the individuals buying art that requires a photo taken with a 100MP sensor rather than, say, a 50MP one?

Watching large prints from a long distance is a thing of the past. Now one can watch from the distance and move up close to see the details too. You can now have the cake and eat it too.

Again, who does this - other than photographers? This is what I'm trying to get my head around. I can see 100MP would give stunning detail at large print sizes compared to my humble 24MP full frame camera - of course I can... I just don't know folks who stand 30cm from a large artwork to see how fine the smallest details are. I trust you when you infer they exist. I'd just like to know who they are... If it's really just the photographer with an obsession for the finest detail possible, I'm OK with that... I can understand the goal, even if it does nothing for me personally.

[MJKoski]

All the prints I have provided in large side have gone to people who appreciate being able to look closer. Target audience varies from young people to elderly folks. It is a serious understatement that only the photog appreciates such details. No. Just...no.

[BigMackCam]

All the prints I have provided in large side have gone to people who appreciate being able to look closer. Target audience varies from young people to elderly folks. It is a serious understatement that only the photog appreciates such details. No. Just...no.

... and they bought those prints of photos taken with a 50MP camera. Would you have sold more of them, or would your clients have paid more, if the resolution had been 100MP? Would you have sold fewer, or perhaps at a lower price, if the resolution were only 42 or even 36MP? I have to wonder... and then I wonder still if the computing power, disk space and archival costs for 100MP images would be more than offset by any increase in revenue.

I could tie myself in knots with this

[biz-engineer]

All the prints I have provided in large side have gone to people who appreciate being able to look closer. Target audience varies from young people to elderly folks. It is a serious understatement that only the photog appreciates such details. No. Just...no.

What people who don't print don't realize is that even digital professional gear barely catched-up with the best 8x10" film.The problem with digital is the cost of CMOS sensors which increased faster than sensor area, hence since digital started it was said that 7 mega pixels was enough (by the marketing of such early digital cameras...). A lot of professionals have been waiting a long time to switch from film to digital because digital wasn't providing the results they were looking for, although the marketing of digital cameras was selling hard that 7 Mpixels was enough, only the consumer bought into it. It's funny that in the early days of TV, customers were told that they should stand at 2 or 3 meters from the TV set, but as soon as TV improved, the recommended watching distances became shorter :-)

[normhead]

All the prints I have provided in large side have gone to people who appreciate being able to look closer. Target audience varies from young people to elderly folks. It is a serious understatement that only the photog appreciates such details. No. Just...no.

So what size files were they interested in. We've sold 20x30 inch prints from 12 MP and 14 MP cameras to collectors that had massive collections.

So re you telling us you are Andreas Gurszky and can command millions of dollars a print?

So, what is large size?
How many people?
It is a serious overstatement that there are a lot of people who will pay for oversize prints.

I notice, you provide no numbers, either for resolution, what's not enough? what's enough? how big is the market?

Just the "I want to walk right up to a "big" of unknown size and have the image look as detailed as a 4x6 of the same image, which in my experience is absolutely nonsense. It's a thought process mined from the internet years ago, hardly original, and repeated in it's current form, it's no different than what I heard before.It's an internet catch phrase to be repeated in the MP wars discussions. usually by egotists imaging that they do great work worthy of more resolution.

If you were Andreas Gursky I might give you a listen.
Most expensive photographs ever sold | Photo Article

Look through this, Gursky has 3 of the top 10, 4 are notably low res and grainy, 3 are pretty much standard images. So, you're still better off shooting lower res based on the odds, and if you read about what Gursky does, you realize, it's a lot more than just hi res. Gursky has his now warehouse, just to sell his prints. Gursky shoots different focal lengths and combines them to get a 3D look. He doesn't just take a hi res image and toss it out there.

Hi res is a sort of unicorn marketing function to suck in the untalented.

"It's not hi enough resolution" is consumer code for "I don't like the picture."
If you want to believe you could sell more images at higher res, fine no sweat off my back. Maybe you're Andreas Gursky, I don't know. But odds are pretty high you're deluding yourself.

[biz-engineer]

We've sold 20x30 inch prints from 12 MP and 14 MP cameras to collectors that had massive collections.

Yes, but that was in the past. Technology and expectations evolve over time. For example , when I moved from a 2Mpixels compact to my K200D, I enjoy every bit of the K200D images, I enjoy the extra image quality of the K200D many years, but I got used to the good quality of K200D pictures, those images set the bar of my expectation and I never moved back to a compact camera, nor phone. Back then, people where saying "7 megapixels is all you need". When Ricoh released the Pentax K3, I fully enjoy the step up to 24Mpixels again and for many years. When I had the K3, I used my K200D once in a while but I was never impressed again (beside the "CCD colors" that I still like). I've make about 100 prints out of K200D, K5, K3 and K1, and the prints from the K200 and K5 aren't great. Prints from the K3 are good, as well as K1, when keeping the size under 24x36". Over 24"x36" print size, even the K1 doesn't cut it, I need more. So I've stitched files to over 160Mpixels, printed 40"x60", and they look really good, I'm pleased with the 40x60 prints at over 160Mp. That's why for me , the GFX100 doesn't cut it, it's not enough. I've looked at the Phase One IQ150, but I'm not impressed give the price of such equipment. As I said, the problem with digital is not that 8 mega pixels are enough, it's that the cost increase much faster than image quality. However, saying that 100Mp+ digital resolution is not cost effective, is , in my opinion , being more honest with myself than saying that more resolution is not needed. If I'm honest with myself, I say that more resolution is welcome but not the cost of it in digital. The problem in digital is especially that most talented photographers can't afford those medium format prices, and the ones who can afford medium format price aren't necessarily talented at picture creation.

---------- Post added 05-01-21 at 15:54 ----------

"It's not hi enough resolution" is consumer code for "I don't like the picture."

While such 100Mp resolutions aren't really for selling cameras to the mass market, there are applications, below are examples that can be seen in some houses and business offices:
Glossy Acrylic Prints | WhiteWall ; the price for 40x60" is $889, you better have the best possible image file before you spent the $889.
Another example is the masterprint: WhiteWall Masterprint - Acrylic Photo Print up to 196 x 94 inches | WhiteWall ; The minimum print size is 48" x 72" and the price of such print is $3270.

It would make no sense to try to save a few $100 on the camera model and lenses for the capture an image for producing such master print. One the print cost as much as a digital full frame camera.
Indeed, there is a market for 100Mpixels and more, camera systems, but those systems aren't for everyone.

[surfar]

I'm pleased with the 40x60 prints at over 160Mp. That's why for me , the GFX100 doesn't cut it, it's not enough.

I suppose you wouldnt be pleased with the 400mp from the pixel shift/HiRes mode from the Fuji?

[normhead]

Yes, but that was in the past. Technology and expectations evolve over time. For example , when I moved from a 2Mpixels compact to my K200D, I enjoy every bit of the K200D images, I enjoy the extra image quality of the K200D many years, but I got used to the good quality of K200D pictures, those images set the bar of my expectation and I never moved back to a compact camera, nor phone. Back then, people where saying "7 megapixels is all you need". When Ricoh released the Pentax K3, I fully enjoy the step up to 24Mpixels again and for many years. When I had the K3, I used my K200D once in a while but I was never impressed again (beside the "CCD colors" that I still like). I've make about 100 prints out of K200D, K5, K3 and K1, and the prints from the K200 and K5 aren't great. Prints from the K3 are good, as well as K1, when keeping the size under 24x36". Over 24"x36" print size, even the K1 doesn't cut it, I need more. So I've stitched files to over 160Mpixels, printed 40"x60", and they look really good, I'm pleased with the 40x60 prints at over 160Mp. That's why for me , the GFX100 doesn't cut it, it's not enough. I've looked at the Phase One IQ150, but I'm not impressed give the price of such equipment. As I said, the problem with digital is not that 8 mega pixels are enough, it's that the cost increase much faster than image quality. However, saying that 100Mp+ digital resolution is not cost effective, is , in my opinion , being more honest with myself than saying that more resolution is not needed. If I'm honest with myself, I say that more resolution is welcome but not the cost of it in digital. The problem in digital is especially that most talented photographers can't afford those medium format prices, and the ones who can afford medium format price aren't necessarily talented at picture creation.

---------- Post added 05-01-21 at 15:54 ----------


While such 100Mp resolutions aren't really for selling cameras to the mass market, there are applications, below are examples that can be seen in some houses and business offices:
Glossy Acrylic Prints | WhiteWall ; the price for 40x60" is $889, you better have the best possible image file before you spent the $889.
Another example is the masterprint: WhiteWall Masterprint - Acrylic Photo Print up to 196 x 94 inches | WhiteWall ; The minimum print size is 48" x 72" and the price of such print is $3270.

It would make no sense to try to save a few $100 on the camera model and lenses for the capture an image for producing such master print. One the print cost as much as a digital full frame camera.
Indeed, there is a market for 100Mpixels and more, camera systems, but those systems aren't for everyone.

Funny how when you're talking to me, you don't answer my points.

you better have the best possible image file before you spent the $889.

So you are saying a 16 MP file is inadequate?
Prove it.

It would make no sense to try to save a few $100 on the camera model and lenses

You do realize we're talking about thousands of dollars, not hundreds. The issue for people like me is, I buy a camera for the purpose o increasing my sales or income, it has to do that. Nonsense posted on the internet doesn't bring in the money needed for more expensive gear.

My take on 100 MP sensors. If you have enough income from your 50 MP camera and you think you could increase your prices selling 100 MP images, and the camera can pay for itself in under 3 months (as well as cover you other expenses) and after that be part of a better income producing steam, then go for it. I have little use for people who aren't selling all they could already claiming they'd sell more for higher prices if they had 100 MP.

I look at 100 MP and think, what do I gt for my money? For me next to nothing. If someone actually wants to present their business model for buying 100 MP equipment, one that actually works I'll buy in, that it's good idea for them.

But let's not deal in conjecture about how it might go down. We seriously need to separate fantasy from reality here.

Everyone who's made these "I have to have higher MP" claims before was full of hot air. None of them went on to become rich or famous. There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that higher MP will make anyone more money, or even happier with your pictures. We reached the commercial cut off point at 12 MP.

Unless you're Gursky or Lik, this is all just fantasy.

You think you're Peter Lik?


Guess what, you aren't.
I have seen hundreds of these slot canyon photos some taken by my buds.... this one is a 6.5 million ahead of them. Lik did something with the same camera and subject that as far as I know, no one else has done. That's why he makes the big bucks. Because of his creativity.

Think you are Gursky


Guess what? You aren't

Think by going higher res you'll be like one of those guys? Guess what? You won't.

Hi res is useful only in the hands of exceptional talent.
Lower res images will continue to be most of the market, even the high end art market. And overburdening your self with large file sizes, huge printing costs, computers that can handle the file size, etc. are just as likely to bankrupt you as increase your income.

[photoptimist]

This is what I'm trying to understand... To whom do they matter - at this level - other than the photographer? Who are the companies with commercial requirements for this resolution, and who are the individuals buying art that requires a photo taken with a 100MP sensor rather than, say, a 50MP one?

Tis a mutation on modern consumer virus of FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out).

The makers of cameras and lenses incessantly natter on about resolution, sharpness, frames-per-second, speedy AF, etc. etc. Behind that marketing is an anxiety-driven subtext that the photographer might miss-out on the award-winning, print-selling, once-in-a-lifetime image unless they have the right high-spec kit to take a ridiculously-high resolution image at ridiculously-high frame rates.

Fear of missing out on capturing the decisive moment in its full gigapixel glory pushes people to upgrade their technology to assuage this fear.

[biz-engineer]

You think you're Peter Lik?

So, this instance of particular image (800x600 pixels) from peter lik , that you posted here in this forum thread, how much can you sell it , printed on a post card? knowing it's from peter lik?
So, now, take two images, both from Peter Lik: this one here at 800x600 pixels and the original full resolution one over color silver paper at full size under acrylic? Which one is much more expensive that the other?

---------- Post added 05-01-21 at 23:28 ----------

The makers of cameras and lenses incessantly natter on about resolution, sharpness, frames-per-second, speedy AF, etc. etc. Behind that marketing is an anxiety-driven subtext that the photographer might miss-out on the award-winning, print-selling, once-in-a-lifetime image unless they have the right high-spec kit to take a ridiculously-high resolution image at ridiculously-high frame rates.

I'm not interested in FPS, even 5 frames per day is fine for me if the output is 300Mpixels when I trigger the exposure. One of my best image took me more than one week to get, including 3000Km drive with the car. Camera manufacturers have been lagging behind with digital for two decades, that's why effort was put into the development of numerous image stitching software (used by professionals, for architecture, real estate imaging etc).

[BigMackCam]

Tis a mutation on modern consumer virus of FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out).

The makers of cameras and lenses incessantly natter on about resolution, sharpness, frames-per-second, speedy AF, etc. etc. Behind that marketing is an anxiety-driven subtext that the photographer might miss-out on the award-winning, print-selling, once-in-a-lifetime image unless they have the right high-spec kit to take a ridiculously-high resolution image at ridiculously-high frame rates.

Fear of missing out on capturing the decisive moment in its full gigapixel glory pushes people to upgrade their technology to assuage this fear.

Thank you! With no disrespect intended to @MJKoski or @biz-engineer , I agree.

I don't doubt the increase in detail possible from a medium format sensor with 100 or more megapickles, or a stitched image of several hundred megapickles. I'm sure it's most impressive when you pixel-peep, and I accept that - with good very-close-range eyesight (or decent prescription lenses) - you can probably see a big difference when viewing a six-foot-tall print on a wall from a foot or two away. Nor do I doubt that @MJKoski has clients who, as he stated, "appreciate being able to look closer". What I still haven't been convinced of is the need for such resolutions in order to be able to sell (more) large prints. I just don't quite believe there's a commercially-significant sub-culture of corporate and individual large print buyers who closely examine their purchases to ensure every detail is rendered razor-blade sharp when they have their noses pressed up against them. A great image is a great image - and a medicore one still medicore - regardless of resolution (within reason, of course)... and I maintain that the majority of those interested in buying large wall art are looking at the overall image aesthetic, not the pin-sharp detail at unnaturally-close viewing distances. If the image is impressive, I believe they'd buy it whether it had been captured on 36MP full frame, 50 or 100MP medium format, or stitched into a 300MP mega-image... and I don't believe resolution (again, within reason) would be the deciding factor between choosing one photographer's image of a particular scene over another. If it is, that's a sad indictment of art and folks' appreciation of it, photographic or otherwise.

I do, however, understand why a photographer seeking the best possible detail in everything they print could be drawn by a 50MP - and now, 100MP - medium format body, temptingly-priced like this new Fujifilm GFX100S... and I don't feel there's anything wrong with that photographer pursuing a goal of ultimate detail if (a) they want it and (b) they can afford the indulgence of camera, lenses, and technology to process and store the resulting images. I can even see how, at the point of potential sale, the photographer may - in discussion, over a glass of wine - proudly highlight the resolution used when promoting a print to the prospective buyer, in the same way a jewellery maker might mention the 24k gold accents on a platinum ring when presenting it to a potential customer... but let's not kid ourselves - if the image looks great, or the ring has already captured the lady's heart, they're going to buy it regardless.

Actually, I can appreciate @biz-engineer 's motives rather more easily... printing large and viewing the detail of a huge-resolution stitched image for his own enjoyment as the photographer. I get that as a personal achievement / enjoyment / ego-trip thing... something that can be done if you have the means and skill; but otherwise, I don't see the need (though I remain open-minded and willing to be convinced).

Just my humble opinion, of course... but I have at least a little experience as someone who's actually bought wall art - including some pretty costly original oil paintings - and never viewed them from a foot away.

EDIT: Lest it appear I'm unduly critical of this new Fujifilm camera, or folks' desire to own and use one, I'm really not. I'd be delighted if I were gifted one, and a brace of lenses to accompany it... and some extra SSD and archival HDD storage for the images. Knowing Fujifilm, I'm sure it'll be a fantastic camera, and those who buy and use it will be well-pleased...

[barondla]

Question is why did Fuji drop the price so drastically? Is it a move to preempt a competitor's new camera?
Thanks,
barondla