[hjoseph7]

Just when you thought we had enough Mega Pixels, (after all the Pentax K1 has 36 MP's if you want to go in that direction), out comes a camera with 100 MP's ! Actually this camera has been out for a few years now, but I just heard about it. It's the new Fuji GFX 100 with a whopping 100 MP's . Here is the review: Fujifilm GFX 100 review: Digital Photography Review. When I first heard about it, I said to myself "Oh No not again !". Who in their right mind would need such a camera ? Don't we have enough MP's out there without adding to the pot ?

This camera is not cheap and its classified as Medium Format if that makes it easier to swallow. Actually, Fuji thinks its a Future-proof camera. Maybe that's true, but given the size of those output files the future is not quite here yet. My current computer could not keep up with those file sizes. At first I thought it was a gimmick camera made just for publicity. But this camera is selling on B&H for a measly $9,999.99 dollars. What is even more surprising is that there were not a lot of negative comments about the camera. The people who purchased this camera were absolutely thrilled by the pictures they had taken with it ??


Boy 100 MP is about 80 more MP's than I have to work with. Good thing I can still get some razor sharp 16X20 prints with that meager amount. For sending my pictures over the web I actually have to downsize the pictures, or wait a long time for the image to finally transmit. Imagine trying to transmit a 100 MP file or two ? Actually I don't think you would see any difference in resolution unless you were standing in front of a 50X50 Bill Board. Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference between a 12 MP image and a 20 MP image, unless somebody tells me which is which. Nope this camera is not for the average guy, but since it's Future-proof, maybe one day it will be ?

[nocturnal]

I've done 30" x 20 " prints done by a pro lab from a 16MP K30, even less than 16MP considering I cropped most of them and you can't see any pixelation which is good considering they cost around £28 GBP each including postage.

100MP just means you can print just over twice this size which some people may do, pro work etc. but the prints would cost a fortune!

[photoptimist]

100MP?!?!?!? Pfffft!! That's lo-rez, man!

There's no way you can get any good shots at all these days without 150 MP.

You need the Phase One IQ4 150MP. Here is the review: Phase One IQ4 150MP Review | PCMag

[biz-engineer]

There's no way you can get any good shots at all these days without 150 MP. You need the Phase One IQ4 150MP. Here is the review: Phase One IQ4 150MP Review | PCMag

No so much the high pixel count that matter the most, especially for wide angle images. A 20x30" print viewed 7 feet away, image taken with DA 15 ltd at 100 ISO and f9 shows distracting image corners due to field curvature of that lens whether the image is captured with a 10Mp K10, 16Mp K5 or 24Mp K3, the blur of image corner projected by the lens is just sampled more precisely on the K3. BTW, 100Mp is only a 26x40" print at 300ppi, of course I'd prefer 50Mp on a sharp lens as opposed to 100Mp on bad lens. Even 24Mp is actually very good if the lens is excellent. IMO, 100Mp on such 33x44mm format is mostly usable in square crop mode, more like ~60 effective Mpixels. The bottom line is: most lenses have their resolution drops 15% to 50% around the edges, oversampling is doesn't help very much, the max print width from a 3:2 digital camera is about the same whether it is a 1:1 square print from center crop or a 3:2 print from the full sensor.

[TerryL]

I've done 30" x 20 " prints done by a pro lab from a 16MP K30, even less than 16MP considering I cropped most of them and you can't see any pixelation which is good considering they cost around £28 GBP each including postage.

100MP just means you can print just over twice this size which some people may do, pro work etc. but the prints would cost a fortune!

If you live in the USA, I’m looking for a good printing service.

[nocturnal]

If you live in the USA, I’m looking for a good printing service.

No, Ireland and I have to over from England in which I use 'digilab'

I'm sure USA users can advise you but it is a big country

[Bob 256]

To double the "resolution" you need 4 times the number of pixels. That camera only beats the K-1 by 1.7 times the resolution, not even two times - ho hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Now if you want some interesting reading, look up the "Giga-pixel camera project". I'm not sure if it's on Google (I don't have a link) but it was devised to capture a Gigapixel image in one shot (for real). Fantastic story of its development.

---

Last edited by Bob 256; 05-13-2020 at 02:57 PM.

[photoptimist]

To double the "resolution" you need 4 times the number of pixels. That camera only beats the K-1 by 1.7 times the resolution, not even two times - ho hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Now if you want some interesting reading, look up the "Giga-pixel camera". I'm not sure if it's on Google (I don't have a link) but it was devised to capture a Gigapixel image in one shot (for real). Fantastic story of its development.

Giga-pixel!?!?!?! Pffffft! That's low-rez, man!

Lets go for 3.2 gigapixels! 27 Impressive Numbers About The World?s Largest Digital Camera | B&H Explora

[TomB_tx]

In film days Eastman Kodak had a "Colorama" display in NYC Grand Central Station showing an 18 ft. x 60 ft. transparency. They originally used special large format cameras to enlarge to that size, but by the end they also made some from 35mm Kodachrome slides. Of course, people didn't go up to the transparency with a magnifying glass to check it, but if you could get an image that size from 35mm film, why is there a megapixel race now?

[surfar]

Just when you thought you had enough Mega Pixels

Some more information and comment here,Fuji recently stated they've only just fulfilled the initial demand for this camera.



GFX 100mp overview. - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

[lesmore49]

I'm happy with my K1's measly 36. something mega pixels.

[Rondec]

It is pretty easy to get more megapixels either by shooting panoramas, shooting superresolution photos, or simply up-resing photos using software like Topaz's Gigapixel. At the same time, I remain unconvinced that it makes much of a difference for most images. A 100 megapixel mediocre image is still a mediocre image. But maybe it has changed someone's life for the better...

[zapp]

100MP sells in reasonable numbers for Fuji. Decide for yourself if you dare to care.
Everything else has been said ever since 6MP became affordable.

[automorphism]

Way too many megapixels for me, and I definitely would not want to work with those files or buy the storage space for them.

[Wasp]

There may be a hundred million pixels, but it is still a 44 x 33mm sensor. Why not a full 645 sized one? I suppose even $10 000 is not enough for that.