Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

To each his own.

I feel that MPs are over rated. I have a FF camera that that has 16MP and an APS-C camera that has 24MP they both take great pictures.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Paul, that is not correct - IT'S NOT A MICRO FOUR THIRDS SENSOR - Fuji uses an APS-C sensor with a 1.5x crop factor just like Nikon. Micro Four Thirds cameras , which I own and use, have a 2x crop sensor.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

This may or may not be the case. When Canon first introduced the 5DS/5DSR, I personally had no intention of buying one, until I had the opportunity to use one, a 5DSR. I couldn't believe the detail in the images. I took some photos of birds and I couldn't believe the intricate details in the feathers. I could see the rachis and individual barbs of the feathers with such amazing detail it was almost like I was using a macroscope. I was impressed and decided I'd get the 5DSR as soon as I could work it into the budget. Happy birthday to me.

Bottom line, the 5DSR is a great camera, but I use my 5D mk IV far more often.

What were we talking about?!

Photocraig

Lets remember that really huge images like Billboards are usually not photographic reproductions. They are lithographic processed paper that originate as photographs that are then converted to Printed Media. The process is decidedly different. Designed to be vied from 10's of feet away, often at automobile speed--certainly walking speed. It is a variation going back to the invention of miniature camera formats. That started to refer to cameras capturing original film images as large as 11" x 14" and moving down the scale to 35mm. Less than 10 years ago, the best digital resolution from a camera or camera back couldn't begin to resolve an image as well as a 35mm negative or positive. The original FULL FRAME DSLR the Canon EOS 5D has 12 megapixels. Yet there was no shortage of billboards, posters, full page spread advertisements and murals and forever young and beautiful bride presentations.

Sure bigger is better, more is even more better. But the end purpose of producing a quality image reproduction is well within the state of the art as we knew it yesterday. The new bigger better and WAY more expensive bodies and lenses make it easier to capture normal images and possible to capture images at the extremes of dynamic range, very low light or insanely fine details. A very high percentage of very good enthusiasts and and a majority of working pros will never need or use those capabilities. A well exposed image, properly framed, composed, focused and processed by a skilled photographer will suit 99% of the needs they or their clients will put before them. In those few cases the use of the fine equipment rental companies will prove very cost-effective.

SO let's all relax with our modest megapixel, full, smaller and smaller-yet sensor cameras. Often over the years, the most expensive, latest and greatest gear was introduced to meet the extreme requirements of fast sequences, frame rates, large buffers, wide apertures with optics to match etc. To sell the volumes needed to keep the to prices within the atmosphere, these extremes from a 12 MP Full Frame, or 50 MP's or 14 FPS or f1.0 lenses.

The best way to make a mediocre image MORE mediocre is to produce it at max resolution and enlargement. I beleive the best way to spend my now limite money and time is to learn to make the pest photographs I cah with the equipment I own.

SS319

And I can remember in the 80s the people winning photo contests with a Pentax K-100 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. But people still bought AE1s, A1s, F1s and Minoltas and Nikons and other fancy high end cameras.

No one is telling anyone that they have to have a Hasslebaad 100mp, and no one is telling anyone they should only buy 14.31MP cameras with only the kit lenses. The whole basis of a capitalistic society is that the consumer decides what they want and what the parameters of their decision tree consists of. I will never accept that I should only buy anything that someone tells me I should buy and I should give the rest of my money to Comrad Grizninski or to the poor or to... anyone.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

You obviously didn't read my mea culpa

grizrev

Well said, Photocraig! There are other processes available to create large billboard displays from normal photos! You don't need a big expensive camera for large beautiful reproductions! As you say, "end purpose of producing a quality image reproduction is well within the state of the art as we knew it yesterday. The new bigger better and WAY more expensive bodies and lenses make it easier to capture normal images and possible to capture images at the extremes of dynamic range, very low light or insanely fine details. A very high percentage of very good enthusiasts and and a majority of working pros will never need or use those capabilities. A well exposed image, properly framed, composed, focused and processed by a skilled photographer will suit 99% of the needs they or their clients will put before them. In those few cases the use of the fine equipment rental companies will prove very cost-effective... Often over the years, the most expensive, latest and greatest gear was introduced to meet the extreme requirements of fast sequences, frame rates, large buffers, wide apertures with optics to match etc.". How much time do most photographers spend taking shots in situations that have "extreme requirements?" How many times do most of us try to capture images at the extremes of dynamic range in almost blackout conditions? Do we really need extremely fine details when fine details work very well? You are right -- most very good enthusiasts and working pros do not need or use the extreme capabilities of high end cameras. The average photographer buys them simply for status and bragging rights -- "see what I can afford" and "this is evidence that I am a serious and great photographer." Any capable and well prepared photographer doesn't need fast frame sequences, frame rates and big buffers to capture great shots. Those capabilities are primarily for lazy photographers who want the camera to up the probability of getting one fantastic shot. That does away with the challenge of upping one's own skills.

Of course, as the next comment observes, no one can tell us what camera we must buy, or how much money we can throw away unnecessarily, or how profligate we can become while ignoring true needs. My question is simply how much "mega" do we really need to get and reproduce excellent and pro level photos? I still think the cameras I mentioned are representative of the maximum lengths we really need to go.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Well, not to seem unfriendly or anything, but the only response I can come up with to your nonsense is: "Stuff It". Who are you to be telling anyone how to spend their money? Who are you to claim that people you have never met are lazy or "ignoring true needs" because they bought camera gear that you don't think they should have? We all buy our gear for any number of reasons and many of us buy more then we need. So what? In my experience here on the Hog the members are overwhelmingly fiscally responsible and certainly don't need lecturing from you on how to spend their money or how to pursue their interest in photography.

JPL

You are right, more is not always needed. And that is why camera sensors have been getting smaller and smaller from the beginning of photography. The old large format cameras had film sizes that were equal to thousands or millions of megapixels. But today in the electronic world the upper limit is about 200 megapixels and the majority of cameras have less than 20 megapixels if we include the most popular cameras today, the smartphones.

I would not consider a few cameras that some of us buy that have around 30-50 megapixels on a full frame sensor as a trend towards more and more megapixels or bigger and bigger sensors. You talk just like the typical American communist that wants to control everything and does not want any freedom from "one size fits all" thinking You must be a member of one of the leading American communist parties, either a democrat or republican.

grizrev

Sorry if I hit a nerve! The purpose of this post is not to lecture anyone on how they should spend their money. I certainly would never tell anyone that I think they shouldn't be entitled to have the camera equipment they have freely chosen! All of us are free to spend our money for whatever reasons or purposes we choose. I also agree that I have found from the posts of this board that members are very frugal and financially responsible. It is actually for that reason that I asked the question. You can spend for whatever purposes you choose, but if your specific purpose is to be able to take pro level photos, the question simply is how much camera "mega" do you really need for that purpose? The corollary question then would be, is it possible that people may be spending more than necessary on camera outfits to achieve that particular purpose? I do apologize for using the term "lazy." I simply meant that it is no doubt easier to let a high end camera do work that we could actually do with less complicated cameras. There is nothing wrong with that, any more than it is easy to get a lot of great shots with the automatic setting on a camera. That actually works in the majority of situations. Mea culpa!

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

The E-M5 II is reasonably close to being the perfect camera for me with the 14-150 lens, although it is somewhat big for a guy with small hands who can place chip components on circuit boards without tweezers and cannot throw a football properly. Still, I can carry it fine without a strap - couldn't say that about a Nikon D4something or Canon 1DXYZ.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

I get what you are asking, when I started out in digital, my first camera was 1.3 mp. I had to be satisfied with the images. my next was 10 mp and I got damn good blow ups. I've since learned that big pixels are more sensitive and offer lower noise. if I wanted to surpass asa 12.5 film, i'd want a aps-c sensor with 100mp where the pixels tiny,super sensitive, and offered really low noise. maybe one day someone will develop an aps-c sensor that fits those specs.

cthahn

Anther waste of time reading.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Some people simply enjoy using or even improving products of ever evolving technological advances. To them it's just plain fun. For some it's cameras, for others it may be computers, software, televisions, sound systems, microscopes, telescopes, bicycles, building materials, electric cars, or rockets that take payloads into space. Even tree huggers and Canadians do it. I have to ask: if that's how some want to spend their money, should anyone deny them? I am reminded of something I learned when I was looking for my first house and having bought and lived in it for some years. I found myself guilty of judging others with bigger places to be excessively materialistic while feeling fortunate and grateful that I managed to surpass prior circumstances. I became my own private judge of what constitutes materialism. I also observed htat others maintain their own sliding scale of the definition of excess. Human pride can be a subtle thing. If you like discussing your L glass and home solar electrical system at cocktail parties, have a ball, I say. If you really enjoy making prints or otherwise sharing scenes that are much easier to do only with decent gear, all the better. Last time I checked, it's still more or less a free country. However, I am also reminded of a statement I heard from a congresswoman several years ago. This quote is very close to what she said: "Anyone who can afford to drive around in the sixty-five thousand dollar automobile is not paying enough taxes." This struck me as a very scary (even though my cars are worth less than most cameras discussed here--just not my thing.) f you ponder for just a minute or less about that type of political belief, and if it continues to take hold in Washington, then this is my advice to tech-loving amateurs: get your medium format cameras and pro lenses now and hide them! Sure, they may be obsolete soon, but that's life as long as selling pro equipment to the mere amateur is not illegal. (Maybe thats' what we need: camera control!) Someday you may have to present your photographers union card or government issued photographers license to make such a purchase. By the way, is there a rule for megapixel limit or lens price based on your current profession? Hopefully it's not based on ability. I would also like to ask, who should decide these things, X-T2 owners? Actually, I am looking to buy one. Maybe I will get to be the judge again.