Do I need that many mega pixels? (Page 3): Yes, that 42 MP will bring out detail and allow for cropping but you better have good IS, steady hands, and/or stable tripod; also better low...

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Yes, that 42 MP will bring out detail and allow for cropping but you better have good IS, steady hands, and/or stable tripod; also better low light performance with a lower MP.

chaman

Dr.Nikon wrote:

Bill brings common sense into the picture .., yep ... (show quote)

You are oversimplfying this issue. He uses excellent lenses which contribute a lot to the quality you are referring to. Skill comes into it too. Ive seen equally detailed and clear images from some other cameras with less MP count. Its a weak argument from your part.

BebuLamar

I have a 16MP camera and it's good enough for anything I want to do except serious cropping. If you are really into cropping a lot then the more MP the better because when you crop you don't have as many pixels left.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

MikeMc wrote:

... Not a lot of difference in total cost of the top two options I'm considering: Sony a7iii and Sony a7Rii (yes that's a ii as I don't see that I need a iii) because there's no discount on the a7iii and I can get a $900 discount on the a7Rii with the 25-105mm G OSS lens, PLUS a $200 or $300 trade in allowance from my old Oly E10. But the trade in deal ends 3/31. ....

Do some research on the quality of that zoom. It may be more appropriate for use on the lower resolution sensor.

The price of the body is only the beginning. You may need to raise your expectations when it comes to lenses.

If you are seriously considering higher resolution sensors, there are almost no zoom lenses available that will do them justice. You should also be looking into high resolution prime lenses. You will find that they also have larger maximum apertures.

Your investment in high resolution lenses might quickly dwarf what you would be spending on the body.

MikeMc

Thanks, yes I'm aware of the lens cost. I'm not up for wasting money, but the $ is not a critical consideration, fortunately. A previous post here about Sony FF lens lead me to the 24-105mm f/4 G OSS lens to start which retails for $1298. I'd pass on the kit lens with the a7iii which I think is a 24-70mm f/3.5? I'm assuming that the quality of that 24-105mm G lens would suffice for either camera, the a7iii or the a7Rii.

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

Let’s just say..., for most on the HOG .., 24 megapixel is ample ...

The formula : Great shooting technique (The Photographer)+ A high 36-50 megapixel camera = Great Detail Shots .. posted once in a while ..

That being said ...a 16-24 megapixel camera can yield Great Shots .. I have seen them posed here every day ..

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

MikeMc wrote:

... I'd pass on the kit lens with the a7iii which I think is a 24-70mm f/3.5? I'm assuming that the quality of that 24-105mm G lens would suffice for either camera, the a7iii or the a7Rii.

I initially passed on the 24-70mm f/3.5 because I already planned to use my Leica and Zeiss lenses on my A7 II.

But there are situations where convenience trumps lens performance so I picked up a used one from KEH later.

As for the 24-105mm G lens, Caveat emptor. I would not consider it until it has been around long enough to get tested by an independent lab like DxOMark. Even then, I would only use it on my A7 II if it could come close to my primes.

Jim Bob

I’ve seen a number of shots on this site (some of my own if you will forgive this variance from modesty) that are from 24mp cameras that have as much detail as those of Regis. So don’t give me that bull. As I indicated at the outset, you don’t need 50mp. 24 will do virtually everything.

Jim Bob

chaman wrote:

You are oversimplfying this issue. He uses excellent lenses which contribute a lot to the quality you are referring to. Skill comes into it too. Ive seen equally detailed and clear images from some other cameras with less MP count. Its a weak argument from your part.

You’re right...again.

Jim Bob

rmorrison1116 wrote:

It's not up too me to tell someone how to spend their money, only offer useful advice.
The direct answer to the OP's question is no you don't but simply saying no without saying why isn't very useful and would more than likely be dismissed.

Useful to whom? There you go again substituting what may be useful to you for what may or may not be useful to the OP. You guys just can’t rid yourself of paternalism.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Dear god...the day I take advice from a Best Buy employee, is the day I’ve given up on life. Thank you very much, but I’ll do my own research.

To the OP the new a7iii would be what I would pick from that list based on your shooting criteria.

Jim Bob

Cdouthitt wrote:

Dear god...the day I take advice from a Best Buy employee, is the day I’ve given up on life. Thank you very much, but I’ll do my own research.

To the OP the new a7iii would be what I would pick from that list based on your shooting criteria.

Well that Geek Squad is pretty decent. But that camera squad sucks.

MikeMc

Jim Bob wrote:

Well that Geek Squad is pretty decent. But that camera squad sucks.

Depends on the store. I actually found a guy at the Best Buy San Jose Santana Row store, and another at the Mountain View store who seemed to know their stuff, and the models on display was impressive. I felt guilty though taking up their time knowing I'd NEVER buy anything from Best Buy.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

MikeMc wrote:

Debating between a Sony a7iii or a7Rii or a7Riii. ... (show quote)

Yes, you need as many FF mp as you can comfortably afford but not for all the obvious reasons that are always cited.
You need the Mp and to shoot RAW not for what we know today but what we don't know about the future. In 10, 15 or 25 years there will be technologies and post processing that we today have not even envisioned. The more you have the better the likelihood of being able of taking advantage of what the future will bring!!!
SS

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Jim Bob wrote:

Useful to whom? There you go again substituting what may be useful to you for what may or may not be useful to the OP. You guys just can’t rid yourself of paternalism.

I believe the first part of the sentence clearly indicates the lack of a paternalistic intent. As for the there you go again substituting what may be useful to me, I offered absolutely nothing that is useful to me, I'm not looking at buying a mega megapixel camera.