LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

Who would use these cameras and for what?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Have you found the images that inspire you the most always have the most pixels?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Advertising and fashion, industrial, scientific, landscape, micro/macro, sports, you name it - anything you'd use a camera for - provided one has the very best lenses to use with either one. BTW, one is 45mp, the other is 61.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

These are the new cameras not out yet Gene. You are thinking of the Sony 7RlV and the canon R5.

User ID

Big big Big BIG BIGGEST mostest huge HUMONGABOUS bowl plus a gallon of clarified melted butter .....

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Someone with too much money. I would have no use for more than 36 MP in a FF. A 100MP Medium Format, yes.

User ID

One does NOT require “the very best lenses” to reap the rewards of high MP cameras, such as smooth tones, smaller halos, and reduced aliasing.

When it comes to 100MP imaging I’m really just speculating. The highest MP I’ve got on hand are 50 and 80MP.

Yes, you may see aberrations you never saw before but they were there all along even with your old camera.

Just wanted to get that out there while the butter is melting.

BebuLamar

Who? I think all different kinds of photographers use them. They are not too expensive. The fact that they have too many pixels doesn't matter. As long people can afford them they would use them.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

Seems there is a direct correlation between butter and megapixels? lol

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Nope some of my best images were taken with a Canon T5i and 18 megas. Of course my best images were taken with my Hasselblad and fp4 125 iso film. I still shoot with my R6 extremely carefully.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

I know what you mean. I have an old beat up 80D. Coupled with good light, being as close as possible and a good lens; the images match up with my friends R5 and A9ll. Of course I have to take more photos.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

To at least some extent, I believe that the manufacturers have created a "Higher and Higher Resolution Trap" that they now cannot escape. I have and use cameras with 10, 12, 21, 36, and 46 Mp. The truth is that there are lots of times when 46 Mp is just way too many. Nothing is gained, and there is simply no justification for the overhead of carrying the extra burden around. Of course there are others, like night sky photography (for me), where benefits of using the camera with the highest possible resolution are readily apparent in visibly separating the stars into individual points in the image.

I have found that the 21 Mp images from my D500 fall into the sweet spot of image size a surprising percent of the time. Fine/Large JPEGs will email without any problem, panoramas are easily and reliably stitched, and significantly large prints can be made when desired.

Of course, there are folks who do have legitimate need for higher resolution images all day long every day. But I don't think there are nearly as many of them as they think there are. If you think about it, downsampling an image can result in loss of image quality just like upscaling can, specifically when pixels at the border between two contrasting areas are discarded, resulting in an artifically created boundary.

So your question is quite valid. And the response from many of us by simply shrugging our shoulders is also valid. As far as the answer? "It's complicated."

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Think back to when you knew nothing about 30 megapixel sensors. Would you still want to be that person?

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

w/ parmesan?

Najataagihe

SALT !!!