100 megapixels - overkill-Canon R5S-Sony 7RV
May 18, 2021 19:12:19 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Someone with too much money. I would have no use for more than 36 MP in a FF. A 100MP Medium Format, yes.
For a medium format user I guess that makes sense, the smaller handier camera has a different purpose if you own both.
Since my 50MP FF serves as my “medium format” or mini view camera, it gets used *only* in that way. For all other purposes I use much less cumbersome 24MP FF, or smaller, bodies.
The 50MP FF is more cumbersome cuz it has a grip for extra battery time due to mostly live view usage. There are more elegant high MP solutions, but this was cheap and I don’t need it every day :-)
May 19, 2021 05:29:44 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Think back to when you knew nothing about 30 megapixel sensors. Would you still want to be that person?
Someone once said, "Ignorance is BLISS?" LOL
May 19, 2021 06:14:33 #
w00dy4012
Loc: Thalia, East Virginia
LEWHITE7747 wrote:
Who would use these cameras and for what?
If I made my living as a photographer, I'd want one. But, since I don't I won't get excited about them.
May 19, 2021 06:26:41 #
Cameras with so many megapixels are very useful to professional photographers. It does not mean that those same photographers cannot do as well with a camera with less megapixels. I am strictly an amateur photographer but at a time I was shooting weddings with a 12 megapixels camera. I never had anyone complain about the quality of the prints.
I am using a Nikon D610 with 24 megapixels that for my needs is more than enough. I also use Olympus M43 cameras with 17 megapixels and I get excellent quality prints. If anyone is in need of 45 or 60 megapixels why not but the majority of photographers will do very well with 24 megapixels.
I am more than satisfied with 17 megapixels.
I am using a Nikon D610 with 24 megapixels that for my needs is more than enough. I also use Olympus M43 cameras with 17 megapixels and I get excellent quality prints. If anyone is in need of 45 or 60 megapixels why not but the majority of photographers will do very well with 24 megapixels.
I am more than satisfied with 17 megapixels.
May 19, 2021 06:32:03 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
User ID wrote:
Big big Big BIG BIGGEST mostest huge HUMONGABOUS bowl plus a gallon of clarified melted butter .....
WHAT IS POPCORN!!
May 19, 2021 07:24:46 #
What better way to take advantage of the incredibly sharp and contrasty lenses being produced today?
No need for super high MP cameras ten years ago, because the lenses could not resolve that amount of detail...but the newer (expensive) ones can.
Besides the processor tech is always advancing...
The ability to super crop and still have serious detail matches up very well with wildlife and macro photography.
No need for super high MP cameras ten years ago, because the lenses could not resolve that amount of detail...but the newer (expensive) ones can.
Besides the processor tech is always advancing...
The ability to super crop and still have serious detail matches up very well with wildlife and macro photography.
May 19, 2021 07:46:00 #
LEWHITE7747 wrote:
Who would use these cameras and for what?
================
LE
Stop and think, 100 megapixels in a camera similar to what we call the DSLR Format, instead of the medium-format like 👍the Hasselblad, you don't have to pay $40,000 for it.
In my younger years, I owned the Hassy 500c, and the only reason I don't own the digital version is, because of cost.
Yes, there is a market for it yes, I think I would buy one.
Cheers
George Veazey
########
May 19, 2021 07:48:40 #
As long as the noise on these new cameras continues to improve along with the pixel count I say bring it on. But anything above 20 megapixels is more than I need for wedding, portrait and non commercial real estate. I’d rather see a noise level war between manufacturers instead of a mega pixel war.
May 19, 2021 07:50:29 #
May 19, 2021 07:52:17 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Have you found the images that inspire you the most always have the most pixels?
======
CHC_CANON
The next argument will be, I don't need a 100 megapixel camera because, I can use modern technology, such as Photoshop or Lightroom or Gigapixel AI, to enhance my images and make them at least twice their size, if not larger
Just saying, that will be next...
My position is ~~ if they build it oh, they will come or if they build it, yes they will buy it.
Cheers
George Veazey
#####
May 19, 2021 07:52:56 #
We will now see pretty much the same comments we have seen when we went to auto exposure, auto focus, jumped from film to digital, from 2mp to 5, 10, 24, 47, etc. If we live long enough we'll see that 100mp will be the norm.
Innovation is always a good conversation starter.
---
Innovation is always a good conversation starter.
---
May 19, 2021 08:01:53 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Bill_de wrote:
We will now see pretty much the same comments we have seen when we went to auto exposure, auto focus, jumped from film to digital, from 2mp to 5, 10, 24, 47, etc. If we live long enough we'll see that 100mp will be the norm.
Innovation is always a good conversation starter.
---
Innovation is always a good conversation starter.
---
Just remember...uncompressed 14 bit raw files from such a camera will be just about 200MB. Each.
May 19, 2021 08:04:03 #
May 19, 2021 08:07:03 #
On the road to success, there's no traffic jams on the extra mile, but plenty of cameras that don't have 100MP sensors.
May 19, 2021 08:24:04 #
When using my 6mp D40, set at jpeg small/basic (>500kb!), I get all the image quality I need when copying family archives, without the huge file sizes. On the screen, or an 8x10, they look the same as the original. (That camera also does one thing my D750 can never do, synch with a flash at 1/500 sec!)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.