100 mp Camaras (Page 5): Short answer is....it isn't "needed" anytime, anywhere. Only an expensive status symbol.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

GeorgeL wrote:

Any thoughts on the Fujifilm gfx100 or phase one 100 plus mp Camaras? Why and when is such a high mp needed ?

Short answer is....it isn't "needed" anytime, anywhere. Only an expensive status symbol.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

davyboy wrote:

Look around you.most people on this web site are pixel chasers! 12 was awesome then 16 then 20 then 24 now what 35-47! 90 percent of people don’t need over 16-20 mega pixels. Good photographers will continue to make wonderful photos with 16-20 pixels. The rest? Just continue to chase them pixels

Some like to print there images large it does not mean they are all pixel peepers
And yes more mp mean cleaner print with much better color depth.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Looking forward to seeing actual videos of the output of still pics and videos on youtube. Maybe I'll still be here when used models will sell on ebay for about $1200.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

karno wrote:

Some like to print there images large it does not mean they are all pixel peepers
And yes more mp mean cleaner print with much better color depth.

Your second statement is so vague as to be useless.
Higher megapixels gives finer resolution, not "cleanliness" and "color depth".

Can monitors and printers even show the fineness of resolution that a 100 megapixel camera can record?

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

karno wrote:

Some like to print there images large it does not mean they are all pixel peepers
And yes more mp mean cleaner print with much better color depth.

How did they make large prints before when they only had say 20 megapixels? Would you settle for 100 megapixels if 200 were available? How much resolution is enough?

karno Loc: Chico ,California

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

But the typical car is maybe 150-200 horsepower today...that my very well relate to a 10 or 12mp camera...

Yes I understand that comparison it is much obvious
But the twist I am putting on that analogy is some one in public taking a 100 mega pic at full res hurts no one
But a 800 hp hellcat in public opened up endangers everyone.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

karno wrote:

Yes I understand that comparison it is much obvious
But the twist I am putting on that analogy is some one in public taking a 100 mega pic at full res hurts no one
But a 800 hp hellcat in public opened up endangers everyone.

Here's how to equate cameras and cars:

Horsepower over 200 (or even less) is useless for anything but racing, or imparting "status" on the owner .

The megapixel "race" is also giving us things that are useless too, while maybe imparting "status" on the owner.

If one wants to spend lots of money for "status", more power to them. The rest of us can talk about the foolishness of it.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

nadelewitz wrote:

Here's how to equate cameras and cars:

Horsepower over 200 (or even less) is useless for anything but racing, or imparting "status" on the owner .

The megapixel "race" is also giving us things that are useless too, while maybe imparting "status" on the owner.

If one wants to spend lots of money for "status", more power to them. The rest of us can talk about the foolishness of it.

Making broad statements about the need for more horsepower or more mega pixels, smacks of sour grapes.
There are times when more than is normally needed, for either, can save the day.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Rich1939 wrote:

Making broad statements about the need for more horsepower or more mega pixels, smacks of sour grapes.
There are times when more than is normally needed, for either, can save the day.

Another statement so vague as to be useless.
And attributing good sense and practicality to "sour grapes" is dumb too.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

nadelewitz wrote:

Another statement so vague as to be useless.
And attributing good sense and practicality to "sour grapes" is dumb too.

Broad emotion fueled generalities are what are useless. There have been times in my life that having more horsepower available than 'normally' needed has saved my butt and a larger format with finer grain has always had the ability to produce finer images. The fact that we are now speaking "digital" won't change that.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Rich1939 wrote:

Broad emotion fueled generalities are what are useless. There have been times in my life that having more horsepower available than 'normally' needed has saved my butt and a larger format with finer grain has always had the ability to produce finer images. The fact that we are now speaking "digital" won't change that.

Where will end? Would you settle for 200 megapixels? Give me a photographer.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

davyboy wrote:

Where will end? Would you settle for 200 megapixels? Give me a photographer.

It will only end when a new technology comes along that will replace today's. Constant improvement is necessary for continued growth

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Toment wrote:

Well said..
BTW, where to send that dollar?😀😀😀

Thanks for the offer. But I was joking. I really don't have a need for such a fast Mirrorless camera right now. Also, I'm am not a professional so I really can't justify the purchase.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

GeorgeL wrote:

Any thoughts on the Fujifilm gfx100 or phase one 100 plus mp Camaras? Why and when is such a high mp needed ?

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason other than astrophotography or other type of scientific photography that 100mp would be needed by the average photographer. Waste of storage, waste of time, waste of money - but if you want bragging rights - go for it.

ShooterRod

"But for the utmost quality and detail, most pros still rely on the good old film!"

Does anyone agree with this statement?

I never see film cameras anymore....not weddings, sporting events, boudoir photography (friend of a friend), people walking the streets shooting the sights, cruise ships, document photography...where are this film cameras in use?