sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I'm waiting for one to come out with bacon because everything is better with bacon..!!😁

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Success has a lot to do with luck, but it also involves using the camera with the most pixels.

Chris63 Loc: Central WI

There must be some king of an optimal pixel "density" on the sensor (pixels per square inch). I am tolad too many is not good.

grahamfourth

Is the cleanliness of the amplifier gain an issue? Fewer pixels means larger pixels, hence more signal (perhaps better for fast moving objects?) But if the amplifier is clean enough then it seems S/N is no longer an issue. So, returning to my initial question, do manufacturers quantify the gain in such a way that we can compare sensor to sensor?

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Same here. My Nikon D50 is 6mp and I shoot Jpeg fine/large and flash syncs at 1/500 sec. My DSLR range from 6mp to 24mp with 10 and 12 in between. I also get all the image quality I need.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

But also remember in the famous short story where that quote originated, the blind wanted to "fix" the one-eyed man by blinding him.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Yes, but to get the same quality would require some form of new technology. It is a little like comparing 1", 4/3rds, APS-C, FF, and MF cameras now except the pixel level is higher. 100mp is way overkill for just 8X10 prints and a 100mp is not going to be cheap.

And one of the cheaper ways to 80mp RAW today is sensor shift like my Olympus. This gives one "bigger" more robust pixels to determine an image than actually putting smaller pixels on the same size sensor. Of course the disadvantage is action images or images with some movement. This calls for actual pixels, not sensor shift.

This comes down to the question of cost / benefit ratio which is different for each photographer. If one never usually crops and never prints larger than 30X40, 20mp can be quite adequate. But at the professional end, full frames are going to try and get the medium format photographers to come to full frame to increase the full frame market share. And if a pro takes a quick shot with a good but small image, he can crop to get the "money shot" that is there.

As the overall market declines a little further before possibly stabilizing, market share and the number of professionals willing to spend for that 100mp becomes tight. At some point they will make more different level pixel cameras than they do now to meet the various level of demand of both the professionals and the enthusiasts. And for some pros, especially those that only cater to magazines, they must justify buying an expensive 100mp camera when a good 30mp will meet their needs just fine.

So the answer is, yes, the manufacturers have to quantify the gain in such a way that we can compare sensor to sensor. That will be very important to sales and their bottom line in this market.

Charles GS

I agree , a 100MP is a bit much, I stated earlier that years ago I had 16x20 and 24x36 prints made from 8MP and a 10 MP camera. The prints were amazing! I would not want a 100 MP camera, can you imagine the computer processing power needed to process such ling files!

User ID

FX didn’t sell well as rollfilm. It endured as 135.

Seems that FX135 was an enabler for the mini format but larger cameras just didn’t benefit by it. The market demise of FX120 shows that photographers seeking higher resolution did not go to insane extremes.

Acoarst there were a few extremists who did mourn the passing of FX120. Today their digital progeny would more likely be lusting after a plus-size 100MP camera.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

As long as those cameras are selling, companies will keep making them, People must be using them for something. What do people use Porsche's and Ferrari's for? Would i like to shoot with a 100 megapixel camera for a day or drive a Porsche or Ferrari? Hell yea!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When we read stories about successful photographers, have you noticed how often their cameras have more pixels than yours?

Canisdirus

Noise reduction is now very good ala software like Topaz...so pixel density doesn't mean as much as it did anymore.
While it is natural to concentrate on just the headline (100MP'S!), it's all about the bigger picture (pun).
The Processors have gotten much better as well...at least in FF cameras...where most of the R&D is going these days.
Camera companies like Canon and Sony...know what they are doing...big time.
They aren't going to release 100+/- Mp cameras without the tech to make them pop and wow.
When they come...they will make a big splash.
APS-C dedicated cameras will be redundant at some point...since the new FF cameras already give it to you now... built in.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If I were to win a Powerball, one of the first things I'd purchase is a Hasselblad H6D-400C, along with a few lenses.

As for the ones you listed, no interest.
--Bob

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I agree. All the different sizes have there pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. I would buy a Hasselblad too if I won the Powerball. Since I have not won the Powerball either, I will settle for an easier to travel with camera. I do not consider full frame cameras as an "easier to travel with camera" since three lenses, flash, and a body do not fit under the airline seat in front of me, still leaving room for my feet, and a full frame will not be considered a personal item as opposed to a carry-on.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A good photograph is not explained with words, it just needs at least thirty megapixels.