Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

About a half-century ago - every self-respecting photographer, had in their arsenal - a) a View Camera b) a Twin-Lens Reflex Camera c) a miniature camera (then, referencing 35mm) d) a Medium-Format SLR - other than a TLR (if they could manage it) - and - perhaps, a pocket camera, of some sort. (Maybe, a Minox.)

In the late 80s - the first DSLR appeared - but, it didn't really catch on until some time later. In fact, it was the 21st Century - before things on the Digital Front - really became serious. And, then - in the span of just about 10-15 years - things got hard and heavy on the Digital Front. Now, just about EVERY new camera - is Digital - even Leicas, and Hasselblads. Sure, there are still some film cameras, around, but the bulk of all modern-day photography - takes place with the use of Digital Cameras - be they Full Format, DXI, MFT, 1", Bridge, or even - now - Medium Format, and there's even Digital Backs for those still using View Cameras.

Some of us have resisted this change. Others have gone with the flow. There's now acceptance - of the fact a 24MP camera - produces better resolution than every film camera ever made. And, yet - we now have cameras from Sony, Nikon and Canon - which have DOUBLE that Res, and Medium Format Cameras which even double THAT again. So, here's where we are. Fuji has just released a $10K 100MP camera - which is one quarter of the cost of a similar design from Hasselblad - granted Fuji's is a MILC and the Swedes have a DSLR - but, to all intents and purposes - the same output. Do we need such output? Really now - think about this! … Let's discuss this element, and have some objective viewpoints - can we?

Bob Smith Loc: Banjarmasin

Getting silly now I'm having trouble storing the raw images and had to buy another hard drive to store them

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Dynamic resolution has always followed resolution in megapixels, which is not a bad thing, but it usually at the cost of noise at higher ISO. I don't know if we will see any ground breaking improvements any more like going from film to digital, we might see incremental improvements and I bet it will be in the camera phone industry.

domcomm Loc: Denver, CO

A lot of that depends on if you're an "average Joe" photographer, and hobbyist, or a trained professional. It also depends on what your work requires. When I was producing 60" X 80" or 80" X 100" posters, every bit of quality was important.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Do we need it? Probably not, but those who want it and can afford it will buy it. I don't need a D750, but I have one and I like it. Technology advances gradually. If enough people don't like the new things, they die on the vine.

ELNikkor

for 99.9% of the photos taken, not necessary. Even 10 years ago when I would see friends setting their digital P/S at max res, filling up their SD cards and hard drives with photographic drivel that would never be printed or enlarged, I would tell them, "Just shoot at 500kb or 1mb, you'll never see the difference and save yourself all that storage space." A year ago, I chose the D750 over the D850 partially for that reasoning, (but also the 1/3 price!). The rare occasion that I might want all the extras the D850 offers would never have justified the extra cost, since I don't shoot for a living.

uhaas2009

I meed a photographer who shoots graduation Turing film time and today digital. If 500 people graduate and you using 36 frame film, just do the math- plus how many camera bodies do need-plus someone to load the film probably.......
I still have my first film camera but digital makes it way easier.......

AzShooter1 Loc: Surprise, Az.

I used film for years and had the opportunity to use one of the first digital cameras in the late '70s when I was in the Air Force. It was such low resolution and could only take about 12 pictures on the card but it was good enough for Shoot And Grin photos for the base newspaper.

Now I have a Nikon D 800e for the last few years. I have no need to upgrade because my largest photos are only 13 X 19 but I get to make some very nice blowups of small items in my pictures. I'm cheap I guess because I just can't see ( for me ) all the advantages of the new cameras but if I did it for a living I would get the best resolution possible.

Some phone cameras are getting great pictures but mine is just o.k. I still use my 800e.

BrHawkeye

I recall seeing my first demonstration of a digital camera in the late 1970s. Image was in color but pretty fuzzy. Then was in Camden, Maine, a few years later for a Nikon digital camera demonstration. The camera cost $20,000 and came with an attached hard drive that you clipped onto your belt. A group of photographers taking a summer course at Rockport was also being introduced to the new digital world. At one point, one of the photographers who for weeks had been out with her film camera and then back in the darkroom, could restrain herself no longer. "Where does the film go?" she asked.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Does anyone NEED to climb Mount Everest ??
.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is only my point of view. Do we need cameras with 50 or even 100 Mp. of resolution? Most probably not. Before the advent of modern dSLR cameras professionals were doing VERY WELL with cameras sporting 10 Mp. At the time I was helping a professional photographer, wedding photographer that only used Hasselblad medium format film cameras. He used ISO 400 film because it was dark inside many churches and because flash was not the answer for him in a majority of cases. I saw many of his 20x30 inch images that looked spectacular to me.

A couple of years later he sold all of his Hasselblad gear and bought a Canon camera that if I remember correctly had 8 or 10 Mp. sensor. First thing that fascinated him was the AF feature. He was getting old and manually focusing the Hasselblad was beginning to take its toll. Now the images were super sharp because they all were in focus. When I visited him in his studio he had a 20x30 enlargement of a bride that he had photographed at the Biltmore Hotel, here in Coral Gables. I was looking at the print and it was super sharp with absence of grain. I did not know he had sold his Hasselblads and made the comment that the images made by the Hasselblad were spectacular in quality, referring to the enlargement in his studio. He laughed and told me that the image I just saw was not from a Hasselblad but from a Canon dSLR camera. I could not believe my eyes.

24 Mp. are a lot of pixels. I seldom go to 20x30 inch enlargements but I know 24 Mp. are more than enough pixels for a quality enlargement that size. The only 20x30 inch enlargement I ever printed came from a Nikon D2H that had only 4.1 Mp. and all the details present in that image were indeed amazing. I know others will not agree with me but come to think of it the D70 that had something like 6 Mp. was a camera very capable of producing beautiful enlargements.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Bill 45

Pay 10k and up for a camera, you would have to be total nuts. A few years later it will end up in a yard sale for $100.00.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I guess I was not a self-respecting photographer back in the '50s. I had only a 35mm SLR and a speed graphic (similar to a view camera but not quite the same). No medium format, no twin lens, no pocket camera.

Stuck with the SLR until the '90s. Used digital around 1995, went digital in 1999. I guess that was going with the flow, although film was still pretty strong then.

Started at 1.2 MPx. When that one broke (under warranty) that model had gotten obsolete so the replacement was 3.3 MPx. Then I got a DSLR, 10 MPx. Then 12 MPx. Then 18, then 20. Got a D800e (36MPx) for high resolution purposes but it's a specialty body and doesn't get that much use.

1.2 MPx was enough so that I could photograph an 8.5x11 sheet of paper and read the print on it. Have not had any inclination to go above my current 36 MPx limit.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

For specialty purposes you could get specialty backs that would hold bulk film. Could go way more than 36 exposures.