TonyRam Loc: Saint Louis, MO, USA

A friend of mine asked a question regarding Digital Cameras, "Why 32 Megabyte?" he was referring to Sensors?

This morning I read about Sony's 61 Mb Sensor Camera to be released this Fall.

Your Comments Please.

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

megapixel.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

It is mega pixel, not megabyte. The higher mega pixel will give more detail to a raw file and is designed to give a better photograph, especially if you want to make larger prints. The down side is that you need to be a better photographer in order to take advantage of the higher mega pixels. It is a vicious circle.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Because sometimes, 31 Megabytes just isn't enough.

A hard drive would be described in MB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I think it is a sales ploy similar to that which happened a few years ago. The downside of more mpx on a same size sensor, is that the sensor becomes too crowded, this increases noise? Also "kit quality" lenses will probably give better results with less rather than more mpx. Top quality lenses may be needed. With higher mpx, camera shake is more likely - so you will need a tripod more often. A faster computer for processing would be needed, and a higher resolution monitor to see the difference, and probably a higher resolution printer. But if you like to crop away half of your frame then could be useful, but good photographers fill the frame.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This is a question like what is the TitterFace everyone is talking about?

As noted already "bytes" are not a measure of digital image sensors, nor are megabyte increments.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

32 megabytes is not much in the way of storage. 32 megapixels will give you really nice resolution digital images.
Why is Sony introducing a 61 megapixel camera? For one, because they can. Also, Canon has worn the 35mm megapixel crown for several years now with their 5DSr at around 51 megapixels. Do we really need the increased resolution? Depends on what you do with the images. Since the vast majority of digital images never make it past a computer screen, 61 megapixels would be a big waste. But, for those who need super high resolution, for what ever reason, are making very large prints of doing heavy croping, the more megapixels the merrier.
There are technology bouderies that must be resolved to put these high resolution sensors in consumer grade cameras. Canon has been working on super high resolution image sensors for some time. Sony certainly has the technical expertise to manufacturer and market these super high resolution cameras but what problems will these new high res cameras have? Hopefully Sony has worked out all the known bugs and are preparing to be the forerunner in a new resolution war. In the end, we the consumers benefit from all the advances in technology.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

[quote=In the end, we the consumers benefit from all the advances in technology.[/quote]

But do we? We will pay more for tech we don't need - and don't use. Just how many of us print larger than A3? Most don't get larger than A4! My pref is 7 x 5 - two to an A4 with a nice size border. 4/3 format of course. For me, with a 4/3 sensor, 16 mpx is great.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Yes, we do. How large you print is irrelevant. It's not about print size it's about improvements in image capture and image quality. You don't need to pay more for tech you don't need. Simply don't buy it. Stick to the lower end of available technology. Do you think Nikon sells more D850's than D3500's? Probably not.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

But Nikon are now dumping the whole 3000 and 5000 series. Very few captures get printed at all. Do you think that A4 size prints or smaller would produce any noticeable difference between a D850 and a D3500, provided the photographer is competent, of course, notwithstanding the fact that you are comparing full frame with crop sensor?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Oh what ever. It's not like any of this really matters.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Nice to know we agree.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

For those, who need it in their work 32 or 61 mega pixels is just fine. It will greatly increase the cost of everything. As for me I am quite happy with my older Canon and Nikon cameras and the 6.4 or so mega pixels they produce. I can easily send photos from these cameras to friends via e-mail. I don't think there is an e-mail service out there that could handle a 32 mega pixel photo. If you want 64 mega pixels then more power to you.

khorinek

The easiest way to understand Megapixels is to think of a digital photo as a group of colored dots. The more dots you put in a given square or rectangle, the more dense the color will be. That is what 32 megapixels is referring to. If you have a camera with a 24 megapixel sensor vs. a camera with a 32 megapixel sensor, the 32 megapixel photos will have more colored dots (pixels), thus more color, and more saturation per inch of whatever the photo is. Therefore, IF you increase the size of the original photo, like to a poster or bigger, you have more dots to cover the enlarged space. One thing you need to be aware of, a larger Megapixel photos will be larger in megabits too. My Canon EOS RP has a 24 megapixel sensor and the photos are 10-12 megabits in size (JPG). If you take a lot of photos, you will need a lot of space on a computer to store these large megapixel photos.

dick ranez

If you view your photos on a monitor or TV screen, it will make little to no difference. If you print your images smaller than 11X14, it will make little or no difference. If you print larger, it may make a difference but you may not notice it. It will make a difference in the processing time, the storage requirements and the general attitude, but it may not. It will give you "bragging" rights if you hang around with other photographers in person or on-line.