Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

In article , Alfred Molon wrote:

Just wondering - is it mainly pros who do advertising photography,
wedding photographers or who else?

Is it the same people who at the moment are using medium format
cameras? And would a MF photographer switch over to one of these
small format, yet high res cameras?

Well, there was a stream of MF shooters that flocked around the Nikon D800 when
it was announced. But since then a lot of MF cameras have worked their way
towards the strengths of the D800, like ISO.

Medium Format isn't about megapixels, at least not only. It's about dynamic range
and skin tones. And there's still a way to go for full format cameras until they
match that.

Plus, MF has so much superior glass available to them as well. While Nikon has a
lot of really nice glass, it's not comparable to top of the line lenses from
Hasselblad and the likes.

--
Sandman

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

Just wondering - is it mainly pros who do advertising photography,
wedding photographers or who else?

Is it the same people who at the moment are using medium format cameras?
And would a MF photographer switch over to one of these small format,
yet high res cameras?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

On 27/06/2015 6:47 p.m., Sandman wrote:
In article , Alfred Molon wrote:

Just wondering - is it mainly pros who do advertising photography,
wedding photographers or who else?

Is it the same people who at the moment are using medium format
cameras? And would a MF photographer switch over to one of these
small format, yet high res cameras?

Well, there was a stream of MF shooters that flocked around the Nikon D800 when
it was announced. But since then a lot of MF cameras have worked their way
towards the strengths of the D800, like ISO.

Medium Format isn't about megapixels, at least not only. It's about dynamic range
and skin tones. And there's still a way to go for full format cameras until they
match that.

Plus, MF has so much superior glass available to them as well. While Nikon has a
lot of really nice glass, it's not comparable to top of the line lenses from
Hasselblad and the likes.

What a load of piffle.
Patsy question - followed by incompetent answer.

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

Well, there was a stream of MF shooters that flocked around the Nikon D800
when
it was announced. But since then a lot of MF cameras have worked their way
towards the strengths of the D800, like ISO.

Medium Format isn't about megapixels, at least not only. It's about
dynamic range
and skin tones. And there's still a way to go for full format cameras
until they
match that.

Plus, MF has so much superior glass available to them as well. While Nikon
has a
lot of really nice glass, it's not comparable to top of the line lenses
from
Hasselblad and the likes.

--
Sandman

It seems to me that the main advantage of the medium format of physical size
of imager is in the area of low light photography - but curiously studio
photogs don't need that! As for full framers going up to 42 and 50 mp, that
is just not needed. I thought I was pushing it with my 24 mp Sony. Gorgeous,
grand, sharp, wonderful photos enlarged to any sane size you could need,
including 65 and 75 inch 4k screens - which are using only 8 mp screen
resolution! Beyond that all you are doing is increasing the file sizes and
noise.

My personal opinion. Don't know if any studies have been done.

Gary Eickmeier
Sony a77 APS-C 24mp, printing 13 x 19 regularly and projecting 55" 4k
Sony FDR-AX100 4k (8mp) video camcorder, gorgeous on 55" screen (1 inch
imager can also shoot 20mp stills)

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

On Jun 28, 2015, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 26 June 2015 23:22:51 UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
Just wondering - is it mainly pros who do advertising photography,
wedding photographers or who else?

Is it the same people who at the moment are using medium format cameras?
And would a MF photographer switch over to one of these small format,
yet high res cameras?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

We need 100mp APS sensors and the lenses to support them. Honest.

Says Rich with tongue stuffed firmly in his cheek.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

On 28/06/2015 3:35 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message
...

Well, there was a stream of MF shooters that flocked around the Nikon D800
when
it was announced. But since then a lot of MF cameras have worked their way
towards the strengths of the D800, like ISO.

.... but still cost a fortune relative to the image quality improvement
gain possible.

Medium Format isn't about megapixels, at least not only. It's about
dynamic range
and skin tones. And there's still a way to go for full format cameras
until they
match that.

They were actually beating MF for many years.

Plus, MF has so much superior glass available to them as well. While Nikon
has a
lot of really nice glass, it's not comparable to top of the line lenses
from
Hasselblad and the likes.

All very nice, until you need an ultra-wide lens or a long telephoto, a
stabilised lens, or a focus system which works on moving subjects, and
without half-arsed workarounds to try to compensate for only having one
central focus point like the H4D, or end up with a so-called MF body
like the Pentax 645Z which is "severely cropped MF".

Yes - there can be advantages - but lets get this right. You half and
quarter-frame fanboys try to use an arguments to justify why MF format
has advantages over Full-Frame, but reject the same argument if it's
ever used to justify why Full-frame sensors are better than crop
sensors. A 645Z has only 66% more imaging surface area than FX. A FX
camera has ~133% more imaging surface area than DX crop sensor. It's
not rocket science.

--
Sandman

It seems to me that the main advantage of the medium format of physical size
of imager is in the area of low light photography - but curiously studio
photogs don't need that! As for full framers going up to 42 and 50 mp, that
is just not needed. I thought I was pushing it with my 24 mp Sony. Gorgeous,
grand, sharp, wonderful photos enlarged to any sane size you could need,
including 65 and 75 inch 4k screens - which are using only 8 mp screen
resolution! Beyond that all you are doing is increasing the file sizes and
noise.

My personal opinion. Don't know if any studies have been done.

Gary Eickmeier
Sony a77 APS-C 24mp, printing 13 x 19 regularly and projecting 55" 4k
Sony FDR-AX100 4k (8mp) video camcorder, gorgeous on 55" screen (1 inch
imager can also shoot 20mp stills)


Good for you.
24mp APS-c has the same pixel density as 55MP full-frame, but all other
things being equal will collect (more than) twice as much light.

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

In article , Me
wrote:

24mp APS-c has the same pixel density as 55MP full-frame, but all other
things being equal will collect (more than) twice as much light.

that's backwards. the 55mp full frame collects twice as much light than
the 24 mp crop sensor.

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

On 29/06/2015 2:01 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:

24mp APS-c has the same pixel density as 55MP full-frame, but all other
things being equal will collect (more than) twice as much light.

that's backwards. the 55mp full frame collects twice as much light than
the 24 mp crop sensor.

True. My fault for not proof-reading my own post. Not that it really
matters, as most of the folks posting in this thread have fabricated a
case for themselves to claim that what they're using is the perfect
compromise for their own needs, then nobody else needs anything better.
I love the image quality I get from a D800E, 16x24 prints from my R3880,
with some leeway to crop/rotate. Can't see myself going back to using
APS-C ever really, so long as pixel count from a crop is high enough,
then the only thing to be saved is a small amount of cost for the body -
well and truly offset by the need for expensive half-frame lenses, and
very little weight. While I won't be rushing to get a higher MP FX
camera - I don't think that 36, 42, or 50mp is "overkill".

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

On 29/06/2015 2:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 28 June 2015 15:41:37 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 28, 2015, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 26 June 2015 23:22:51 UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
Just wondering - is it mainly pros who do advertising photography,
wedding photographers or who else?

Is it the same people who at the moment are using medium format cameras?
And would a MF photographer switch over to one of these small format,
yet high res cameras?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

We need 100mp APS sensors and the lenses to support them. Honest.

Says Rich with tongue stuffed firmly in his cheek.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Oh I'm not kidding. I would buy one for sure. I wouldn't care if it really wasn't good above 800 ISO. The sheer resolution would be great to experiment with.

I get the feeling that the A7RII has been designed with video-centric
needs (just above 2x oversampling at 4k, the "BSI" seems to have been
prompted by a wish/need to increase conductor track size on the sensor
for faster readout etc).
It wouldn't surprise me if Sony/Nikon have something else coming - with
more megapixels - 36-42 is barely visible to the eye at any print size,
36-50 should be (22 - 50 in Canon's case is really quite significant).
One issue with megapixels is that shot noise increases on a "per pixel"
basis at the same ISO (but on on a "full frame" basis).
This means that lossless compression efficiency is reduced, and lossy
compression (incl jpeg) has a lot more work to do. There's a
disproportionate increase in file size as megapixels increase for
lossless or lossy compression for an image taken of the same subject at
the same ISO. Likewise, an FX image and an APS-C image of the same
subject and taken at the same ISO, with the same pixel count and
compression setting, the APS-C image will have a larger file size.
This may be why some high pixel count cameras have lower in-camera
maximum ISO setting than their lower pixel equivalents.

Canon 50MP and Sony 42MP - who needs these cameras?
 

In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Sandman:
Well, there was a stream of MF shooters that flocked around the
Nikon D800 when it was announced. But since then a lot of MF
cameras have worked their way towards the strengths of the D800,
like ISO.

Medium Format isn't about megapixels, at least not only. It's
about dynamic range and skin tones. And there's still a way to go
for full format cameras until they match that.

Plus, MF has so much superior glass available to them as well.
While Nikon has a lot of really nice glass, it's not comparable
to top of the line lenses from Hasselblad and the likes.

It seems to me that the main advantage of the medium format of
physical size of imager is in the area of low light photography -
but curiously studio photogs don't need that!

And, as I said, digital medium format cameras are notoriously bad in low light.

As for full framers going up to 42 and 50 mp, that is just not
needed. I thought I was pushing it with my 24 mp Sony. Gorgeous,
grand, sharp, wonderful photos enlarged to any sane size you could
need,

Only problem is, many professional photographers don't use "sane" sizes. In fact,
there are plenty of photographers out there that don't think medium format
resolutions are enough, and use scanning backs to capture images of over 300 MP
in large format cameras.

including 65 and 75 inch 4k screens - which are using only 8
mp screen resolution!

Yeah, pretty bad example. A monitor is a low resolution device when it comes to
high resolution photography.

Beyond that all you are doing is increasing the file sizes and noise.

Only if 8MP is all you ever need. If I delivered 8MP prints to my clients, they
wouldn't hire me again. :)

My personal opinion. Don't know if any studies have been done.

Resollution isn't only about printability, sometimes it's about being able to
crop an image. We have a regular here that owns a 36MP Nikon D800 and still use a
teleconverter for his long lenses, when all he could do was crop the file in post
and not being limited by the converter

--
Sandman