When is enough enough? 50MP Sensor in the new A7RII ??

[Jay]

The rumors are getting very hot on the 50mp A7rII, and after realizing that my 36mp Sony A7r is not really necessary for me in my current life anyway, I wonder? Who wants this and what lenses will even realistically support it fully other than that new Tamron I saw the other day? The 55mm f/1.8 lens prolly will do a great job I bet!

source Sonyalpharumors:

I don't need more than 36mp but do you?



Jay

[antony]

Well, the world is moving towards higher and higher resolution.
Retina Display, and 5K Retina Display. 4kTV.

50MP? On the way catching up with Phase One's medium format camera (with IQ2 digital back) is 80MP?

[DavidC]

The 36 mp on my a7r is more than enough for me. 50 might be good if you want to print mural-size enlargements, but I don't.

[Obelix]

I don't need one.
Pixel density on APS-C sized sensor at 24 MP is greater than 50MP on FF sensor, so I don't understand why lenses couldn't handle it.

[Jay]

I don't need one.
Pixel density on APS-C sized sensor at 24 MP is greater than 50MP on FF sensor, so I don't understand why lenses couldn't handle it.

Is it really? I guess it won't matter then at all Sorry!

Jay

[Obelix]

Is it really? I guess it won't matter then at all Sorry!

Jay

Yes, you would get 22MP image in crop mode from 50MP FF sensor
And if you up scaled 1" type sensor from RX100 to FF size you would have 200MP sensor

[Cinjith]

Now that is some information Obelix. Thanks for the details .

[Lucille]

I need it, and can't live without it, should be 100mp instead of a wimpy 50.

[Panza]

Personally, I want a high MP sensor north of 50. I use my images to create wallpaper backgrounds for own personal enjoyment. At 1080x5760, 4000x6000 frames from the A7 have little room for play, crop, and compression.

[antony]

Personally, I want a high MP sensor north of 50. I use my images to create wallpaper backgrounds for own personal enjoyment. At 1080x5760, 4000x6000 frames from the A7 have little room for play, crop, and compression.

You can always make panorama-like shots, multiple shots and stitching them together.

[WillHucks]

I'm happy with the 24mp that the A7 offers.

[wilmeland]

I definitely don't consider myself knowledgeable & am trying to learn as much as I can about all aspects of photography. Since this is in the technical realm, which I'm admittedly weak on, just wondering at what point do you reach "oversaturation of pixels" on a given sensor size. I guess what I mean is if you're going from 24 to 50 on the same sized sensor, can the imaging quality of smaller pixels really be equivalent to the larger ones on the sensor with same dimensions. I guess I thought that this was part of the advantage for me when I went from the tiny point and shoot sensors to the APS-C sensors in the current cameras I'm using (the larger sensor size). Isn't this why the A7s has a better signal to noise ration, due to larger (but fewer) pixels?
Guess technological advances in pixel design could at some point double the # of effective pixels on the same sized sensor and make these pixels just as efficient, but before I'd get excited, I'd think we need to hear about that new design. Not that I could afford it, but still interested to know what the "cutting edge" is.
Just drawing from my limited experience with several past camera purchases. Watched the pixel competition for years with regard to point and shoots and found that more did not necessarily equate to better imaging in that realm.

Willie

[leuius]

My take on this is that 24MP is good for general purpose stuff. The image size off camera is manageable and provides enough possibility for most printing.

Where I see an advantage of higher resolution is for cropping into the image without degrading quality (assuming the optics provides sufficient IQ). If I had a 50MP+ camera, I would concentrate on a few superlative and shorter focal primes and defer finer/final composition after the fact if I needed too. No need to zoom, no need for bigger than required lens size/weight, smaller inventory, access to fast apertures for bokeh/low-light, etc.

The indirect effects are also interesting to consider...

Cheers,

[asonyjohn]

And in 10 years this question will be asked again but about is 75 or 100 too much? We made our life this way.

[jimep]

There are trade-offs naturally. I recently bought the APS-C a6000 for the advantages, IMO, that that format offers. I bought the a6000 and fell in love with it right away. One of the big advantages is smaller, lighter lenses with greater zoom range. I am considering shifting much of my work, especially street photography and hiking away from the Canon 5DMII just on kit weight considerations alone.

Full frame has inherently less noise for the same pixel count, because of quantum(i.e. photon) effects, but newer APS-C processors seem to be doing a good job of controlling this. Image processors seem to be doing a much better job in general these days with smaller sensors. Sony has also produced a wonderful menu setup.

How many pixels is enough is probably driven by the application. If you are a pro, you are going to want as many as you can comfortably get and handle technically. Commercial, fashion, boutique wedding, top end portraiture, fine art, will always press for the very best. It is just a knee jerk, IMO, to demand the best equipment. A medium format Hasselblad commands a lot more respect in the professional world, but now the compromise is cost/benefit.

Me, I shoot primarily for my own enjoyment - usually with wall hung large prints. Most of my recent stuff has been Canon full frame, 21mPix with Canon zooms. These files enlarge to tack sharp 17-22 prints. I think they could be even larger and still have great quality, unless some techno nerd stepped up a foot away and used a magnifying glass, but do you really want to invite that guy for dinner? I have some great 17-22" prints which were shot with a 8mPix, APS-C Nikon D70 - still tack sharp. For me, I'm beginning to believe the 24mPix APS-C is going to be great, though I'm still early in the Sony game. (I am trying to be careful about my lens purchases, relying a lot on Jay's reviews. Got the Zeiss 16-70mm, and the Touit 32mm prime so far.)

[Jay]

I really appreciate all the comments and great points you all offered so far,and I can't help but think about my Sony A7r. It's awesome for sure, but 36mp is more than I need in the real world. 24mp is plenty and the light weight of the smaller sensor Nex-6 is fantastic for traveling, hiking, etc... I'm willing to go backwards from 36mp to 24mp for full frame, because the extra mp is not needed for real world. If cropping is that important I guess I can see a need, but I try and get the frame correct on camera if possible.

All that being said, the extra detail from a 50-100mp sensor would be just mind blowing! Imagine macro work?

Jay

[leuius]

All that being said, the extra detail from a 50-100mp sensor would be just mind blowing! Imagine macro work?

Imagine the focusing challenge At least on the stability front, IBIS is here (or will be on APS-C?)...

Cheers,

[wilmeland]

I like this.
https://photographylife.com/why-16-m...-could-have-50

[Lucille]

more megapixels for me.....

[Tikcus]

A 4k display is 8.3mega pixels, Full HD is 2.1 mega pixels, I can see the need for super high mega pixels on fixed lens cameras and smart phones, so digital zoom can make up for the lack of optical zoom/lenses. I have had printed photos up to about A2 size from a 12MP Fuji camera (SX1 I think), and you can not see a pixel