Sony 36 Megapixel sensor for Nikon and Sony (Nikon leaked). Is it too much?
Our friends over at Nikonrumors leaked the first picture of the Nikon D800. And why should we care about it? Because it uses the new 36 megapixel Sony sensor that we first reported here on SAR almost a year ago. The leaked picture confirm that the rumor is 99% true. Before to talk about the megapixel madness(?) I want to remind you that unlike Nikon Sony will first release a 24 megapixel FF camera in early Spring and a couple of months later the much more expensive 36 Megapixel FF camera which will probably have a built-in vertical grip. Both camera will be SLT (no optical viewfinder).
The good news here is that unlike Nikon Sony will offer us both, a low resolution and high resolution choice. But the question is, do we really need so many megapixels? Carl Garrard writes on Photographic Central: “I think the average consumer is starting to realize that megapixels isn’t all that important anymore, and the term itself at least in the US is becoming increasingly less popular in conversations I have with everyone. In other words, most people don’t give a crap about megapixels as much as they used too.”
I believe there is no problem if Sony is going to release a camera with 36 megapixels as long as we they also offer the low resolution option (24 Megapixels). Carl also hopes that Sony will offer an optical viewfinder version. But I already know that this is not going to happen. There will be a new generation of OLED viewfinders which is even better than the currently very good Sony A77 viewfinder.
Now let’s hope Sony will release the Sony A9x sooner than expected. I know many are pushing to announce the camera before the planned Spring release!
Related Posts
Share
Recent comments
Comment from Raghu: Generally my experience higher pixel cam...
Comment from MCP: Do you need 36 megapixels Kevin? Has tha...
Comment from Brandon: IT'S almost certain my mathematical apti...- Comment from Brandon: First of two postings an auto correct er...
lorenzino
7 months ago |No it’s not
Dulaney Ward
7 months ago |I absolutely agree.
Engineer
7 months ago |Thia is like asking if having $36,000 is having “too much money”.
Uh, no, I’ll always take more if you’re offering!
Engineer
7 months ago |This is like asking if having $36,000 is having “too much money”.
Uh, no, I’ll always take more if you’re offering!
Aero Windwalker
7 months ago |I would like to wait for Sony’s 35mm DSLT before I decide to buy the Nikon D800.
Zstan
7 months ago |I believe the 36 megapixel FF from Sony is not targeted at the ‘average consumer’…
B2
7 months ago |That’s a good point and I had exactly the same thought after I read this..
JB
7 months ago |Interesting, Nikon has the market covered when they release the D800.
High ISO D3S (Wedding, Event)
Low ISO D800 (Studio, Landscape)
Yin and Yang in perfect balance.
SLTPro
7 months ago |Actually for weddings I find around 20-24 Megapixels to be the perfect number as I print a lot of large fine art canvases and the inherent resolution makes the cropping and sharpness ability amazing. 12 Megapixels simply isn’t enough. Probably why the 5d II has outsold either Nikon cameras in the wedding market. I think a 24MP high ISO capable SLT will be an absolute winner for Sony!
David
7 months ago |They had that with the a850/900 already
Better colours than a 5d2.. oh, and it will actually focus in low light too! lol
Hotdog
7 months ago |I’m not sure why only offering 36 megapixels in a full frame camera would be all that bad. 36 megapixels in full frame is the same pixel size as a 16 megapixel APS-C sensor, as 16 megapixel APS-C cameras are not considered excessive I don’t think there’d be any major issues with either high ISO sensitivity or achieving image quality good enough to make full use of the resolution of the sensor.
The new 24 megapixel APS-C sensors from Sony are pushing the limits in these areas however their pixel size is equivalent to a 54 megapixel full frame chip! I don’t think anyone is proposing going that high in full frame any time soon.
I can see why some people would prefer a 24 megapixel full frame camera though, with a pixel size equal to a 11 megapixel APS-C it would certainly have better high ISO sensitivity and dynamic range than an equivalent 36 megapixel camera, but the 36 could still be very good.
David
7 months ago |Exactly.
36mp on full frame is equal to 16mp on APS-C, which everybody loves and apparently wishes the a77 uses
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |Exactly, and a FF sensor that will equal the A77 is a whopping 56mp. Can’t wait for those and I wish I could get a 56mp next month.
GH
7 months ago |More megapixels only means more processing power, slower fps and more hard drive space. Regardless of the differences at the pixel level, outputting images to the same size equalizes low light differences between sensors with different megapixel counts (assuming the same sensor tech.)
SRL
7 months ago |The Megapixels are fine; just make improvements to ISO proformance also.
High MP’s allow me to say with one sharp lens longer and just crop up in Photoshop.
If we can get the performance at 6400 that we now get at 1600 I don’t think anyone would complain
I currently can manage to do a great deal of work at 1600 if necessary, but I do worry if the seen has dark features.
A 36MP sensor with better ISO would be a dream come true
Renato S.
7 months ago |But Nikon also has other lines to use less MP, I read that there is another camera, maybe D4 that will have Nikon sensor and should have less MP.
I don’t think that this MP things has to do with average consumer because none of them will be buying a D800 or A9X so unless it has practical use for real photographers it doesn’t make sense. So I assume that there should be a market for that. But sometimes they just don’t make sense so I’ve no clue.
Anyway, 36MP FF is something like 16MP in APS-C so at least it doesn’t compromise the performance so much. But of course, with less MP you could have it better.
EF
7 months ago |But would you be willing to pay $3-5,000 for it?
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |Professional photographers. I realise that they are becoming extinct but there are still some out there that would like the highest possible FF camera. £5,000 is still a great deal less than the latest MF digital back.
Carl
7 months ago |Dynamic range and ISO are more limiting to me than resolution, but if the extra megapixels don’t come at the cost of anything then I’m hardly going to complain about them.
But really, the A900 isn’t so limited that I really feel the need to replace it for the sake of some incremental sensor improvement, anyway. I think I’m going to hold out until someone makes a full frame mirrorless instead.
Miserere
7 months ago |The fact that you’re calling 24MP a “low resolution” option says it all.
My wedding photographer friend who shoots with a Nikon D700 says he won’t upgrade to the D800 because he doesn’t want to spend thousands of extra dollars on a new computer and hard drives. He would even have to buy new memory cards!
I’m happy I don’t shoot full frame, but I fear APS-C is going down the same road now that Sony has a *high resolution* 24MP sensor in the A77 and NEX-7.
SonyA77
7 months ago |You wedding photographer friend needs to re-evaluate their business if they aren’t willing to invest in a new PC…
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |Because if he wont, his competitor will.
Mooboy
7 months ago |Yeah… because the first question most people have when looking for a wedding photographer is how many MPs their camera is.
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |Yeah … given similar portfolios and prices, a client has to decide to go with the guy who does not want to change because he thinks the old does the job well, or go with a guy that is up to date in his field of practice.
I ask the same question when choosing a dentist. Anaesthesia, aahhh hogwash, who needs it?!
Don Cox
7 months ago |I think the reluctance to upgrade a computer is the main reason people argue against higher resolution.
A new computer doesn’t cost thousands of dollars, though. Even with the current spike in hard drive prices, a good fast PC can be put together for under one thousand dollars.
SRL
7 months ago |+1
I have two a850 and right now I want something that performs better a higher ISO than the good job that my a850 does shooting RAW and processed to reduce noise with ACR and Photoshop.
Sometimes dark areas just have two much noise at ISO 1600 and no matter what I do I just can’t process it out. Through much testing I’ve learned to keep one of my programmable settings configured to shoot 1.3 to the right at ISO 1600 and then in post I pull it back, but it would be nice if it worked cleaner maybe up to 6400. I would be very happy to spend the going rate for a camera like this.
I can’t wait to see the new Canon and see if it’s better than the Nikon D3 and hopefully Sony will market a camera that can compete so I don’t need to move to a second platform to get what I want.
If the tradeoff is MP or ISO then sell me two different bodies and I’ll buy one of each and be done with it.
JB
7 months ago |Hard drives are very expensive right now.
Josh
7 months ago |2 TB for under 100? how is that expensive?
JB
7 months ago |http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Caviar-Desktop-WD20EARX/dp/B004VFJ9MK/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1321856314&sr=1-6
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hdd-thailand-flood-supply-demand,13936.html
kok-n-baulz
7 months ago |It’s not just price – it’s also computing power. Having double the amount of pixels means more computing power or upgraded software that you have to buy over and over from year to year to handle the larger files or new RAW codecs, etc… It never stops. The $100 turns quickly into $1000 spent.
kok-n-baulz
7 months ago |I forgot to say, then again, this is a pro camera and pros can afford all the upgrades. If JB can’t afford a harddrive then I don’t know how he can afford a $4000 camera.
Miserere
7 months ago |Being a pro photographer doesn’t make you automatically wealthy. In fact, it’s usually the opposite! The photographers with the tightest pockets I know of are professionals, not amateurs.
SonyA77
7 months ago |@Miserere I don’t think you “get it”. A good enough PC costs around a third of the cost of the A77 with lens. If you can afford a new camera, you can certainly afford the PC. In many cases you only need new hard disk space anyway.
If you friends are too tight to invest in a PC, but blow thousands on a camera, that is their problem.
I simply can’t understand the bitching about large file sizes. Don’t want 24mp/36mp? Don’t buy the camera.
shamb
7 months ago |I did some tests with LR, and an a500 12MP RAW processes as fast as a a77 24MP RAW for all operations I tried out.
My computer is certainly not cutting edge (four year old Q6600 – albeit overclocked to i5 unclocked performance, 8GB of older memory, windows 7 x64.
The biggest difference I have found in LR performance are actually
- laptop vs desktop: 4 year old laptops rarely cut it, whereas 4 year old desktops at the same price point usually do. Mobile CPUs are simply slower, even for the same designation (Vaio i7s are underclocked *and* mobile versions for example, and much slower thana desktop i7).
- x86 vs x64: x64 is more stable. x86 is much more crash happy with larger RAWs.
shamb
7 months ago |oh, and memory. less than 4Gb is not so good for performance. 8 is good especially if like me you have LR and PS open at the same time. Over 8 is a waste of money.
klw10
7 months ago |Hard drives have gone up in price recently!
SonyA77
7 months ago |So? A temporary shortage that’ll last a couple of months…
SonyA77
7 months ago |You can afford a high end camera, but not a new PC or even a cheap hard disk?
Vic Tor
7 months ago |I can’t understand this complaining about new hardware and software you have to buy. Did someone complain about Windows 7 or Vista? You can’t use this OS with just old 512RAM and 400MHz for example. So, the only possibility is to buy a new computer… or to use the old Windows 95 still, but not to complain about the technical progress.
p.s. hmmm, posted on the wrong place… addressed on all moaners above
SonyA77
7 months ago |Indeed, perhaps people expect to run Photoshop on an abacus!
nick192
7 months ago |you mean “Is it too much”?
Ollder
7 months ago |Think so too; Too sounds better than/then(!?) to
But the topic itself: No, I don’t think so, the pixel density is, however, lower than in A77. Means that individual sensors are bigger = better. And we have also found A77 useful, finally?
Ollder
7 months ago |meaning sensor elements…cells… what’s the word – are bigger
doug
7 months ago |Here’s the answer to the question “is it too much?”: it all depends on how well it performs. Simply adding more megapixels to a sensor in a pro camera isn’t good enough. It has to have outstanding noise characteristics, dynamic range and high ISO capability as well. Sony has lately shown an unfortunate tendency to cram too many megapixels onto a sensor at the expense of IQ. We saw it first with the A77 and more recently with the NEX-7. These are not bad amateur cameras by any means. But a pro camera needs to perform brilliantly on all fronts. Let’s hope that Sony realizes that essential fact with its next full frame pro DSLR and doesn’t stupidly compromise image quality.
Rob
7 months ago |Doug, you’re spouting crap – popular photography calss teh A77 the kind of apsc dslrs based on it’s excellent image quality, and I quote “it has done so without compromises in the shooting experience or in image quality.” So, I say you’re just a troll sent by the competition. Read the detailed analysis and eat crow http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/09/lab-test-sony-a77-new-king-aps-c-dslrs
If your credentials and experience exceed those of pop photo, then let’s see them and hear about the extensive testing you’ve done! Other than that, go back to troll hell!
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Harsh words but very true. A lot of these posters should preface their words with ‘in my opinion’ as a lot of these comments by Doug are simply not based on fact.
doug
7 months ago |Sorry, Dave, but it is based on fact, even though you don’t want to think it is.
Mooboy
7 months ago |Hi Dave, why didn’t you start your comment with ‘In my opinion harsh words but very true’
All comments here are obviously based on a combination of opinion and facts (to a greater or lessor degree). Except Rob.. he’s just got nothing to contribute.
doug
7 months ago |If you consider a rag like Popular Photography to be the ultimate photographic authority, then there’s no point in arguing the point further.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Fine Doug, I’m a fair man. You point me to the evidence that says IQ is compromised. And don’t lead me to comparisons with the 5D Mk2 or A900 either. You need a fair ‘apples for apples’ comparison to back up your statement. I haven’t seen such a comparison (although of course, that doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist).
Cheers!
brandon
7 months ago |doug is clearly referring to the best sensor possible, the best product possible. It is not within the realm of reason to claim Sony could not have improved performance in each of the parameters he delineated if only they had curbed their megapixel lust. Doug did not claim the quality was poor, meerly poorer than it might have been. Meanwhile rather than admit this basic and obvious fact you’ve made the ridiculous assertion that he should present a competitor’s previous cycle product for comparison. You sir, fail.
SonyA77
7 months ago |doug, how do you explain the 24mp Sony A900? Or is that a compromise on IQ too?
doug
7 months ago |This thread isn’t about the A900, and 24MP obviously isn’t too many megapixels for FF sensor.
SonyA77
7 months ago |Some argue it is.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Response to Brandon (no Reply button is there to press);
I simply asked him to point me to evidence. On the competitor point you totally misread my comment. I said DON’T point me to 5d MkII or A900 comparisons.
You Sir, double fail.
Brandon
6 months ago |You still lack reading comprehension. You requested he make a comparison to a nesting product by a dumortierite, despite the fact no appropriately relevant competitor product cycle is released yet. The specific examples you negated were not relevant to his commentary, and neither relevant nor addressed by my own commentary.
You then say “double-fail” apparently you do not understand the meaning of double since you made only a single, fumbled retort.
Ironically, for you sir, double failed.
Brandon
6 months ago |First of two postings an auto correct error on cramped phone.
Brandon
6 months ago |You still lack reading comprehension. You requested he make a comparison to a besting product by a competitor, despite the fact no appropriately relevant competitor product cycle is released yet. The specific examples you negated were not relevant to his commentary, and neither relevant nor addressed by my own commentary.
You then say “double-fail” apparently you do not understand the meaning of double since you made only a single, fumbled retort.
Ironically, for you sir, double failed.
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |Doug, this time I’m not even going to bother trying to argue against the points you make. This time I’m just going to tell you to shut up.
doug
7 months ago |Hey Eater: keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself.
BTW, go fuck yourself, asshole.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Inappropriate Doug. Take your filth elsewhere.
doug
7 months ago |It’s inappropriate to tell someone to “shut up” because you disagree with them. And you can go fuck yourself too for supporting that attitude.
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |Classy. I believe the word is “arsehole”.
If you can’t backup any of your claims, then be prepared to be told to shut up again in the future.
ageha
7 months ago |The difference between 24MP and 36MP is small, you only get about 900 lines more:
24MP: 6048 x 4032
36MP: 7360 x 4912
Spoon
7 months ago |Or a 50% larger print at equal DPI….
I know resolution is usually measured in a linear way, but since pictures tend to have 2 dimensions, it’s the linear relative difference squared.
Brandon
7 months ago |Resolution is measured in linear terms for page layout artists. Thus a photographer selling their work, or requesting publishing in virtually any medium, would be best to stick with linear terms when addressing resolution.
It is erroneous for a photographer to think in linear terms when addressing photography directly. Resolution is two-dimensional, period. Ken Rockwell has many, many virtues, but this is one he absolutely F@$&5-up. There has never been, and never will be, any reason to treat linear resolution as “that which matters” when addressing photographs as photographs (and not as silhouettes that have to be fitted into a printing-run).
For the photographer, it is detail that matters. Not not border-definition, scrolling, standardized size scaling, printer paper formatting, etc. AND DETAIL IS NOT Y-AXIS SPECIFIC.
So please stop spreading this BS, k?
David
7 months ago |Subtle “I failed high school maths” post lol
Brandon
6 months ago |IT’S almost certain my mathematical aptitude exceeds yours, most especially in light of your failing to grasp the rudimentary argument above.
edpaul
7 months ago |no worries, there are many rich gearhead in the world, ermm,.. well,.. more then professionals.
Sol Sims
7 months ago |36 mp is only too much if dynamic range, and ISO range, have performances sacrificed in any way. I’d rather have clean high ISO at 25600, then extra MP at 100 ISO.
More importantly for me is the OVF. I finally held and experienced the A65 a few days ago, and frankly was disappointed. If there is to be no more OVF FF bodies from Sony, I might seriously have to start shopping brands. And that’s a bummer.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |I can honestly say you are the first reviewer I’ve seen to not be impressed by the EVF. What did you think was wrong? Also, is there a benchmark camera with clean images at ISO 25,600? I’d like to see it!
Rob
7 months ago |Dave, I have to say that you make some valid points about Sol’s nonsensical posting – it’s obvious that trolling is alive and well on this website.
Brandon
7 months ago |Rob how about you stop accusing every member of our community who communicates, politely no less, their misgivings? You toss the label “troll” like a bully.
And specifically I’m relation to the above post…Every review I’VE seen has called-out the EVF as spectacular *for an EVF*, indeed calling it the best there is, but has also specifically called into question whether even this best-of-breed can replace an OVF for all shooters and their styles. It’s just dishonest for you to smear the facts otherwise as you do here and elsewhere on this same page.
Rob
7 months ago |Brandon, Doug can just assert poor image quality based on his assumptions while I counter with references to a site where extensive tests were done – AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF SMEARING THE FACTS? I don’t know where you come of saying that Brandon, but you’re facility for logic is impaired or absent, so I guess I just won’t respect your opinion.
Nobody
7 months ago |A77 EVF is outstanding when you compare it with older Sony EVF. However when I compared it to my A700 OVF… its disappointing (for me) in three aspects – DR (highlights and shadows are clipped), speed (lags a bit when moving camera, even in daylight), brightness (even lowest setting is way too bright for me). EVF vs OVF is quite personal thing I think
Brandon
7 months ago |Pathetic. You insult, then fail to address the fact when called out on it. Your tactics are worse than inappropriate. Regardless, you lack reading comprehension: Doug did not assert poor IQ, but guess what–this is a thread in response to Sol, not Doug. So where is your head? Hmm? Did you read what he wrote, or I wrote? Or did you just belch out a response? Sol, btw, referred to a hypothetical (in an entirely correct manner mind you) and to a fact of HIS OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, which you argued, not with facts, but with a review you [mis]read? You Are A Joke.
Brandon
7 months ago |Well “Nobody” got it right. “Rob” is, has been, always will be pathetic on this forum. He could learn something from “Nobody”.
doug
7 months ago |The focus peaking feature in Sony’s EVFs has dispelled any misgivings I initially had about the technology. Their EVF is clearly a net benefit, IMO.
@900 wed photag
7 months ago |I have to agree, one of my employees just got the A77 she loves it, and I’ll admit its really cool and I wish I had the flippy LCD screen on my 900, but I just couldn’t get used to the EVF the 1/2 second delay was annoying and I just felt very disconnected from my subject. do I think its the best EVF out there Yes! is it better then 900 OVF…no IMO sony has made a mistake ditching all OVF for the future.
SonyA77
7 months ago |You haven’t used the A99 EVF so you are basing your assertion on nothing.
pancanikonpus
7 months ago |I speculate that Fuji will please many *serious photographer who are looking for Pure Photograhpy. Hopefully organic sensor will true to deliver it and create strong competition to Canikon and Sony.
and of course, high ISO performance crit! > MP.
Wong
7 months ago |Since everyone answered the question so thoroughly, there’s no point in me repeating what is already said. I’ll just say this. I’ll jump on the 24MP FF if it’s under $2500USD, if not, I’ll just settle for the A77.
Rob
7 months ago |36 megapixels in a full frame is considerably less dense than 24 megapixels in a cropped sensor. Nikon will probably be selling that camera through 2015.
Adamski
7 months ago |The thing is that I believe 36MP is the number that is as ridiculous and fake as the 48MP in the new Sigma SD1. So maybe it’s 12 x 3 = 36? But if it is not a Foveon sensor but a regular bayer sensor, then in fact 36MP when 2x pixel-binning is used is going to be 9MP and that’s just awesome because it will be with low noise and very sharp.
Don Cox
7 months ago |Rather than say “36 Megapixels”, it would be better to state the resolution in each of the three channels, or just in the red channel.
For example, a “24 Megapixel” sensor has a resolution of 2000×3000 pixels in the red channel. I think this is much too low for quality work – it is well below what we got from 35mm Kodachrome.
So, the sooner we get higher resolution sensors the better. Ideally, they would also have full colour pixels.
MajorTom123
7 months ago |36 MP are just fine! Just imagine, they could have offered 52 MP if they used the same pixel pitch as with the A77!
And I feel very sad that Nikon gets the new sensor first. Sony, I don’t want another 24 MP FF cam, I already have one! Bring the 36 MPto all your future FF models!
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |Totally agree, and I hope that they eventually reach the 50mp+ sensor on a FF as I am happy with the A77 and I do not mind the low quality of image at high ISO.
Nick
7 months ago |Lets just do the simple maths (for those who haven’t got it yet), using the 1.5 crop factor
between FF and APSC
36 mp full frame is equivalent to 36 / (1.5)^2 = 36/2.25 = 16
So 36 mp FF is the same pixel density as 16 mp APSC, and I don’t think even the trolls
are complaining about noise on that sensor
Or to put it another way – stick an APSC lens on a 36 mp FF camera and you have an
instant A55 / A580 / D7000 or whatever.
So if there is an issue, its only about processing speed and storage, not noise.
(and in reality, as Major Tom just said, even 54 MP would be just fine, because the A77 is just fine
and the guys at DP review managed to mislead everybody with their pixel peeping).
Ollder
7 months ago |+1 Exactly! This is the point.
Frank Withers
7 months ago |I am happy with the performance of my A850. I am happy with 24mp. If Sony can make a sensor with 36mp and equivalent or better dynamic range and iso performance than the A850, then hell yes. Bring it on. I look forward to the even further improved EVF experience offered in the A9x.
SLTPro
7 months ago |+1 Well Said Frank! Sensor tech is moving on, look at the 1DX early test results, I think Sony can manage (even using the SLT design) 36MP with around 1900ISO DXO Mark and 24MP with 2700 DXO Mark scores!
JonasM
7 months ago |I love how you refer to the 24MP option as low-res!
passer-by
7 months ago |No, it’s not too much for a full frame camera. On the other hand, personally, I think 12mp is too less for a full frame. 18mp is better.
Jesse Lim
7 months ago |You will notice Nikon fanboys won’t be bragging about “36 MP is too much!” as contrast with their opinion with Sony’s 24 MP cameras, rather they will say it is awesome…
Blah
7 months ago |Haha yeah, but that’ll have a Nikon badge on it! Similar to many opinions on the Nikon 1 – oooh what a lovely little sensor etc lol
Jesse Lim
7 months ago |Yeah, the first time NEX come out with their “bigger” lenses they complain, but then when the Nikon 1 series came out with all those big lenses similar to NEX’s lens, they said nothing…
Sometimes I just can’t stop thinking of those fanboys are such a douche! Go take picture rather than giving crappy opinions in camera gears! XD
blah
7 months ago |Funny to imagine the expressions on their faces as they read the announcements though – like they really hate it, but they desperately want to find something to love. Poor souls!
I agree, go out and shoot! My NEX-5 is always by my side when I leave the house – usually with the ‘flawed’ and ‘too big’ 16mm pancake
Jesse Lim
7 months ago |Haha, couldn’t agree more with that~ =D
Maybe deep inside their soul, they have secret crush on Sony yet just could let it out. Like what people said, the more you hate it, the greater chance you will love it in the end!
Mandrake
7 months ago |How is that worse than the insults you’re posting?
Mooboy
7 months ago |Jesse Lim, if you went over to a Nikon enthusiast site (say Nikon Rumors) you’d see the vast majority of people there canned the Nikon V1 as crap.
I think your posts say much more about yourself and your Sony fanboiism. Almost all the major camera brands have good and bad features. I’d say each of Nikon, Canon and Sony have their strengths, and largely it will come down to personal choice what suits you. If you think Sony is outright better in all aspects than Canon/nikon in SLR and Pany/Oly in CSC, then you’re blind.
Anu Nyymi
7 months ago |I do not like how this blog advocates for stagnating developement. Science does not back up the belief that pixel restraint to some mystical point is proper for SNR or DR.
When it comes to pixel count, more is better up to a point. At the moment the limit is *far far away* from where we are at the moment with large sensor cameras, and the limit is going even further away as the technology improves.
Noise is made out of two components: read noise and shot noise. For shot noise there is nothing that can be done as it is just the nature of light to be noisy. Shot noise is sqrt(number of photons). In this sensor the full well capacity is something in the ballpark of 50.000 e-. If we go down to the deep shadows, say 10 stops down, the signal is still about 50e-, thus shot noise is about 7e-. The read noise is about 3e-. As independent noises add up in quadrature, the total noise 10 stops down from saturation is about sqrt(7^2 + 3^2) = 7.6 e-.
As above shows, 10 stops down from the saturation the read noise increases the total noise only by 0.6 e- out of the total of 7.6 e-. Hardly relevant, is it?
A bigger pixel would have a larger full well capacity (it’s appproximately proportional to pixel sizes), and also very slightly higher read noise. At pixel level the DR would go up very small amount if compared to for example 24Mp equivalent. However, having more pixels equalizes things lots again (regarding SNR and DR, for resolution it is just an advantage to have more) as for the whole image the difference is neglible, or less
Spoon
7 months ago |Thanks for the good explanation and clear point made.
Tom_Tom_
7 months ago |+1 on your point. Bring on the pixels!!!
Also don’t worry, once the nikon users have 36mp in their hands all of a sudden all the forum chatter about “too many megapixels” will calm down and many sony users with inferiority issues will agree. Whats the next talking point to favor nikon and put sony in a bad light?
dk
7 months ago |Nice explanation. I’m not so much into the math, but from my shooting experience, it’s easy to tell that increasing the MP doesn’t necessarily increase the noise or reduce the DR. Too bad people are still too much into their first PnS buying guides (practically all of them dismiss high MP, for good reasons) and automatically shoot down everything high MP as bad. DSLR != PnS, some people simply can’t think.
Jojo
7 months ago |It’s more than I want or need, but let’s see what IQ is like before we pass judgement.
Petr Klapper
7 months ago |What most people don’t realize is there are 2 markets – higher ISO vs. higher resolution. D800 is not supposed to be for everyone just like D700 is not for the same customers as D3X. Also 36mpix D800 is not direct D700 replacement and as stated, being pixel density equivalent to 16mpix APS-C is ok.
How could anyone get angry when Nikon finally introduces lower priced higher resolution FX ALTERNATIVE is beyond me – you don’t like it fine, it’s not for you, your update will come too (D4/D3s sensor in D700 body). The fact D700 was not updated for longer then usual is understandable – it took Canon 4 years to understand and somewhat deliver what majority customers want and come up with higher resolution/lower mpix variant (1D X, and only in pro body for the time being), why should they rush with D700 update ?
Les
7 months ago |With PMA coming in 7 weeks’ time, could that be the occasion for which Sony & Nikon are planning their FF announcements?
Andy F
7 months ago |36Mp is not too much but I would love to see greater DR.
Interestingly its rumoured there will be 2 versions of the D800 one will be without an AA filter
MCP
7 months ago |Do any of you consider the effects of all that resolution that have nothing to do with image quality at all? I see the point clearly! Yet this industry (makers) are reliant on higher pixels like it’s the only thing they can do to sell more cameras.
Practically speaking, using those huge files day in and day out, do any of you work huge files on a daily basis? Ever try to process an image from a medium format camera on a regular basis? I bet most of you defenders don’t or haven’t.
Personally find 24mp too much and makes a boggy and tiresome post processing event- I think that is the point here more than anything.
end of line.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |I have the A77 and process all my images from RAW in ACR then CS5 or LR and I have no issues. I use an i7 processor iMac which is about 12 months old.
Because somebody’s computer is old doesn’t mean the camera files are too big – it means the 2 systems are mismatched.
Once again, your philosophy of ‘I don’t like it/agree with it, therefore it’s crap’ is flawed.
MCP
7 months ago |NO it isn’t flawed Dave, you process 24mp images on an iMac, not 36mp images. I’ll repeat, have you EVER processed a Medium format image over 30mp??? NO you haven’t. No you don’t sell your images, or stock your images. You are the one that’s flawed because you DON’T practically practice what you preach. You are the demographic that these companies want to jam this crap down the throat of, and perfectly willing to accept it like a lamb to the slaughter.
Sorry Dave but you really strike me as a totally ignorant brand worshiper/witch hunter. Typical thinks with his junk male.
end of line.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |You make several huge assumptions about me, several of which are totally false. If you can’t even be bothered to find out facts before posting there’s no point in a discussion. I’ll leave you to your delusions – please enjoy them.
I do pro editing for other ‘togs (including MF) and I’ve sold quite a few of my own prints. Not that you should let facts get in the way of your petty accusations and insults.
SonyA77
7 months ago |It’s time you upgraded your PC to something from the 21st century. These files aren’t “huge” on my PC…
MCP
7 months ago |24mp aren’t huge, we are talking 36mp YOU IDIOT.
end of line.
Doraemonboi
7 months ago |I think that it is not too much. As long as it can produce clean image in high ISO I don’t mind. Sony should also improve in their buffering speed. The A77 buffering speed is just too slow. (Due to the high resolution)If Sony is to come out a new full-frame cameras, I really hope they come out two type of camera. One of them will be the DSLR and the other will be the DSLT. I kind of miss the mirror slapping sound in a DSLR. The EVF is great. However some user still prefer OVF.
Miroslav
7 months ago |Maybe those who’ll use D800 know what would they use 36 Mpx for? I’d like D800 image quality, but its size and weight it too much for me. In models positioned lower, the only thing 36 Mpx would be useful for is “safe zoom” – zooming by using only central part of the sensor. But I doubt pros who need D800 would be interested in that
.
Greenieadi
7 months ago |Wow, can’t imagine people start describing 24Mpx as “low resolution”.
Anyway 36Mpx FF is in the border of Medium Format territory. 6Mpx is enough, 12Mpx is a welcome and 24Mpx is enough.
From another aspect on noise at those ISO, I bet Sony can only improve.
Sony, give us some more new lens lineup will ya?
Daemonius
7 months ago |No problem with that, cause APS-C 24 mpix is pretty much similar density as 36 mpix FF. And as we see, A77 works.. means A99 or whatever they build will too.
Only downside will be lens, even today top Zeiss lens will have bit hard time..
barri
7 months ago |yes. IMO 36 MP is too much. I don’t want it. 24 MP was fine.
Fritz
7 months ago |24 Mpix is more than enough, beside that computers should still run on Intel 8088 processors with DOS 3.3 and boot from 5 1/4 floppy drives.
SonyA77
7 months ago |In the 1980s I used an IBM XT with THREE 5 1/4″ floppy drives (no hard disk back then).
“A” drive for WordPerfect disk 1, “B” drive for the WordPerfect disk 2 and “C” drive for the WordPerfect documents. Those were the days, running a wordprocesser on three floppy disks in 640k of RAM…
Tom
7 months ago |Personally I think Sony has it right. There will be three new FF cameras and one will be the 36mp for people who currently use medium format and want a cheaper option. Another will be 24mp that will hopefully get much better hi ISO photos and I pray the other is a FF NEX. Just because the 36mp doesn’t fit your needs doesn’t mean you have to complain, it’s not the one for you apparently. Wait for the 24mp FF and that should fit your needs better. Every camera Sony makes doesn’t have to fit your needs, be patient and take the on that does!
Cliff
7 months ago |Wahoo! The pixel count race is alive and well!
More pixels and more noise! (Just the way we like it ’round here!)
I’m gonna make a shit with the Sony “a” logo on it.
The tag line under it would be; “We love tiny photosites” lol
dk
7 months ago |Except more MP doesn’t mean more noise. You must have been shitting in a cave for quite some time.
Cliff
7 months ago |With all post processing being equal, yes it does. Larger photosites will ALWAYS 100% of the time, take in more light than small ones. (again,.. with post processing being equal)
It’s physics. A big sponge will absorb more water than a small one. (material being the same)
Sorry,..but no camera company can change that fact.
Master Control
7 months ago |Thanks Cliff for being factual. Most of these ignorant retards here couldn’t get out of a closet if all it took was one factual statement to unlock the door they locked themselves in with.
I bet they are all Sony stooges hired in some respect to try and salvage the integrity of a CE company that couldn’t make a well rounded DSLR if their life depended on it.
They do some things good, but never great. Go back to CE Sony, back at what you do good. NEX is your only hope. You’ve driven Cybershot into the ground, now Alpha. Give it up while you still have something left to hold onto.
Sell the KM parts to a company that can do something better with the mount.
end of line.
dk
7 months ago |Except your fact isn’t so factual after-all. Seriously you moaning morons should stop photography altogether. Your lack of shooting and processing experience isn’t funny. It’s embarrassing.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Cliff, I have 3 cameras – A330, A33 and A77. I have taken images with all 3, using Sigma 10-20mm lens at f/14 and ISO 100. All on the same day, at the same place. The A77 and A330 images are definitely the cleanest in RAW. The A33 with the so called ‘super clean’ sensor is the worst. Markedly worse. I cannot pick between A77 and A330, even viewed at pixel size.
Cliff
7 months ago |I’m a Sony fan, no doubt. However, it’s not because of it’s Alpha division, I’m a huge fan of the Sony Pro Broadcast division. I love the EX1r/EX3, the F3 and their other CineAlta products. I think that division is razor sharp and has it’s act together. (yes, I know they do make mistakes too) Some of the smartest people I have ever talked to are the the engineers from that group.
I wish Sony could move some of it’s PRO/Broadcast engineers into the consumer Alpha group. I’m sure we’d see better Alpha cameras if they did.
Beer_Stalker
7 months ago |http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!
Cliff
7 months ago |There are all kinds of techniques to reduce noise. I was talking to a Sony tech at NAB last spring. He was telling me how Sony has made great advancements in “correlated double sampling” circuits and mathematics.
Each pixel produces noise. Imagine an audio amp turned waaaay up while nothing is playing. You hear noise, right? Sensors are analog devices first and they make similar noise on a pixel output level.
“Correlated double sampling” is used to sample a pixel (photosite) while it’s in it’s “off” cycle. (in between frame rate scans for video) When “off”, (or “black”) the noise print is captured and remembered. When the pixel is in it’s “on” mode, that remembered noise print is then inverted and applied to the pixel value.
The noise is effectively “phase-canceled” out! And, this is done extremely fast in between frames of video or still image capture.
Again, this is a high speed post processing technique that has given Sony the ability to amplify the circuit gain of an image sensor considerably way before you see it in ISO settings. This allows tiny photosites that don’t gather much light to function like a sensor that has larger photosites and DOES gather allot of light.
Of course,..if you use that same post processing on a new 10 megapixel APSC sensor,(with large photosites)…you will have a MONSTER, clean, low light performer because each photosite will need less amplification.
This is some of the tech that makes a 24 megapixel APSC sensor operate OK. That same technology will make a 12 megapixel crazy good.
dk
7 months ago |-comment deleted, post in wrong section-
dk
7 months ago |Yes and no. If you take 10 pixels from a 10MP image and compare them to 10 pixels from a 24MP image, the 10MP sample definitely has less noise than the 24MP sample. But is that the way you compare camera outputs? Do you use only 10MP from the 24MP image to print, or do you use the full 24MP?
To have a fair comparison, all camera outputs must be produced at the same size (downscale the higher MP, upscale the lower MP, or simply print them at the same size). The result difference will much less noticeable than say, pixel peeping. This is a photography fundamental, yet many so called photographers fail to understand it .
MCP
7 months ago |It’s not about NOISE though DK, the issue raised in the blog is about HUGE file sizes that full frame shooters are soon going to be FORCED to have if WE yes WE continue to buy these products. WE DON’T NEED 36MP!
And I’ve seen the argument “well these cameras aren’t for the typical consumer bla bla bla” well if they aren’t then why do THEY advocate for Sony that this is a good idea? Why are they cheering on more megapixels for a niche set of buyers they never intend to be a part of? WHY? Paid by Sony to do so? What the hell do they care? And why do they attack people on blogs or forums who have an opinion otherwise? What do THEY have invested in all this??? I’m so sick of brand worshipping sheep being led by the those. Open your eyes and see what is truly happening here.
Don’t know about anyone else but I’d love to see an affordable full frame camera with less megapixels so I can shoot with full frame lenses and not have to empty my pocketbook on a new computer, new harddrives, new memory cards all because ONE company dictates what Consumers must have. I won’t buy a 36mp camera ever in my life, I have no practical need for so much resolution. Its getting ridiculous!
end of line.
Cliff
7 months ago |I agree with part of what you are saying. However, nobody can deny that, generally speaking, sensors with larger photsites take in more light per “pixel”. They generally need less amplification on teh readout than smaller photosites. They are have a higher ISO sensitivity and a greater signal to noise ratio. I’m not stating any wild claimes that sensor designers will disagree with…lol
Compare sensors on DXOMark. Do a comparison between A77 and NEX5n. Compare most cameras of similar age and quality. It’s pretty consistant result.
Look at the Canon 1DX. That Camera is INCREDABLE! Canon chose to go down the wicked sensitivity and super fast road. They chose to use BIG photosites on a FF sensor with 18 megapixels to achieve that. And,..well? For a $6,000 + camera, they nailed it just right. ( I wish Sony would be that bold)
I dont care what anybody does, no 36 megapixel sensor with touch that Canon beast for a very long time!
Cliff
7 months ago |The post above is for “DK”
Edgars
7 months ago |Do not forget about lenses. I think even today it is possible to get much more resolution with best Zeiss lenses. It is obvious on my A900 and I expect it is even more obvious on A77 or will be future on 36Mpix camera. In other words already 24 Mpix is limit for most of lenses opened wider than f8, I expect there will be hard to get more resolution with 36Mpix sensor.
Another aspect is that Bayer sensor pixel colors and luminance are interpolated and as it was mentioned in some comment before, perfect image without interpolation is only 9 Mpix out of 36Mpix.
Cliff
7 months ago |Yup,..but the good thing for Sony marketing is that most buyers don’t know that and believe they are really getting “36 mega pixels” from a $500 or $1000 lens!
Consumer ignorance = High camera sales!
My grandmother buys Sony cameras cause they look “cute” and have “lot’s of megapixels”. (more than the one next to it) That’s all she knows and that’s all Sony wants her to know!
Too funny!
MCP
7 months ago |Exactly Cliff, exactly.
end of line.
Cliff
7 months ago |moved up
Frank Withers
7 months ago |For everyone who is dying over the 36mpx, it would be rather simple if both 24 and 36mp raw modes were incorporated into the body (as well as 18 and 12). That way you can use it only when you really have to.
God forbid you, a professional photographer, have to invest in a more powerful computer for your business. I process thousands of the 24mpx files out of my A850 on a weekly basis, my machine is about 2.5 years old (intel core 2 duo 2.4ghz quadcore, 8gb ddr2-800 ram, standard 7500rpm harddrives) and I MURDER these files. I just can’t see what the fuss is about. Once I get an i7 extreme I don’t think 36mp will make it flinch.
dk
7 months ago |People love their 486s so much they can’t bear to upgrade. And oh, the flooding in Thailand must have been going on for so long that the HDD price is sky high that no one can afford.
SonyA77
7 months ago |Yeah all those 486 people were just about to upgrade their PCs too and then damn-it the flood has pushed up the cost of a HDD so they can’t afford the “massive” upgrade costs….lmfao
lulu
7 months ago |“The good news here is that unlike Nikon Sony will offer us both, a low resolution and high resolution choice”
I know you love Sony but Nikon will offer 2 versions of the D800: one with and then one without that piece of crap that is the AA filter.
When Sony starts making the AA removable I’ll start paying attention to their cameras.
Carl
7 months ago |It’s hardly fair to criticize Sony for using AA filters when Kodak, Leica and Sigma are the only companies to date that have released non-medium format DSLRs without them. Now if you were still suffering along with a SLR/n I could understand where you were coming from, but every Nikon released to date has had one.
Harvey
7 months ago |I once read sensors should have >50 mp to exceed film. No simple Kodacolor 200 or Fuji Velvia, but Kodak Technical Pan 2415. I used it a few times, and yes, the results were quite spectacular. So let FF-sensors go up to 50 mp before I start to complain. And remember: even a very bad lens will give better pictures on a better sensor: the total result is the outcome of the reciproque addition, if that’s proper English :-/
Cliff
7 months ago |The lens is the front end of the capturing process. A bad lens will look bad no matter how good a sensor is.
1.)Lens
2.)Sensor
3.)Post Processing (sensor readout and more)
4.)codec (or RAW file output)
#2-4 cant ever recover what #1 lost.
As far as 50 megapixel needed to equal film. I don’t know about that. I have a hard time believing that any lens under $1000 can resolve that well either.
Harvey
7 months ago |I’ll try to remember ánd explain:
1/x + 1/y +1/z +1/w = 1/q
x = lens quality
y = sensor
z = processing
w = codec or whatever factor you might find important (print?)
q = total output quality
You see that theoretical total quality is diminished by all factors, but every increase in every factor means a positive factor to the output quality. People here seem to think that total output quality is like a chain where the weakest link sets the total strength. That’s not true. Lens quality is just one of the factors. A better sensor will make the output better, even with a bad lens. A bad lens is never an absolute limit to quality. Of course we know that: even very mediocre lenses look surprisingly good on the Nex (for instance), we never saw that on the films we used with that lens. Right?
Cliff
7 months ago |Gotcha!
So if a lens is dull or even out of focus, the sensor and post processing will make the image sharp and back into focus again.
I love science!
taipeiboy
7 months ago |samples of full-frame with cheap lens vs. crop with good lens:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
Carl
7 months ago |Super high resolution films like Tech Pan and Scala haven’t been available for years, alas. Film stocks currently in production are somewhat more prosaic in their resolving power.
Kevin
7 months ago |This is great news !! can’t wait to buy one… I am sick of the peanut gallery making dumb comments, I don’t want a consumer camera I want a pro camera that produces the results I want.. Nothing wrong with more MP’s as long as they are managed !!
MCP
7 months ago |Nothing wrong Kevin? Spoken from the mouth of someone who’s never processed such a large image. Talk about a peanut gallery. Ask you something… why are you so quick to accept this? What do you need that much resolution for? What will you be using it for specifically?
And I’m not talking about want, I’m talking about need. If your reply about your wants again I’m going to ignore your answer. Please reply with thought and foresight. I await.
end of line.
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |I need the resolution. If you have to shoot about 100 set of clothes in one day in a studio with low ISO, and the whole model has to be in it on a white background, then when setting the camera, you have to frame so that there is space above her head and feet. As a rule of thumb, that is about one third to the total height. Then there are the sides, in case she stretches her arms out, but of course, not all photos her arms are stretched out.
By the time she is framed on the viewfinder and her arms are straight down, she occupies about one third of the total sensor area. The rest is white or lights sticking out which will be cropped off.
So in a 16mp camera, some of the photos will be about 5mp from head to toe, and then the client just wants from the waist up, bringing it down to about 3mp and then they want to print a life size poster. So my 16mp camera is giving the same photograph as a 3mp camera if I had gone real close and shot the model from the waist up which is not practical in some professional jobs.
A 36mp camera will crop to 12mp and then 6mp. Better. So how many pixels some professional photographers want? 36×2=72, 72×3=216mp. At about 216mp I will stop complaining that there is not enough pixels in a camera.
Master Control
7 months ago |Joaquim, excellent intelligent reply. Sounds fully justified for your needs.
Question, how many photographers do you think do your kind of work or need that much resolution? Honest answer.
Have you considered medium format yet? If so why haven’t you, and if not… how have you got along so far without all that resolution?
end of line.
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |I have a 2004 Phase One digital back now, 16mp and the people who retouch my photographs are saying that they have little to work with by the time the cropping begins and the dynamic range is not so great.
Unfortunately, I cannot afford, neither do I have clients to financially justify the latest £30,000 digital back from Phase One, the 80mp IQ180. But a £3,000 D800 or A99 makes a great deal of commercial sense. Even it is £4,000 or £5,000. It is still cheaper than a £30,000.
How many photographers? Probably quite a lot as the next FF cameras are going to be great main or back-up cameras for professionals (I know that they are a fast diminishing sector). My A77 is almost as good as my Phase One, so I can only imagine that my digital back is finally going to be outdone by the next FF DSLR.
Master Control
7 months ago |“Probably quite a lot”
How many? How many that aren’t currently using a medium format camera or a high resolution A900 or Nikon D3s?
I can’t imagine how many it could be, or that it’d be quite a lot. I’d like to be enlightened though. Fact is, either of us don’t know its pure speculation isn’t it? Trying to guess a market is like trying to play the lotto. I thinkt he Digital market at this level is saturated, and the features (very important here) pro’s would have to give up in order to get that Sony A99 or whatever would be substancial.
Remember, the devil is in the details with Sony, it’s what they don’t tell you they leave out on the spec sheet that is extremely important to professionals who have HIGH demands of equipment (not just resolution). Real tethering and high end flash system/support- won’t get them with Sony.
I don’t see the market or the hole/gap that Sony do with a 36mp ff camera, not at all. I see a small niche market, and a company trying to dazzle buyers with yet more specs. That’s all I see.
But I hope you get your dream camera.
end of line.
Meaty
7 months ago |I think it’s great!
I can’t wait to see stunning 36mp images from Sony users showing off their backyard, bookshelves, & cats. It will be an amazing time to have such an amazing sensor being pushed to the limits by Sony users.
Bahahaha
Lollino
7 months ago |Many pros do need that kind of res.
Sergei
7 months ago |Totally agree. I was close to pushing a850 24mp files to the limit photographing Ilya Kovalchuk in a studio environment. The client wanted to see labels on their products plus him standing in his skates makes for tough cropping should they decide to use part of an image. I can see studio shooters use 36mp on a regular basis. Others may be well served by 16-24mp range
Lollino
7 months ago |Honestly, I do not give a squat about what Carl Garrad and the average consumer wants or needs… Or of Garrad opinion to begin with…
36 mp are very welcome!
Master Control
7 months ago |Welcome by who!? You? You going to buy a 36mp camera? Why are you defensive of Sony, what do you gain from being that way?
Apparently you do care or you wouldn’t have made that post, or the one below as well. So you do care afterall. Now you are a liar.
Are you a pro in dire need of more resolution so you can support your family? Have you ever sold a photograph? If you have, there’s no way in hell you’d be here trying to defend a consumer electronics company (unless you were paid by them to do so).
end of line.
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |Good comment and totally agree. I don’t think that the MP race is over in the professional level, but I am sure that new low MP cameras will always be coming out for Carl Garrad and the average consumer.
Maybe by having cameras with high MP the distinction between amateur and professional will start to become clearer.
Lollino
7 months ago |Carl who?
36mp are very welcome!
Joaquim Barreto
7 months ago |Yes 36mp and more will always be welcome
Walt
7 months ago |Folks keep saying higher MP is not necessary. Then why do MF cameras with their even higher MP command higher prices? And get bought at all? And lusted after?
Sorry folks you can try and stick photography at the MP of the camera you own, but it moves on. Won’t be long and you will be saying 36MP is all anyone needs, no one needs 48MP. And then you will eventually buy the 48MP.
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |Except that you won’t buy them Walt, as cameras in the future will be EVF only. You’ll still be clinging on to your 12MP A700 for dear life.
Have you held an A77 yet?
Master Control
7 months ago |Why are you such an asshole to Walt? What has he done to you? What have you to defend for Sony, what do you gain by doing so? What does it matter to you what Walt says about the A77. Do you stand to lose $ because of what he says? Why be an asshole?
end of line.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |You really love yourself don’t you MCP?
A real anonymous MCP fanboy!
LOL.
Master Control
7 months ago |Not at all. Truth hurts though. Now you are trying to defend others that are treating others with disprespect. How honorable of you Dave.
And you avoid logical questions at every step of the way and prefer instead to criticize personally.
Answer the questions DAVE.
end of line.
The Lotus Eater
7 months ago |If you’ve ever visited dpreview Sony DSLR forums you might understand where I’m coming from.
Vic Tor
7 months ago |You are writing “trying to guess a market is like trying to play the lotto” and after that guessing self: “I thinkt he Digital market at this level is saturated” and bla-bla… So stop guess for yourself. Sony made for sure more market-analysis as you.
You asking, who need 36mp, there are already several answers “I need it!”, even with concrete examples, but you are still not satisfied with it. It could be said with your own words to you as well: “Why are you such an asshole to Sony? What has it done to you?”
Dave Cox
7 months ago |And as usual with MCP, if you don’t agree with him/her you are an IDIOT.
The A99 specs aren’t even released yet but even people who show interest are branded as IDIOT’s.
When the A900 was released it had twice as many MP as all other consumer cameras. It’s called progress (in my opinion), but by assertion, everyone who bought it must have been, to MCP, a Sony fanboy IDIOT.
All the latest MF cameras are 40MP+. Again, by assertion, all buyers of those are IDIOT’s.
TV’s used to be 17 inch max. We all used to watch them. We could see the screen OK. We could read the subtitles. Progress has brought 50 and 60 inch TV’s. Great! If people want one they can buy one. Some people might even need one. It’s all about consumer choice.
Please, MCP, when you throw around your insults and accusations consider, for a moment, that this is a world of opinions. Not every opinion is the same and that’s one of the things that makes it so interesting. You don’t want or need 36MP but that doesn’t mean 36MP is wrong. All we are all doing at this stage is commenting on rumours. You’ve made the arrest, conducted the trial and sentenced the thing to death.
Master Control
7 months ago |Misquoting and taking out of context-the standard Sony fanboy forum bullying tactic.
I bet you guys have a manual you read from on how to avoid logical questions, don’t you?
Bottom line I’m not bashing Sony, and I’m not bashing the blogger either. I just so happen to agree that 36mp is way too much for those folks and unlike you I’m willing to admit that I have no real use for 36mp.
But all of you replying to my posts (except one professional here who is polite and respectful) won’t say your NEEDS, only defend Sony and attack people who challenge the decision making in the slightest. Thats all you do, you attack other posters for being honest and having an opinion.
How pathetic your lifes must be. Indeed pathethic.
end of line.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |MCP, you amuse me. The polite, respectful pro you mention – that’s the one you insulted two posts after his first response to you.
You seem unable to comprehend that someone, anyone, might have a different opinion to you. Do you think that’s sad? Do you need anger management sessions? Or is it just a good old-fashioned chip on the shoulder?
I’ve answered your questions elsewhere on this thread. Just because you’re too bone idle to read them isn’t my problem.
Again, just because don’t want, don’t need or can’t process 36MP files doesn’t preclude there being a need for healthy discussion.
Master Control
7 months ago |Show me the text where I insulted him Dave, show everybody the text please. My reply was to someone else and again you continue the same exact habits not staying on the topic of 36mp.
Why are you so compelled to defend others or make personal attacks Dave? Why??? Dare you to anwser such a simple question.
The only reason you care to continue this line of banter against me is because I simply do NOT share your point of view that 36mp is needed. Yet you can’t tell me why YOU need it, not once.
We disagree Dave, keep the topic on the topic. If you can.
end of line.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |I’ve never said I’ve needed 36MP. I’ve never even said I wanted it. Not once. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to read about/ discuss it.
If anyone cares to read thru the posts in this thread they will see who is throwing insults around like confetti.
I have my A77, am selling some stock and prints and am just interested in what people have to say about the A99. That would appear to be the ‘natural progression’ for me, that’s all.
I just don’t like to read insults when people are just giving an opinion. I want to read why people want 36MP not endless posts about why you don’t want it.
Master Control
7 months ago |Correct you never said 36mp was something you wanted, but you are defending it’s eventuality at every turn of the corner. The point of me asking you why YOU need it is very valid. Nobody but very few real pro photographers need that much resolution, but those who intend to never buy it, or those who “think” they will buy it defend it at every cost.
My question is why? Why defend that decision when a very small minority of DSLR shooters really “need” that much resolution. I still haven’t got one really good answer that speaks of the many who would like a FF camera without a huge price or ancillary expense.
To me a cheaper 24mp FF camera would be MUCH better, plenty of resolution for studio shooters and fine art shooters- but not so far out of reach for those wanting to plunge into FF for the first time since film.
36mp means A LOT of $ anyway you look at it. Why?
Be a smart consumer and demand within our needs I say.
36mp is overkill.
Thats why I keep repeating this, nobody can tell me why 36mp for the would be FF crowd. Just “its great, its progress, its normal, its this, its that, just shut up, just shutup” Just answer the question, anyone!
end of line.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Just to clarify – I’ve never argued that 36MP is right. Just that people have a right to want or desire it. Just the same way somebody might want a car that does 250mph. They don’t NEED that.
I’d love someone to answer your fundamental question – what would 36MP give ME that I don’t already have (aside from the ability to crop and print extremely large).
If Sony is to introduce a range of FF then what would I gain from upgrading from my A77 to a A9x?
I’d like to discuss rather than simply say it’s wrong/right and trade petty insults. The big shame is that I doubt anyone else is still even following this thread.
Master Control
7 months ago |Well then Dave I offer you an apology. It’s nice the conversation has gone this way now. Sorry for getting heated, just tired of the replies that were totally ignoring the issue at hand by others.
Whether or not others are following this thread or not doesn’t matter now. We’ve concluded that despite a few pro’s looking for a more affordable higher resolution camera, pretty much nobody else here can answer the question why “we” need 36mp of resolution.
end of line.
Dave Cox
7 months ago |Thanks. And I’m sorry too.
Fabrice
7 months ago |2 FF SLT
hum maybe I should wait before thinking of an A77
except in very low light condition the A77 viewfinder is good
so a better one, I WANT IT
Kevin
6 months ago |Amazing all the debate of a product that no one has seen or for that matter know the spec. and we have the detractors offering such uneducated opinions. We have no idea how good or bad it may be, My Opinion IS I Welcome any advancements in sensor / camera technology.
MCP
6 months ago |Do you need 36 megapixels Kevin? Has that been on your wishlist? Honestly, do you?
end of line.
Raghu
6 months ago |Generally my experience higher pixel cameras are bad. Very noisy. IQ always suffered. 36MP is definitely overkill. Very very few consumers might need realistically.