So if they can make a 36.3 megapixel camera with a 35.9 x 24.0 mm sensor, I'm wondering what they could do with a medium format camera back these days.

That's the one I need for my new software program.
It's called ENHANCE

But does it automatically put captions on my cat?

vudukungfu: That's the one I need for my new software program.
It's called ENHANCE



/hot enough to fark your mother

I haven't found any use for megapixels beyond about 10, and most professionals I've met are still using 6mp bodies. I think the camera business is headed for a crash of some kind.

I thought we'd hit the point where there are diminishing returns for additional megapixels. It just slows down the write speed and introduces more noise.

IMHO if you have 12MP or higher, you're really better off buying better glass for your existing camera than upping your MP count.

Lando Lincoln: As a sports photographer hobbyist, I'd prefer them to focus on improving low light picture quality instead of more pixels. Gigantic mexapixel photos translate to fewer frames per second.

Isn't that what the D4 is supposed to do?

H31N0US: I thought we'd hit the point where there are diminishing returns for additional megapixels. It just slows down the write speed and introduces more noise.

IMHO if you have 12MP or higher, you're really better off buying better glass for your existing camera than upping your MP count.

Motorola will now announce that their next phone will have a 40MP sensor but it will still have the .8mm aperture. MORE MEGAPIXELS!!

StroboscopicCamel: H31N0US: I thought we'd hit the point where there are diminishing returns for additional megapixels. It just slows down the write speed and introduces more noise.

IMHO if you have 12MP or higher, you're really better off buying better glass for your existing camera than upping your MP count.

Motorola will now announce that their next phone will have a 40MP sensor but it will still have the .8mm aperture. MORE MEGAPIXELS!!

I'll just set the ISO to 12,000 in low light situations, problem solved.

Pass.
Send me a Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG.
/Please
//Thank you.

Lando Lincoln: No thanks. I'm not planning on blowing up any pictures to the size of a billboard.

This.

It reaches a point where we are approaching Dr. Evil levels of density. "Oh yeah? Well, I've got 100 BILLION mega-pixels on my shark-mounted DLSR...."

Like I need an image so big it can be seen clearly from space.

DrippinBalls: I shoot raw (no jpg) and the buffer size is never big enough.

I was doing that for a while but then I wound up having two copies of each photo, one in raw and one in jpg for sharing etc. Since I'm not that big on post processing, I just went back to JPG in manual mode, relying on the camera to help me balance light etc.

My next purchase will be a prime in the 18-24mm range, f1.2-1.4. My dslr is a crop sensor so in order to get the 50mm effect I have to do this. Then maybe a nice flash for the hot cleat.

I also need to learn how to use flash better. But all in due time.

I don't even want to think about the PC upgrades I would need to manage that kind of pix size
16MP batch edits already turn my machine into a sloth

More megapixels seems useless if it's all grainy.

My 8 megapixel camera pictures come out worse than my 2 megapixel camera ones.

Great! I have yet to get a really good image that shows off my lens distortion.

GameSprocket: Great! I have yet to get a really good image that shows off my lens distortion.

I'm just dying to shoot all my test charts before the next camera comes out.

The Megapixel Myth (new window).

If you're taking an image to go on a billboard, it's going to be so far away that a big picture printed at web-friendly dpi (I know, it's lpi) is overkill. For huge pieces, it's easier to handle the file as a vector anyway ...you could scale it up to the size of the Solar System and still have clean lines, only the data points would be spaced a lot further apart (and good luck getting it printed at short notice). They're just going to halftone the crap out of it anyway (new window).

The lenses and the ability to take high ISO pics rapidly: that's worth it for professionals. But just looking at the pixel count is a waste of money. But you know what they say about fools and their money...

H31N0US: I thought we'd hit the point where there are diminishing returns for additional megapixels. It just slows down the write speed and introduces more noise.

IMHO if you have 12MP or higher, you're really better off buying better glass for your existing camera than upping your MP count.

That's what I thought, too. I used to be excited about new MP developments but after reading about it I was more like "meh"

But who knows, maybe there is a practical reason for 'em, but I doubt the average photographer would need or benefit from it.

DeadBaby: H31N0US: I thought we'd hit the point where there are diminishing returns for additional megapixels. It just slows down the write speed and introduces more noise.

IMHO if you have 12MP or higher, you're really better off buying better glass for your existing camera than upping your MP count.

That's what I thought, too. I used to be excited about new MP developments but after reading about it I was more like "meh"

But who knows, maybe there is a practical reason for 'em, but I doubt the average photographer would need or benefit from it.

Gives you a chance to do some serious cropping if necessary, and still have a workable print in the larger sizes. That's all I can think of.

downstairs: H31N0US: I'll just set the ISO to 12,000 in low light situations, problem solved.

Is this sarcasm? The low-light quality of digital is and always has been horrible compared to analog film. No matter what you set it to.

I dunno dude. ISO 128,000 looks a lot like ISO 400 film I used to scan. I suppose you're right if you're shooting ISO 50 BW film on a tripod in bulb exposure, but that's got some pretty limited applications.

DrippinBalls: It's funny to hear those who bought the D7k (a nice camera) only to read 'Well the dynamic range is expanded by a stop, but the raw files are too big and I need the expensive glass', when Nikon markets the kit with the highly underrated 18-105. A cheap kit lense that is actually good. Who knew?

More MP =/= quality image.

I think you mean 18-200.

downstairs: H31N0US: I'll just set the ISO to 12,000 in low light situations, problem solved.

Is this sarcasm?

Yes.

I keep the ISO as low as possible and open the F (for which you sometimes need expensive L series glass), but then I have DoF issues depending on how much of the shot you need to be in focus.

The upside of digital is that I can see immediately that I've farked the shot and can take it again. Then again, I don't make money with the camera (d60) so it's not that big a deal to me. More of a crotchfruit documentation thing.

downstairs: H31N0US: I'll just set the ISO to 12,000 in low light situations, problem solved.

Is this sarcasm? The low-light quality of digital is and always has been horrible compared to analog film. No matter what you set it to.

You are kidding, right? The 3200 iso setting on a canon 5dm2 looks better blown up than any 800 speed film that ever existed. I still like film and all, but really, it ain't even close in low light.

MSFT: DrippinBalls: It's funny to hear those who bought the D7k (a nice camera) only to read 'Well the dynamic range is expanded by a stop, but the raw files are too big and I need the expensive glass', when Nikon markets the kit with the highly underrated 18-105. A cheap kit lense that is actually good. Who knew?

More MP =/= quality image.

I think you mean 18-200.

I think he meant the 18-105. I've got the 18-200, and shot the 105, and like most of Nikon's lenses, it's pretty good, but not great. All it really showed me was that what I really want is a fast 300mm telephoto in a DX format that also doesn't cost me a mortgage payment.

/ Alas, no such animal.

Before:


After:

No thanks. I'm not planning on blowing up any pictures to the size of a billboard.

...but your facebook pictures and shutterfly Christmas cards would be so...detailed.

36.3? why not just carry the scenery around with you? It'd be cheaper and smaller.

DrippinBalls: MSFT
DrippinBalls: It's funny to hear those who bought the D7k (a nice camera) only to read 'Well the dynamic range is expanded by a stop, but the raw files are too big and I need the expensive glass', when Nikon markets the kit with the highly underrated 18-105. A cheap kit lense that is actually good. Who knew?

More MP =/= quality image.

I think you mean 18-200.

I've shot 3 copies of the 18-200. Meh at best. Not all 18-105's are great. Fortunately, mine is. It's a kit lense, so YMMV. Love mine for what I use it for.

Interesting, my camera came with the 18-200.
I picked up the Tokina 100mm prime and am pretty happy with it, though. Headshots are stupid easy with that lens, and it's somewhat affordable at ~500 dollars.

WhyteRaven74: So if they can make a 36.3 megapixel camera with a 35.9 x 24.0 mm sensor, I'm wondering what they could do with a medium format camera back these days.

No kidding, right? An actual full frame medium format back that could go on a Hassy SWC would be the best thing ever. Especially if it could handle the high iso well.