Is 24.6 MP too much?

Create polls and watch the responses
Forum rules
Think hard before creating a poll. Admin may delete frivolous or repetitive polls!

Is 24.6 MP too much?

Poll ended at Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:19 pm

Yes: I don't even print anymore
0
No votes
Yes: 10 to 12 MP is more than enough
6
24%
I can wait until the FF 20+ MP prices drop under 1000 US$
7
28%
Hard Drives/storage isn't expensive nowadays
7
28%
It's never too much
5
20%
 
Total votes: 25

User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2544
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby pakodominguez » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:19 pm

Some people think that, I don't.
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:34 pm

pakodominguez wrote:Some people think that, I don't.

Me too... but about what? :lol: :lol:
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2544
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby pakodominguez » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:51 pm

Dr. Harout wrote:
pakodominguez wrote:Some people think that, I don't.

Me too... but about what? :lol: :lol:

If the question is: "Is 24.6 MP too much?" and I say "Some people think that, I don't" what do you think is my answer about?
I don't think 24 MP is too much. I think is enough. If we get more our actual lenses will be useless, and I'm not ready to invest in new lenses right now (I'll have to invest in a FF camera soon)
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:05 pm

pakodominguez wrote:(I'll have to invest in a FF camera soon)

That's what I said "me too"... :D
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
[SiC]
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:16 am
Location: Hammarö, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby [SiC] » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:13 am

Yes.. 24MP is too much, "for me" that is...
Sony A700, A580, Nex-5t, KM D7D & VC-7D, M Dynax 500si
KM 17-35 F2.8-4 D, M 50 F1.7 RS, M 135 F2.8, M 28-100 F3.5-5.6 D, M 100-200 F4.5, T 70-300 F4-5.6 Di USD, S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM, S 18-70 F3.5-5.6
Sony hvl-f42s, Minolta 3600 HS D
Sony Z1C & Z2

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:37 am

Its odd, 24.6 MP sounds like too much, but it gathers data from a larger image circle at a lower pixel density. If 24.6 MP is too much for full frame, then 12 or more MP for APS-C is just silly.
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:42 am

You don't have too shoot at max resolution all the time, if 24.6 is too much for the memory capacity, transfer speed, computer processing etc. you can simply choose any of the other resolutions including APS-C.

It will be interesting too see how the 13M performs (after the bugs are sorted).

• 6048 x 4032 (24M 3:2)
• 4400 x 2936 (13M 3:2)
• 3024 x 2016 (6.1M 3:2)
• 3924 x 2656 (11M APSC)
• 2896 x 1928 (5.6M APSC)
• 1984 x 1320 (2.6M APSC)

Actually this is not the camera I personally would choose for high ISO action, I'd would grab the A700 first by far. But the A900 could be a hit with studio, commercial, architectural, scenic and wedding photographers and of course the AUDI BMW crowd may take a fancy to it as well.
IMHO don't think FF will compete with APS-C in close-up/macro or telephoto/wildlife or event/celeb type action, it will be operating from a disadvantage from the start in those.
Just my 2 cents.
Greg

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:03 am

Sonolta wrote:LOL...I already own a 12MP camera - and I would be shrinking all of my teles for $3000+...no thanks! :lol: Bring on some HD video and live view/w articulating screen, and I'll pay some money for that...Studio, landscape, and architecture guys are on their way to heaven though...no doubt.

-Sonolta


It's not so much that you'd be shrinking your telephoto lenses (consider that you're still getting 11MP in that APS-C area), but capturing the rest of that image circle from your FF lenses. You could afford to be a little sloppy framing up shots I suppose? I wonder how the AF accuracy compares between the a700 and the new unit.
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:10 am

I hear you, and I have to agree there is very little inticing about the a900. Unless you already own precious FF glass and you like to shoot wide, there's really no need to use it. As a "flagship" I think it should have offered quite a bit more than a700 specs with a bigger image circle...the size of the APS-C frame is something to which most manufacturers and consumers have already adjusted, and the camera offers no other significant advantage over an a700 it seems... liveview would have made it a no-brainer for many. I rather expected the a900 to offer so much that it made me dissatisfied with my a700 (that's just what you do in marketing), but I find that I'm more and more excited about the camera I already own.

Also, I fear the AF system is going to be an embarassment to the a900 when the very same unit shows up in Sony's next "enthusiast" APS-C model.
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3689
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:02 am

24mp is really going to appeal to a specific type of shooter. I am not one of them! £2000 is a whole lot for any camera, and I remain unconvinced about how long digital bodies last..

Saying that, stock photography shooters, could probably get worked up about it. Maybe some landscapers too (though I am firmly film on that one), studio folks etc. But not for wedding and general photographers, not that it won't be up to the job, most likely will, but 24mp is overkill.

I don't think what sony have done is bad, price is pretty much as expected. They are stubborn with the live view area, I see no harm adding it, sony "appear" to be just sticks in the mud on that one. Make of the video Canon and Nikon push what you wish.

I cannot help but feel, that a more moderate mp camera, say 16mp odd, and a body that broke new price points in the market (minus £500 for starters), and it would seriously tempt other non A mount users. Sony are a tad predictable with this offering, and some areas are strong (fps for the res), others fly in the face of the system (lack of onboard flash is plain stupid)

01af
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby 01af » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:11 am

High pixel count has two aspects: pixel density (or pixel pitch), and file size.

In terms of pixel density, 24.6 MP on 35-mm full-frame format corresponds to 10.5 MP on APS-C format. So in this regard, 24.6 MP is a fairly modest pixel count by today's standards.

In terms of file size however, 24.6 MP is huge. A raw file from the Dynax 7D (6 MP) is 9 MB; a raw file from the A700 (12 MP) is 18 MB---and a raw file from the A900 now is 36 MB. When shooting RAW+JPEG then every push of the shutter release button will create more than 40 MB of data. This will fill up memory cards scaringly fast---don't try convering an event with just half a dozen 1-GB cards---, and that definitely is way more than 90 % of photographers will need. But on the other hand, you can always switch to smaller file sizes if required (cRAW or reduced-size JPEG), and prices for memory cards and hard disks keep coming down. 21 years ago I bought a 20 MB hard disk for 900 DM (= 450 Euro); today 200 Euro will buy me 2 TB of 3.5" SATA disks---that's 100,000× the space at less than half the price. So the memory space you'll get for the same amount of money increases by a factor of 1.8× each year (or doubles every 14 months). Your computer is running out of hard disk space? Go and get a 1 TB hard disk for 100 Euro/$150 and stop whining.

And then with 24.6 MP you can do things that weren't possible before. You'll be able to shoot at APS-C format and still get a decent pixel count---compare that to Nikon D700 or D3! You'll get considerable headroom for cropping---important for action shooters. You'll be able to shoot at 6 MP and high ISO---which will create one RGB pixel from four raw pixels and thus get incredibly low noise. And for some applications you'll simply get better image quality---at low ISO for huge prints at poster formats.

So 24.6 MP is plenty, and it sure is more than many will need most of the time. But it's not too much. More DSLR cameras at this pixel count (and higher) will follow from other makers in no time. And of course you can always buy an A700 or A300 rather than an A900 if you prefer.

-- Olaf

User avatar
KevinBarrett
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby KevinBarrett » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:50 am

I think the only valid complaint left against the 24.6 MP figure is that this outstanding number is achieved (presumably) at the cost of features/functionality/quality that were higher on most users wishlist than "more pixels." For instance, if Sony chose to win the megapixel war at every turn, and all of their competitiveness was focused there, then the competitors will beat them in other areas: build quality, ISO performance, features, weather-proofing, frame rate, etc... The 24.6 MP get a bad rap in this model, because they are "the thing unasked-for" that took the place of "the things we really wanted."

The a900 might have been wildly popular at 16MP with a clean ISO 25,600 within reach, or at 18MP with 7fps and HD video, and so on...
Kevin Barrett
-- Photos --

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3689
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:27 pm

I agree with most comments I have read.
I guess it's hard for companies to predict the market, and it is "ultra" competitive. I don't think a mp battle on it's own is enough. I don't see sony's move as a bad one though. But we have to be honest, in these troubled times..high end FF cameras are not huge sellers, it is a limited market.

Even talking to a few photographers I know (I only do a bit here and there..job wise), their business has seen a noticable drop, and people are bargain hunting to a point. I think they will not be spending the big bucks they have in the last few years, so they say. Everyone is cutting back. People wake up in the morning and wonder if their bank will still be in business, will they have a job soon, etc Today I got a letter from my credit card, they have ramped up the APR from 16.5% to 21.5%, and min payment from 3% to 5% of balance, with NO balance transfers anymore.

Now is not a good time to be selling cameras, if people cut back, from normal buyers to pros, the market will drop. This isnt a shock to me, the boom had to end some time. We could see a very tough time for the camera market shortly. I would love an A900, but now is not the time to be buying top end gear, not for enthusiasts, other pressing issues will likely come ist. Not sony's fault, but even for FF, I see a price point that might get hit sooner than later, and that is lower prices all round.

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:10 pm

bfitzgerald wrote:Even talking to a few photographers I know (I only do a bit here and there..job wise), their business has seen a noticable drop, and people are bargain hunting to a point. I think they will not be spending the big bucks they have in the last few years, so they say.


In the pro sector, full-frame DSLRs are not selling as well - most High Street pros in the UK, above a certain level, are now migrating to medium format digital. Even my local camera shop (Hector Innes ABIPP, typical father and son small market town store with a mini lab and studio up on the 1st floor doing portraits) now uses a Hasselblad H3D 39 megapixel system, moved up from a mixture of film on Hasselblad plus Dynax D7D. Very high end stuff is selling well, ProFoto flash has made big inroads, and rates of £150-£200 per hour are being paid for routine commercial work on anything from 1Ds MkIII up. I don't see the A900 having much impact except to send the professionals more into the hands of Hasselblad, as they were 20 years ago, in order to stay well ahead of their clients. Successful businesses appear to be remaining that way and advertising spend is increasing.

Even I have just authorised my first Yellow Pages ad line in many years. I may need every job I can find next year, and A900 enables me to offer uncompromisingly professional output (I felt the A700 was just on the edge of being OK) so I'll make some kind of return to taking on what I have advertised to do - "Digital PR and corporate coverage".

David

PhotoTraveler
Grand Caliph
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:07 am

Re: Is 24.6 MP too much?

Unread postby PhotoTraveler » Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:23 am

I think the FF bodies compete with the Medium format stuff whenever the movement of their orbits brings the pixel counts close and prices closer.

So when all of them were stuck at 39MP max, and Canon had 21, FF 35mm made some ground. Now that the 35mm stake hasn't moved much, but the medium format has jumped to 60MP, things widen some. Of course the prices on both have dropped (hassy price dropped). Where the medium format dies is ZD range. No one is going to buy a 20MP ZD for 10,000 when they could have a 24MP A900 for 3K (probably 2500 soon) and a bunch of Zeiss lenses. As long as Medium format can open up some pixel ground and not go crazy on cost, they will manage. Not sure how Leica will manage, since they have something more ZD/645D like, at a much higher price. Still 20K is less than A P45+ or their new 60MP back and those rigs don't have a body. So many they will hit a nitch (until nikon comes along and does the same).

This is where I think Sony is blowing there changes. If they had a full range of Zeiss lenses that would target medium format folks, they could make some ground. Look at the lenses Leica is bringing. With the FOV equivlant in 35mm, with what that lens will/should be for Sony.

24mm = 19mm -> 20mm ZA
30mm TS = 24mm TS -> 24mm ZA TS
35mm = 28mm -> 28mm ZA TS
70mm = 56mm -> 50mm ZA (yeah, close enough, and sure the 1.4/50 minolta might do the job, or the macro)
30-90mm = 24-72mm -> 24-70ZA SSM (Done)
100mm = 85mm -> 85mm ZA (Done)
120mm macro, 96mm macro -> 100mm macro (done enough with the old minolta)
180mm = 144mm -> 135mm ZA (Done)
350mm = 280mm -> 300mm (well, there is the G, but maybe a 4/300G would be more like it).

So, they basically made the lineup Sony should have had for the A900. On the top end, they got it. But notice where Sony blows it. Everything prime below the 85mm. Now many could argue the 16-35ZA does they job. Ok, but notice the major one Sony missed, the tilt shift, the lens that makes the most sense for a mega-megapixel camera, a whole line of them. The main users of such cameras are the main users of such lenses. Canon has had them. Nikon has now got them. Hassy has added their adapter for them. Maymia-Phase one is bringing one. Rodenstock is bringing a line out for Canon and Nikon too. Everyone is realizing it's a critical thing to have as Film is dead, thus view cameras are dead unless you have insane piles of cash for a digital rig with a phase one back. Sony had what was clearly 2 wide angle zeiss prime mockups, where did they go. That's what the need too. Sony should be doing everything to make the A900 a medium format replacement. An A900 plus a pile of ZA lenses. You could buy it with all 4 full frame ZA lenses and be under 10K which is what a ZD body cost, no lenses.


Return to “Opinion Polls”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron