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
No votes
Yes: 10 to 12 MP is more than enough
I can wait until the FF 20+ MP prices drop under 1000 US$
Hard Drives/storage isn't expensive nowadays
It's never too much
Total votes: 25

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

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
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3725
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

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".


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