weltweit
Well-Known Member
Oh, I would hate that! its taken me years to learn to compose in 3x2. 1x1 would be a completely new ball game.
Sony α900 - world’s first full-frame 24.6 megapixel DSLR
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Oh, I would hate that! its taken me years to learn to compose in 3x2. 1x1 would be a completely new ball game.
Oooops! Missed this thread.
My Leaf back is 28MP and a processed 8 bit tif clocks in at 80MB
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Ouch.
I just took a look at the preview on www.dpreview.com and their samples gallery has files of size about 5mb, I would guess they must be jpegs.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I don't really understand this megapixel war business.
Perhaps professional photographers (or graphic designers) are blowing images up very large (well yes they must be) but as an amateur the largest I print is 10x15 inches and a 6mp jpeg image is quite sufficient for that.
I guess the need for megapixels is really in the pro field then.
Perhaps professional photographers (or graphic designers) are blowing images up very large (well yes they must be) but as an amateur the largest I print is 10x15 inches and a 6mp jpeg image is quite sufficient for that.
I guess the need for megapixels is really in the pro field then.
alef
Needs to take more photos
Agree. Surely the only barrier to having a square format is tradition and purists not wishing to later crop to create their composition.
But further food for thought: if you can have 36mm on the longest side then why not make it a perfect circle of diameter 36mm? (Even more accurately, they are producing a diagonal of 43mm, so should be able to have a sensor with a diameter of at least that.) Circular photos are absolutely awful for almost any composition, however you would then have the most efficient use of your lenses!
The problem with the purists can easily be solved by having a range of pre-set image frames with different aspect ratios. Many digital cameras have this option already, square formats are one of these options on some newer compact cameras. My Ricoh R5 has a 3:2 option for example.
As for a circular image, I agree that it would not make a good frame. However that would amount to a return to an historical format. George Eastman's original box cameras produced a 2 inch diameter circular image. Perhaps on our fictional 36mm square format an adjustable elliptical frame could be introduced as one of the pre-sets or even as an after-the-event choice.
As for a circular image, I agree that it would not make a good frame. However that would amount to a return to an historical format. George Eastman's original box cameras produced a 2 inch diameter circular image. Perhaps on our fictional 36mm square format an adjustable elliptical frame could be introduced as one of the pre-sets or even as an after-the-event choice.
lobster
Well-Known Member
A pro or anyone who wants to enlarge very big (like you say) would use a medium or large format camera.
When its too big , I would imagine you start to loose detail, regardless of the pixels.
It is interesting to note that Nikon have not gone over the top with there latest cameras. If fact the Nikon D3 12.1 has less pixels than the Dx2's 12.4 .
What I would like to see in cameras is better high iso, wouldn't it be good if you could shoot at 25,600 without noise and also work on reducing noise with extra long exposure .. without having to result to double time with NR on.
Ok, you can do the NR on a computer ..
Also improving battery life...
To a point, but it's not the yardstick.
It actually more to do with the quality of the dynamic range avalable etc.
For example, medium format digital backs, unlike dslr's, do not use an anti aliasing filter which allows more detail per pixel, also MFDB's aren't stuffed with features - they're quite stripped down in that respact to say a D3 or D1S - things like the quality of the electronics & in built cooling systems/fans also add a lot to the overall quality captured.
A pro colleague of mine is happily still using a 21MP back on a large format cam for high end advertising still life work.
lobster
Well-Known Member
Dynamic range was what I forgot to mention as well..
When I was in Canada last year I bumped into a pro photographer who does shots of models and he still uses a nikon d1s iirc with a lot of older lenses .... Weather the camera he brought on holiday was one of many is another question .....
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I just got an A900 second hand - only six years late 
- and it's interesting to read this old thread (N.B. THIS IS AN OLD THREAD). OMG 24MP! Who needs that? Actually, who does? That point hasn't changed. It's also interesting to see that sensor quality, at least at lowish ISOs, hasn't really changed all that much over the years. So far the A900 takes the piss out of a lot of my Minolta lenses that I'd previously thought perfectly adequate. I shall have to test it with my better ones.
It's a lovely camera btw. Stanley Edwards would love it - it's definitely a "real camera", no messing about with video or even with live view. You set it up, you point it at stuff and you take pictures. It's very similar to the Dynax 9 film camera (which I also have) even down to the control layout, just with a screen on the back. It has a good heft to it but it's not particularly heavy, just solid.
The price has gone down obviously but not to cheap-as-chips levels, which was one of the reasons I got it - if I decide to sell I won't lose much. It's considered a bit of a classic apparently, as the last full frame OVF DSLR Sony made before moving on to mirrorless full frame. I wasn't very impressed with the EVF on the A99, and I'm not hanging about waiting for the A99 v2 which is theoretically coming some time this year.
- and it's interesting to read this old thread (N.B. THIS IS AN OLD THREAD). OMG 24MP! Who needs that? Actually, who does? That point hasn't changed. It's also interesting to see that sensor quality, at least at lowish ISOs, hasn't really changed all that much over the years. So far the A900 takes the piss out of a lot of my Minolta lenses that I'd previously thought perfectly adequate. I shall have to test it with my better ones.It's a lovely camera btw. Stanley Edwards would love it - it's definitely a "real camera", no messing about with video or even with live view. You set it up, you point it at stuff and you take pictures. It's very similar to the Dynax 9 film camera (which I also have) even down to the control layout, just with a screen on the back. It has a good heft to it but it's not particularly heavy, just solid.
The price has gone down obviously but not to cheap-as-chips levels, which was one of the reasons I got it - if I decide to sell I won't lose much. It's considered a bit of a classic apparently, as the last full frame OVF DSLR Sony made before moving on to mirrorless full frame. I wasn't very impressed with the EVF on the A99, and I'm not hanging about waiting for the A99 v2 which is theoretically coming some time this year.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
i'm still very happy with an a200, 10.2mp
Even second hand is out of my budget ATM, but, I have tried and I like the simplicity (if you can call all the knowledge behind you simplicity). However, for what I consider 'pure' photography I am still sticking to film. The romance of digital is lost on me. That probably makes no sense at all!
On the other hand, simple point and snap fun is great fun with digital. I've just bought a basic FujiFilm point and shoot (still better value all round than Samsung for me). Stick it on super auto 'we know what you're thinking' mode and it produces great snaps. All good fun, but when I am serious about photography as an art medium I just can't take digital seriously even when it comes in a serious box like the A900.
Yet to put this little FujiFilm through its paces, but it looks pretty fucking amazing for €70. A shot on super glamour, macro, super macro, super colour everything mode... (seriously mashed in GIMP from 14MP).
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Oh, I still shoot loads of film, I just hate colour negative film now, and slide film is so expensive to get processed. For personal stuff I use a nice sharp B&W film with character - the Rollei Retro 80S is very good, I recommend that, and quite cheap too. I've made prints from that in 35mm which look like they're from medium format.
But for photojournalism, particularly if you want colour, the digital workflow beats the pants off film. The JPEGs from the A900 are always perfect without needing PP. With the 24-105 Minolta lens (from 1980-something but still sharp as a sharp thing) the A900 is a beast - battery lasts forever, huge viewfinder that works brilliantly in bright light, 5fps action shots with killer autofocus.
But for photojournalism, particularly if you want colour, the digital workflow beats the pants off film. The JPEGs from the A900 are always perfect without needing PP. With the 24-105 Minolta lens (from 1980-something but still sharp as a sharp thing) the A900 is a beast - battery lasts forever, huge viewfinder that works brilliantly in bright light, 5fps action shots with killer autofocus.
Similar threads
