You're presumably right Ricardo, but look at Nikon they've got a FF 36mp sensor that seems to be highly regarded.
It is a workflow clog
It's feasable so why not a 24mp APS-C sensor ?
Oh well, only time will tell.
Kind regards.
Because it is a workflow clog! But let me give you more reasons:
- For the type of photography I do, I don't need more than 12-16 MP. What exactly does 24 MP buy me? Nothing. Zero. Nada. I don't enlarge to 32'' x 42'' or whatever. A wedding? Weddings are quite fine at 16 MP.
Street life? Same thing.
- It is a workflow clog- given the previous point=- that I really don't need them. The computer power required to edit a 24MP file does not grow linearly from 16MP. More memory, more time transferring memory card to hardisk, notable longer times editing/converting form RAW etc.
Why? Why do I want this? I don't.
A few lenses will have to be re-worked/re-launched at a higher price to keep up with the sensor detail. Otherwise, what's the point?
I really think the new Nikon is highly regarded for many features not dealing with 36 MP and those who regard the 36MP as some kind of photographic epiphany = from what I have seen, are people obsessed with shooting brick walls, cats on a couch with flash and a lens flare, etc.
Once in a while I see someone with a real need- the landscape photographer (the one with the real decent landscape photographs, not the one saying they need the new Nikon to really do what they always wanted).
Now, I am being selfish when I say all this because I am talking from the point of view of my needs, but I can say right now the vast majority of people out there want 24 MP over 16 MP simply because "24 is the bigger number and bigger is better."
I sure don't.
- Raist