If this is really the Nex-7

[jonoslack]

Then it's going to be hard to resist:

NEX-7 at alpha rumors

However - the Off/No button might be an indication that it's not the real thing!

 

[BackToSlr]

Then it's going to be hard to resist:

NEX-7 at alpha rumors

However - the Off/No button might be an indication that it's not the real thing!

Nah...Its a rendering from a 3D model, quick and dirty one at that...

N

 

[emr]

It's a computer rendering for sure, but it could originate from Sony nevertheless. If Sony brings that thing with a good APS-C sensor and built-in VF - I'm all game. This is pretty much what I've been waiting for.

 

[Godfrey]

That's the best looking NEX rumor I've seen. It's thick enough, with enough gripping surface, to be handle-able and the controls could be useable.

I don't understand the need for 24 Mpixels, however. Does everyone make 40x60 inch prints all the time? Seems like massive overkill, lots of wasted disk space, and a huge additional burden requiring more processing power to work with.

 

[Terry]

Well that is the camera I was hoping Panasonic would make. So, whoever gets there first..... I still have my NEX5 but I really needed lenses for Kenya so I had to go back to m4/3.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Seems like massive overkill, lots of wasted disk space, and a huge additional burden requiring more processing power to work with.

There is no penalty for 24mp. See Moore's Law.

 

[Godfrey]

There is no penalty for 24mp. See Moore's Law.

The penalty is paying for more disk space, more processing power, more RAM, and ultimately more time and energy spent on fussing with the technology rather than working on your photography.

If you're going to make huge prints, lots of pixels are needed. But you don't need so many pixels if you're going to produce images for magazine copy, modest prints, and certainly not for images produced entirely for web viewing.

Just because you can get more pixels doesn't mean it's always a good thing to do.

"... Equipment often gets in the way of Photography. ..."

 

[Lonnie Utah]

The penalty is paying for more disk space, more processing power, more RAM, and ultimately more time and energy spent on fussing with the technology rather than working on your photography."[/I]

I work with 24 mp raw files from my a900 and I find it's not a problem at all. And I just paid $99 for a 1 TB network drive, and have seen internal 1 tb drives for as low as $50. I figure that I can store about 30,000+ 24 mp images on a 1 TB drive. In today's world, your argument falls flat.

More MP is the nature of the industry, and one might as well accept it.

And FWIW, the 24x36 prints I've made from it are AMAZING....

 

[Godfrey]

I work with 24 mp raw files from my a900 and I find it's not a problem at all. And I just paid $99 for a 1 TB network drive, and have seen internal 1 tb drives for as low as $50. I figure that I can store about 30,000+ 24 mp images on a 1 TB drive. In today's world, your argument falls flat.

More MP is the nature of the industry, and one might as well accept it.

And FWIW, the 24x36 prints I've made from it are AMAZING....

It's a silly debate, more pixels can be useful, but the notion that everyone needs 24 Mpixel capture is pretty ridiculous. There are multiplicative cost increases and unnecessary resource consumption implied in managing such large images.

I don't know what you do with 24x36 inch prints. I'm sure they look nice, but I've only seen two or three photos in the past year that really warranted such a gargantuan presentation.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

It's a silly debate, more pixels can be useful, but the notion that everyone needs 24 Mpixel capture is pretty ridiculous. There are multiplicative cost increases and unnecessary resource consumption implied in managing such large images.

There is a point you are missing. Just because you have 24 mp doesn't mean you have to use ALL 24 mp. I've gotten good results from cropping 24 MP images down to smaller resolutions. You'd be amazed how much cropping you can do with an image that size.

Wait til the new sony FF comes out, it will be close to 40mp....

I don't know what you do with 24x36 inch prints. I'm sure they look nice, but I've only seen two or three photos in the past year that really warranted such a gargantuan presentation.

I hang them on the walls of my house (and my boss has a couple on the walls of his office), and for the rest of it, that's opinion.

 

[hot]

Godfrey: penalty is paying for more disk space, more processing power, more RAM ... but the notion that everyone needs 24 Mpixel capture is pretty ridiculous

Bill Gates: 640 kbytes are enough


Oooouuuuhhh god ... TWO gods ... one (God-frey) for cameras, one for PCs ....

 

[Godfrey]

There is a point you are missing. Just because you have 24 mp doesn't mean you have to use ALL 24 mp. I've gotten good results from cropping 24 MP images down to smaller resolutions. You'd be amazed how much cropping you can do with an image that size.

Cropping 24 Mpixel images to smaller dimensions is wonderful at saving output and can save time you might otherwise spend in using the right focal length lens and framing carefully, but does nothing to reduce the size and processing overhead of managing 24 Mpixel raw files.

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey: penalty is paying for more disk space, more processing power, more RAM ... but the notion that everyone needs 24 Mpixel capture is pretty ridiculous

Bill Gates: 640 kbytes are enough


Oooouuuuhhh god ... TWO gods ... one (God-frey) for cameras, one for PCs ....

Great, now the ad hominem horsepucky begins. I'll just terminate my subscription to this thread.

 

[hot]

In some years you will buy cameras with 80 mpixels and 4Kvideo ... I bet $ 99.99!

And you will cry ... but the notion that everyone needs 120 Mpixel capture is pretty ridiculous

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Cropping 24 Mpixel images to smaller dimensions is wonderful at saving output and can save time you might otherwise spend in using the right focal length lens and framing carefully, but does nothing to reduce the size and processing overhead of managing 24 Mpixel raw files.

Have you worked with 24 Mp images? It's not that big a deal, really it isn't.

Are you working on a TRS-80?

 

[jonoslack]

The penalty is paying for more disk space, more processing power, more RAM, and ultimately more time and energy spent on fussing with the technology rather than working on your photography[/I]

Well Godfrey
I use aperture on an iMac with a 1tb hard drive, on which I have all the pictures I've kept since around 1990. Currently I'm using 10,12,18 and 24mp RAW files, and I simply don't notice the difference in processing speed.
On the other hand, I certainly do notice the difference in IQ between the larger and smaller files, even when printed small. Add to that the cropping ability and the possibility of printing that accidental 'shot of a lifetime' really big, and it seems to me that the overheads of large files are meaningless, but the benefits are very meaningful.
You speak like a man who has settled for 12mp and is feeling faintly uncomfortable!

All the best

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Well Godfrey
I use aperture on an iMac with a 1tb hard drive, on which I have all the pictures I've kept since around 1990. Currently I'm using 10,12,18 and 24mp RAW files, and I simply don't notice the difference in processing speed.
On the other hand, I certainly do notice the difference in IQ between the larger and smaller files, even when printed small. Add to that the cropping ability and the possibility of printing that accidental 'shot of a lifetime' really big, and it seems to me that the overheads of large files are meaningless, but the benefits are very meaningful.
You speak like a man who has settled for 12mp and is feeling faintly uncomfortable!

All the best

Quoted for truth.

 

[roweraay]

Cropping 24 Mpixel images to smaller dimensions is wonderful at saving output and can save time you might otherwise spend in using the right focal length lens and framing carefully, but does nothing to reduce the size and processing overhead of managing 24 Mpixel raw files.

I have been shooting/processing 24MP files for nearly 3 years now (A900 purchased in Oct 2008). I have not encountered the difficulties you mention. My computer is almost 2 years old too and has not missed a beat with the large files. The minute they announce a 40MP FF camera, I will spring for it.

 

[monza]

If the NEX 7 is indeed 24mp, it will be an immediate purchase. I really enjoyed shooting an A850 and what I anticipated with 24mp was entirely wrong....I found it a huge advantage with cropping.

I originally wanted the A850 as a platform for adapted lenses, but ultimately decided against semi-permanent lens mods as I still wanted to use those lenses on film cameras. The NEX 7 (rumor at least!) gives me every feature I've been looking for.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I went back from a 1Ds3 to a 5Dc and my computer was most thankful for it. I think the point is that many want to stretch the boundries of what a camera of that size should be capable of whereas many would be happy for it to be what it looks like, a carry anywhere street camera without needing it to replace a larger system for fine art work. I think Sony would be clever to put the the sensor from the Nex-C3 into a C5 and only then add a Nex-7. 18 megapixels with that amount of DR on a crop sensor would provide all that a '35mm' shooter could require while a more expensive model with 24 megapixels could be a Mamiya 7 replacement as a small IQ powerhouse for light travel.