The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

36mp Full Frame A99 SLT rumour

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Interesting to see all the NAY sayers .....

Why not more MP if high ISO and DR is same or better compared to today's 12MP incarnations? I would aways choose a higher MP count if price is attractive and IQ is good.

I do agree though with Jono, that pixel binnig (like Phase does) could be a good solution to keep file size and resolution down and allow cleaner high ISO.

But stop all these discussions about why and wieso and warum more MP! You will not be able to stop evolution and/ or change where it goes to. Just a waste of time to try IMHO!
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Hi Ben

Whilst I completely understand the argument with respect to PJs, where you just aren't going to need the extra resolution I just don't agree about weddings. You never know when you've going to get that shot which needs to be BIG, and with the fact that cropping can be a necessity, the D700 simply doesn't provide the real-estate.

I never found processing the 24mp files from the A900 a problem after weddings. Give me a choice between an A900 and a D700 for a wedding (and I've used both on several occasions) and I'd choose the A900 every time.

Mind you, it seems to me that what would be really good would be a pixel binning option - preferably across two cards, so one card would hold your nice 36mp file, and the other a 12mp file. Would that suit you?

all the best
Disagree Jono, made too many great large prints and large storybook albums (which are viewed up close) from my 5Dc to agree with that one even post crop. Weddings are not particularly resolution intensive. I had a 1Ds3 for a while for wedding work and have never regretted going back to the 5D's.

I'll also add that the megapixel count of the 1Ds/1DsII/5Dc/D700/D3 was and is enough for wedding work for the greater part of the past decade and still today for all that they didn't even hit 18 megapixels nevermind double that. Every single wedding photographer I know personally uses a D700 or D3 apart from my partner who has a 5D and 1D3 (we can't afford to switch to Nikon:D). I recently printed a canvas from that 1D3 for a wedding show we did at 30X20" and it was breathtaking. Not going to even start talking about the film we used to shoot wedding with.

24 megapixels is one thing (and the files from my 1Ds3 were a royal pain to batch because of the size) but 36 megapixels is a whole new ballgame. To be honest I really, really wouldn't ever want to go there unless I had a specific need.

I stitch regularly as you may know to between 40-70 megapixels, am setting up a studio with a Leaf 40 megapixel back and used to own a 1DsIII. I have an assistant with a 5DII. I really don't believe that weddings for the vast majority of the time require more than about 16 megapixels.

But that's just my personal opinion. If you have a brand whose use of extra IQ is making you more money then all power to you. Us wedding shooters have to do whatever we can these days to seperate us from the crowds unfortunately.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Interesting to see all the NAY sayers .....

Why not more MP if high ISO and DR is same or better compared to today's 12MP incarnations? I would aways choose a higher MP count if price is attractive and IQ is good.
And my mother in law will always buy a 2 for 1 offer even if she didn't even need one nevermind both :D:D.

If you have defined a specific need and have something that fills that need then to buy more is a luxury but not a necessity.

Though I could get stoned for saying that on this forum? :ROTFL:
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
All 24-36MP (and any high MP) cameras mean is, sometime soon, our printers and video displays are going to be operating at much higher resolutions than they are currently. When that happens, we'll all NEED cameras with this many MP's....
 

jonoslack

Active member
But that's just my personal opinion. If you have a brand whose use of extra IQ is making you more money then all power to you. Us wedding shooters have to do whatever we can these days to seperate us from the crowds unfortunately.
Well - here we have to agree (each to his own) :)
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Well I'm in trouble enough on this forum for having owned the same system, the same two cameras and pretty much the same lenses (with the exception of one) for the past 6 years. I'm the misfit at the back of a classroom where Guy is the teachers pet... :p:p
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well I'm in trouble enough on this forum for having owned the same system, the same two cameras and pretty much the same lenses (with the exception of one) for the past 6 years. I'm the misfit at the back of a classroom where Guy is the teachers pet... :p:p
:) Well Ben - I'm also in trouble - I have one of the most accomplished GAS syndromes . . . but I've managed to avoid falling into the MF trap all this time.
 

baudolino

Active member
Interesting to see all the NAY sayers .....

But stop all these discussions about why and wieso and warum more MP! You will not be able to stop evolution and/ or change where it goes to. Just a waste of time to try IMHO!
This is not an irrelevant discussion - the point is not warum more MP - I think you are missing the point a bit.... I am ok with more MP but I want to be sure that the entire imaging chain corresponds to the 36MP resolution of the chip - i.e. lenses with appropriate resolution and contrast, intelligent and accurate AF system, image stabilization etc. My concern is that these cameras (and lenses) have to be built to a price point (with corresponding tolerances, machine assembly etc.), whereas the hi-res sensors really require the tightest tolerances, super-precise focusing and therefore very careful QC in lens assembly etc. Leica can do this now but at a very high price, with a hand assembled product. Can Sony/Nikon/Canon do this with mass produced consumer cameras and lenses? I hope so but I want to be convinced.

And I am not even talking about the necessity of impeccable technique, use of high shutter speeds or tripod etc.

I've learned my lessons with a 33MP digital back on MF camera bodies, and with an M9. And the main lesson is that shooting with a high resolution imaging system is not trivial. It is often a different cup of tea than shooting with a 12-20MP camera.

Last point - I don't care about high ISO performance but I want beautiful colors out of the camera and DNG raw files that are easy to edit and can be heavily processed without falling apart. I think Sony should be able to deliver this and this will be key for me.

The product I am waiting for is the NEX9, with a 36MP full frame sensor :) (I'd take one with 24MP too, but if they offer 36MP I won't be disappointed, as long as my concerns about lenses and build tolerances/focus accuracy are proven to be unfounded.
 

douglasf13

New member
Thing is that one of the reasons the D700/D3 combo were so incredibly successful was that they didn't cram so many megapixels in. The people using them are PJ's and wedding shooters who really don't want 36 megapixels but do want incredible high iso and small files which are still good enough to do a nice big print. Once you get over the 20 megapixel barrier you're pretty much heading into the commercial and fine art realm ONLY for needing those kind of file sizes. Many people respect the demarcation between Nikon's D700/D3 line and the D3X. Yes the megapixels are going to go up and personally I think 16 megapixels would suit the D700 better as it's got a rather strong AA filter but 36 would be a shame IMO.

No doubt lots of enthusiasts would disagree but the pro's who use and love the D700/D3 pretty much use them for one purpose rather than the 5DII crowd who will shoot street with it one day and fine art the next day and travel the day after that. I'd prefer the chip to stay with a smaller megapixel upgrade than competing with the canon megapixel hysteria but get even better at what they already do so well, DR and high iso, big buffers, small files and not having to compromise on pro features and even the top pro processing of the signal from that chip to pay for a more expensive chip (ala canon 5DII again).

Here's to hoping, having to deal with 1200 36 megapixel files at the end of a wedding is far from my ideal and the various versions of downsized raw files so far have all been IQ compromised.

There should be a 36 megapixel sensor, but not in the D800.
The problem here is the assumption that more megapixels leads to more noise, given the same sensor technology, when output to the same size. The advantage in lowlight of the D700/D3/D3s isn't the number of pixels per se, but, rather, the design of the sensor and AD converters themselves. If Nikon built a 36mp version of the D3s sensor, then it'll likely be as good as the D3s in lowlight when outputted to the same size. If Nikon chooses a Sony EXMOR design, then it'll likely have better low ISO DR, but it won't perform quite as well at high ISO.

It sounds like what you're asking for is a specific sensor design, not a certain number of megapixels.
 

jonoslack

Active member
And I am not even talking about the necessity of impeccable technique, use of high shutter speeds or tripod etc.

I've learned my lessons with a 33MP digital back on MF camera bodies, and with an M9. And the main lesson is that shooting with a high resolution imaging system is not trivial. It is often a different cup of tea than shooting with a 12-20MP camera.
HI There - Whilst I understand, and I quite agree that to get the very best out of these chips then you need to have the best glass and the best technique.

However - stick the humble Sony SZ 16-80 on the 24mp chip of the A77 . . . and you aren't getting the best out of the chip - but the results are still better than they were on the A55 - the point being that the extra sampling has it's own benefits - actually, I've been rather surprised with this lens.

Sometimes the results from the combination of a high resolution sensor and a rather mediocre lens can be more than the sum of their parts.

Like you, I'm not a high ISO freak (it's nice of course) But I'm looking forward to a FF 36mp A99 - I've started to like the EVF of the A77, and it's just as much a 'real camera' as the A900 - it gives me high hopes for the A99 - I'm sure it'll be fab with the 24 f2, the 85 f1.4 and the 135 f1.8 - but I expect it'll be just fine with the 70-300 G lens as well.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Yikes a 36mp FF sensor?? OMG, Besides the 85mm and 135mm Sony Zeiss lenses, I'm not sure if any of the the other Sony lenses will do the camera any justice also to add precise focus and either very high shutter speed or a tripod.
I still struggle with my MF 33MP Leaf Back in regards to getting a sharp image, and thats using MLU, Tripod and release, yet when I get one, it's for sure with the extra effort .

Jono, so far it sounds like you are pleased with the A77, in comparison to your A900 at base ISO, I am thinking about getting one myself, since I am not a WA shooter or a high ISO shooter, the A77 maybe just the ticket.

Steven
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I have no problems handholding my a850 and lenses like the ZA 24-70 at speeds where the *annoying* shake warning is on permanently in the viewfinder. It's not hard to hand hold a 50 at f/8 1/30s and get technically perfectly sharp images. I'm sure 36MP will be just fine as well.
 

mjm6

Member
I have no problems handholding my a850 and lenses like the ZA 24-70 at speeds where the *annoying* shake warning is on permanently in the viewfinder. It's not hard to hand hold a 50 at f/8 1/30s and get technically perfectly sharp images. I'm sure 36MP will be just fine as well.
Jan,

I defy you to prove that you can hand hold a 50mm at 1/30 and have it equal to a comparable shot taken at 1/500, or better yet on a tripod with mirror up, at an 'ideal' shutter speed.

I do agree that it is possible to get sharp images, but not sharp images that match the technical perfection of the ideally arranged camera. Whether the difference is relevant for your or most people's uses is another issue, but there will be observable differences.

---Michael
 

mjm6

Member
Yikes a 36mp FF sensor?? OMG, Besides the 85mm and 135mm Sony Zeiss lenses, I'm not sure if any of the the other Sony lenses will do the camera any justice also to add precise focus and either very high shutter speed or a tripod.
...And this is part of the reason that I do not believe that an AA filter is needed on a camera with that density of sensor...

Boy would it be nice to get rid of that thing... let the lenses perform at their limits and fail if they aren't up to the resolution of the sensor. It doesn't matter, because it will still be sharper that the same lens on a 24MP sensor that has AA built in.

The M9 has convinced me of the merit of this approach, even though it does occasionally suffer from moire with that pixel density. I bet the next M camera will be in the 25-28MP range, and at that point will likely be beginning to out resolve some of the Leica lenses as well.

---Michael
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Michael,
Being an ex M9 owner and now regretting ever selling it, I agree with everything you have to say. No AA filter would be a great thing and then we can really see how these high megapixel cameras really perform and if the lens can really do the job.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yikes a 36mp FF sensor?? OMG, Besides the 85mm and 135mm Sony Zeiss lenses, I'm not sure if any of the the other Sony lenses will do the camera any justice also to add precise focus and either very high shutter speed or a tripod.
I still struggle with my MF 33MP Leaf Back in regards to getting a sharp image, and thats using MLU, Tripod and release, yet when I get one, it's for sure with the extra effort .

Jono, so far it sounds like you are pleased with the A77, in comparison to your A900 at base ISO, I am thinking about getting one myself, since I am not a WA shooter or a high ISO shooter, the A77 maybe just the ticket.

Steven
I think it is all relative. An increase in meg count on its own isn't quite the "linear leap" that many people seem to think it is ... which is the mis-informed fuel that keeps the meg race engines accelerating forward. MFD has been at this "man up" game longer than 35mm DSLRs have, and it is there that you can see just how big of a leap is really needed to realize any sort of eye popping difference based solely on meg count ... 16 to 22 to 33 to 39/40 to 50 to 60FF to now 80FF .... (and even 200 meg for some applications.)

I seriously doubt that there will be that big of a difference in sheer resolution between the current 24 meg A900 and a 36 meg A99. How that additional data is handled is another story ... and frankly, is the core question yet to be answered.

What plays into the equation are advancements in both proprietary processing engines and post software. Those sort of differences can be illustrated by looking at the Nikon D3X and Sony A900 which use the same base sensor/meg count. Beyond those base fundamental similarities, they are very different imaging devices delivering visibly different results.

Chief amongst the software opportunities are profile driven lens corrections ... primarily pioneered by MFD to keep legacy lenses abreast of the increased resolution that magnifies any flaws when under the watchful eye of the pixel peepers. While every one of my Hasselblad lenses and Leica S optics have full lens corrections in LR ... none of the Sony ZA optics do ... yet. Lord knows that the 24-70 could benefit from a LR lens profile, and most certainly the ZA85's CA could as well. Frankly, I think THAT is more important than whether you can hand-hold a 35mm DSLR camera with 36 meg verses 24 meg.

I also asked the question regarding the A77 as to whether they included the ability to correct each lens' focusing point like the A900 has ... and I'll ask the same question regarding the A99. As the meg count increase, the accuracy of the AF become more critical, and the ability to zero in every lens to make up for manufacturing anomalies increases in importance. My first ZA24/2 was so off, that I had to use near maximum corrections to get it zeroed in, so I returned it for a second one that only needed a very little tweak.

Lastly, it would be interesting to know if Sony has worked on improving the anti-shake technology for these cameras.

-Marc
 
Top