Jump to content

Would 200mp make you jump ship?

andrew brown

Recommended Posts

Some one had to post it - so I thought I would...


Just seen the prototype of Canons 200mp SLR - ok it had a beast of a lens attached to it so you could  read the text off a plane 11 miles away - but none the less, it has to be asked!


If Canon released an SLR with a 200mp sensor - how many Fuji users would actually be inerested?


This is not a right or wrong question - just a a discussion piece...

Link to post
Share on other sites

200mp on FF sensor? Not interested at all. The only thing it would do is overload my computer, camera and storage. 16mp is enough for me at APS-C; 36 at FF; 80 at MF. The latest should be enough for everything. 200mp on FF will be a gimmick like 16mp on a cell phone. Or a special purpose camera when combined with sharpest macro lenses that can resolve 2um. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Canon was publically showing off a 120MP sensor it has in development?




If they have now publically announced a 200MP sensor this would be truly astonishing news indeed. 


The 120MP figure represents the limits of the resolving ability of current lenses. It would make little sense to make a +120MP sensor as that would exceed the resolution of the lens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that I would.


In fact I am pretty sure that, at present, I wouldn’t.


The thing is that one of the things I like the most in the fuji system is the fact that it is small, it has at least 50% of its features ( it that isn’t so it feels so for me) linked to dials and knobs, working by and large as the cameras of my youth, and offers me enough quality for an image that can be printed up to at least 50 cm x 60cm ( although the lab promises up to 135 cm x 90 cm ). 


It would be a different thing if I were to chose a camera for a type of professional use which would involve the need for a larger printing output or the need ( as when I was involved in a major digitization project where the requirements were that 1 cm of the file image would ideally correspond to 1 cm of the original and to do that we used in many cases a 4" x 5” tri-pass digital back capable of producing a file of 720Mp TIFF file (if memory serves me right).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I ever needed 200MP, it would certainly not be for action, but most likely it would be for an enormous landscape print. However, it is very easy to shoot a mosaic of 16MP exposures and let Photoshop stitch them. The CC 2015 version does an amazing job with little effort on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

not in the least bit interested!  I was shooting with the Paltry (compared to 200mp) Nikon D800 and it's 36mp sensor and it was a b*tch.  Even using the best techniques it was still difficult.  I actually treated it as I would have my Mamiya 645 AFDs.  That is tripod, mirror lockup, cable/wireless release, etc. etc.  When it nailed the image it was fantabulous but so what.  For me it wasn't worth the hassle.  Now if Fuji took their X-T1 to 24 or 30mp I would be very tempted -- even though I've gotten gorgeous 24 x 18" prints out of th 16MP sensor.  I would never, ever turn away more pixels up to a point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24-30 mp range on APS-C, somewhat more if full frame or medium format for me. Beyond that, you gain detail (minor) with certain lenses, under certain conditions, but you pay with reduced dynamic range and increased noise. 200 MP on APS-C or FF, you're in the pixel density range of a cell phone! I can spot phone pictures even as tiny jpegs, simply because they have blown highlights, muddy shadows or both. The current generation of 24 MP sensors are similar to the 16MP sensor we have, just with more detail. If Sony puts a modest increase in density on the A6000 replacement, I'm relatively confident it'll be similar as well, but a big jump would probably lose in other categories.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • As @Greybeard wrote, there is more going on than just saving a changed setting. Even if it were only that, it would still be tricky. Different settings take up different size spaces in the file. Trying to overwrite that can easily wreck the file. Early computer based EXIF editors would not do more than report settings for the raw files they would allow users to read. Your Velvia image file may take 2MB more storage than the Provia one, but changing from one to the other seamlessly would be difficult to pull off without a massive amount of processing. All while doing other camera stuff. RAF is vastly different in what it does than JPEG or TIFF or ...
    • I didn't know about that JPG. But for me it would be handy if the "RAW including that JPG" could be updated. I don't want to bother about editing photos on a computer. I just use the computer for archiving them and I "use" the photos on the tablet where I have my viewing archive. Just ideas. Digital photography could be so "easy" or "convenient" if all those things were possible. I want the pictures, good pictures. I don't want to bother with software. Sometimes it is a little detail which can make your experience so great, or which can spoil everything.
    • Yes I used that software years ago with an X100F, but  then it stopped working, because the new software no longer worked on my computer (32 vs 64 bit). At the moment I am a Linux user on a 10 year old machine. My most modern "computer" are my phone and tablet.
    • Its a little more than just the metadata - there is also a 13MP jpg stored in the RAF file - if the RAF file was to be updated I'd probably prefer another copy.
    • Have you tried using the Fujifilm X Raw Studio software on a computer? You can still use the camera for the actual conversion and it would solve most of your problems in naming and batch conversion.
  • Create New...