16MP vs 24MP comparison, continued.

Started Jun 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
Contributing MemberPosts: 511
Re: A77 has huge "cropping power"
In reply to Robsphoto, Jun 23, 2012

the only issue ive every supported in MP comparison threads is iso performance. ive more than once stated that at base iso, a higher MP camera, with all other things being equal, will resolve more detail in the end. ive also stated that a whole lot of people dont understand the dynamics of light and how much of a difference there is between 2PM and dusk. there are likely thousands of people who may read how the a77 is "just as good as the D7k" with high iso, and then they buy the sony bc of the shiny big numbers.

then they get to their twins baseball games which are all night games bc they are highschoolers, and guess what, iso 6400 doesnt look so good. they can barely read the kids jersey names even when cropped bc of the noise distortion. sure they should have bought more than that 18-55 kit, but they are beginners. (yes beginners would likely not be this picky but its my story).

comparing a 24MP vs a 16MP at high iso, such as 3200+, will almost always leave the 24 at a loss. you dont have to downsample to even, you simply just look at small things in the photo. from baseball bleachers with a 55mm at iso6400, the jersey names wont be so clear, and cropping wont help in the least. downsampling then cropping wont either, bc downsampling cant restore the lost data, it just presses the remaining pixels closer together.

of course all of this is subject to variance, such as the iso that provides difference. the a55 wont do as well as the k5 for example, and the a77 would likely hold even against the a55 further down the iso line. but if we take the best 24MP (which you guys claim is the a77) and the best 16MP (K5, D7k, X-Pro 1) the difference will show at about 3200 and up, with 1600 being about even.

so the moral of my argument is this. if you never shoot in dim light, have fun with your 500MP. if you do, a lot, you may be better off with a 16 (or a 12, 'cough' D700, yes i know its a FF). if you are somebody who doesnt know what light you will be shooting in you are obviously not a studio photog. these people will likely also never print a giant poster, thus not really need massive rez. so since a 16MP will give them enough rez, and better low light results when they need it, isnt that a better option?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow