36mp a99?

Started Jun 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,896Gear list
Re: 36mp a99?
In reply to Meshuggah, Jun 23, 2012

Everyone needs to go for what works for them. Rather than having such limited assumptions about Sony, there are multiple reasons to size an SLT FF at 24 MP:

  • one of the SLT's claims to fame is that the "translucent" mirror makes speed-related advances possible - but it's a lot less likely when you have to move 36 MP's. If Sony were to sacrifice that speed for MP, they'd lose a possible advantage (and I'd guess that they'll improve further on object tracking in the A99, and will provide a much healthier buffer).

  • stability is easier to manage with a lower-density sensor, as is real-world demonstrated by some of the non-manufacturing issues with D800 image sharpness. Of course we'd use a solid tripod on the lens or body but I, for one, would rather not be limited to tripod-only use. You could make the point that a manufacturer who has a cleaner high ISO would at least split some of the difference, but then you've got more sets of color profiles to create for the shifts those higher ISO's bring.

  • for me, 24 MP is a nice sweet spot. I'm not asking for more and, as many Nikonians have voiced it, there's a huge gap created by that large MP jump. If Sony's going to bring out a 36 MP FF later on, I agree with the strategy of working with 24 MP first: there's probably a decent technology hurdle to overcome in translating EVF to FF (including the fact that a lot of FF shooters might judge this more harshly than it warrants), and Sony does keep trying to raise their performance bar.

It seems you're extremely interested in technical specs; I understand (been there, etc.). At one point I just let go of that. Can another camera render higher DR? Probably. But what do you get the most pleasing image from? Just as in sound, the human curve isn't at all flat. But your tastes might run to "revealing every pixel;" to me that's kind of unnatural, and there's so much more fulfillment for me in having shadows with only the tiniest (or no) sense of detail, and highlights blown if it makes the picture better. But of course that's all personal taste.

You have to go with what works for you. If Sony doesn't work at all for you, I suggest you go for what does - life is just too short to gripe (and I'm saying this from intense personal experience). Do the Sony's provide everything I want? Heck no! But I'm a sucker for that "sweet zone" IQ from an aesthetic pov, and I think they're moving in a good direction, generally - and nicely ahead of the pack (and also forcing that pack to move) in some of it. I hope you enjoy your photography!

-- hide signature --
 RichV's gear list:RichV's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 50mm F1.4 +6 more
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