56 mp fx ?

Started Feb 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 28,601
Re: Quite logical actually

Grevture wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Amount of pixels within a camera follow no logic. It used to be you had to get a 35mm SLR in order to have lots of pixels Now Many aps-c dSLRs have more pixels than most 35mm dSLRs. And P&S cameras now are in the 20 MP range which is more pixels than some aps-c dSLRs! So the pixel count world is all mixed up now. This is largely because P&S cameras get replaced every 12 months on average and aps-c replaced every 12 to 24 months while 35mm dSLRs get replaced every 3 to 4 years. Plus lower end, lower priced products have higher sales volumes driving profit. So makers want to throw lots of pixels in low end units to drive sales.

Read the reply from signature "KewlEugene" earlier in this thread. It is simply a result of how manufacturing cost for sensors work. In simple terms: The smaller a sensor is, the more advance technology you can afford using in it. It is in fact pure and simple business logic.

That is no answer  nor does it include any logic.  Small pixels are small pixels and is no special technology.

56 MP of recorded image is nice.. if lenses are around to resolove that amount of detail. larger files for the sake it aren't any good if you only get 30 MP of resolution for instance.

Agree with 56 megapixels being nice. And the lenses are already around, in abundance.

Not capable of 56 MP.

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