The A77 came out more than 5 years ago offering 24MP in a "cropped" sensor. This is now the entry level in APS-C. It is also the top end.
Yes, very interesting, isn't it? If the sensor is supposed to be the expensive part, why do high-end DSLR cameras still cost so much? Why don't they all cost about $200 to $300? I see no reason the "new" Nikon D500, with its 20 MP sensor, should cost $2,000 or even $1,000. Sony sold the A77 for $800 three years ago. Both shoot fast (though the A77 could shoot faster than today's new Nikon D500 can). Both have high quality screens on the back. Both are weather sealed. Nikon and Canon are somehow successfully fleecing photographers, and for some reason neither Sony or Pentax seem to have a significant affect on their prices.
Interesting. Basically, current cameras offer only one MP count.
Actually it's two - 24 MP and 20 MP (i.e. the new Canon 7 D Mk II and the new Nikon D500).
Why is this, I wonder? Is 24MP simply the practical limit (seems unlikely given that phones and compacts have higher pixel densities).
No, it is not the practical limit, because there is very good image quality produce with cameras that have sensors with far greater density (i.e. the 20 MP 1" sensors in the Panasonic FZ1000 and their ilk, as well as the Sony cameras with their 1" sensors). Even Nikon's 1" sensor of the V3, which is 18 MP, has a far greater density than a 24 MP APS-C sensor. The image quality from those cameras is excellent . . . though their lenses are purpose built.
Or is it that people simply don't care any more and more MP doesn't sell?
I think that people do care about more MP, but not so many people do and there are no options, other than more expensive full-frame cameras, like the Nikon D810 and now the Canon 5 Ds and Sony A7r II. Obviously the Sony A7r II is selling well (it has 241 reviews at B&H already), and that is an indicator that people do indeed have an interest in spending more money to get more MP. Otherwise they would just buy the A7 II instead of the A7r II. In fact, the A7r II is almost twice the price of the A7 II, yet the A7r II has more than twice as many reviews. To me this indicates that there is a strong desire for more MP, but people are not getting what they want. I think it's sad and almost criminal.
Pentax needs to buy Samsung sensors. Unfortunately I think Pentax is often a follower, rather than a leader. Look how long it took them to make a full-frame camera. Look how long it took them to make a 24 MP camera. (I think they were the last APS-C size DSLR manufacturer to make one . . . except Sigma, who have never made one.)
Aside from purchasing a DP2M (just an experiment really), all my cameras are 16MP equivalent and below.
I was surprised when I realised I've been using 16MP for this length of time and feel no inclination to upgrade at all. 24MP calls me not one jot. I do plan to upgrade my Lumix G6 to a G7 when the prices/used prices fall to bargain basement level simply for the ergonomics but the image quality is identical to what I have now.
Threads on this forum indicate that people are still interested in ever-refining image quality but this seems to be a minority view these days.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Virtually nobody who doesn't want high image quality will spend the money to buy a big, heay, expensive, DSLR and lenses. The same goes for full-frame cameras. Most people buy those to get better quality, and they are selling better than ever.
Image quality everywhere seems to be sufficient for most people and the manufacturers themselves.
Of course it's "sufficient" for the manufacturers. They don't want to spend as much money on the cameras. They want to maximize profit. It's almost as if they're too stupid to realize what's going on with Sony and their 42 MP A7r II.
Not much pushing of the envelope any more aside perhaps from Sigma and the medium format suppliers.
Even the medium format suppliers haven't been pushing the envelope much. They apparently either can't afford to or they don't want to. They made 33 MP sensors ten years ago, and they have only barely tripled that, when they should have been doubling resolution every two years, which would put them at more than 200 MP by now. The way digital sensor resolution was growing between 2001 and 2006, there is no way that Pentax would have released an upgraded camera that had a sensor with only 25 % more megapixels. From 2010 to 2016 Pentax went from a 40 MP camera to a 50 MP camera. That's pathetic. The crazy thing is that people seem to think Pentax is still a good value. That shows how little pushing of the envelope there has been in the medium format market. It's no wonder medium format cameras haven't been selling much.
A real company (like Phase One) would upgrade sensor resolution more significantly. There's a reason Phase One is doing so well. They are the only company to provide a decent quality 100 MP camera with a decent line of lenses. If Hasselblad had pushed the envelope, they would not be making 50 MP cameras anymore. Instead, they would have a 120 MP camera, which would be twice the megapixels of their 60 MP camera, which they made years and years ago.
I wouldn't call Sigma's step up from 14.7 MP to 19.6 MP a "pushing of the envelope" . . . really. It took more than two or three years for that little upgrade . . . and it really was a small upgrade, when you compare the image file samples from the SD1 and sd Quattro. Finally Sigma is about to deliver a sensor bigger than APS-C. It's about time! Where is the 30 MP sensor? If Sigma REALLY wanted to push the envelope, they would have one by now. It's been five years since they made their 14.7 MP sensor and the SD1 camera to put it in. There is NO reason they should have not upgraded to a sensor with double the megapixels in that much time. They haven't even announced a camera that is double the megapixels of the SD1 yet.
"The SD1 was announced by Sigma at
photokina 2010 on September 21, 2010. It was officially put on sale in May 2011 . . ." -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_SD1#Sigma_SD1_Merrill
