Should Sigma make a 30 MP per layer full-frame Foveon instead of 20 MP per layer?

D Cox wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.

Large prints need to be examined from far enough away that you can take in the whole print. I've read the argument plenty of times that "ah, but I've seen people take in the whole image, then move in close to examine the detail". This is actually a distressing indictment of photographers. Yes, it is photographers who see a beautifully composed and lit print and move in close and shake their heads in disappointment. Normal people rarely do this.

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? There is a lot more to such a photo than just the overall composition and lighting.

To quote photographer, blogger, reviewer, exhibition printer, bespoke print shop owner Keith Cooper from his excellent in depth article on what difference buying a 50MP camera makes:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it "

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/

My personal belief is that the thing photographers need to get obsessive about is not technical quality but image content. People who know these things tell me that Cartier-Bresson's technical quality is poor - many shots have visible camera shake or slightly miss perfect focus.

But no one cares - apart, maybe, from those amateur photographers who examine the prints with a loupe and shake their heads in sadness....

Not all photos or paintings have any details, and it isn't always appropriate, especially for portraits. But many pictures of landscapes or architecture, general street views with a crowd of people, and so on, do; and they reward close examination.

The Sigma cameras are particularly suited to taking detailed photos.

Obviously most non photographers are interested only in the general subject: they want to know who it's a picture of, and have no interest in lighting, composition, white balance, or resolution -- and certainly not in bokeh.

Read the article. Keith's point is that people who actually buy photographs aren't bothered by the technicalities. The people who do care about the technicalities are other photographers and they don't buy pictures.