Wishlist for 2024 ff for a high res medium format killer from Sony

alphaZ said:

Not sure you will be happy with the smaller pixels, the Gfx has the same pixel pitch as the A7R5,

Click to expand...

agree with this. The bump from 36mp to 61mp has provided minimally more detail in most situations, so a bump to 100mp should be even less significant.

I think 26/42/100 is sufficient in apsc/ff/mf for now. More about readout speed, af and computational features. The latest iPhones really take very descent photos, many times exceeding typical output from compact cameras and coming quite close to apsc except for things like landscapes.

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

Not sure you will be happy with the smaller pixels, the Gfx has the same pixel pitch as the A7R5,

Click to expand...

agree with this. The bump from 36mp to 61mp has provided minimally more detail in most situations, so a bump to 100mp should be even less significant.

Click to expand...

They made a wrong assumption that more pixels are proportionally to ultimate IQ. But actually not as to a turning point more pixels only deteriorating in DR, high ISO even normalized. Squeezing more pixels into current 61mp FF sensor only making worse in many areas of IQ such as DR and high ISO except at base ISO on pure resolution that is still on diminishing return, unless there is a breakthrough in sensor technology.

SafariBob said:

I think 26/42/100 is sufficient in apsc/ff/mf for now. More about readout speed, af and computational features. The latest iPhones really take very descent photos, many times exceeding typical output from compact cameras and coming quite close to apsc except for things like landscapes.

Click to expand...

haha, I'd think so that 42~48mp is properly the sweet MP in current FF sensor.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

PWPhotography said:

SafariBob said:

PWPhotography said:

Not sure you will be happy with the smaller pixels, the Gfx has the same pixel pitch as the A7R5,

Click to expand...

agree with this. The bump from 36mp to 61mp has provided minimally more detail in most situations, so a bump to 100mp should be even less significant.

Click to expand...

They made a wrong assumption that more pixels are proportionally to ultimate IQ. But actually not as to a turning point more pixels only deteriorating in DR, high ISO even normalized. Squeezing more pixels into current 61mp FF sensor only making worse in many areas of IQ such as DR and high ISO except at base ISO on pure resolution that is still on diminishing return, unless there is a breakthrough in sensor technology.

PWPhotography said:

I think 26/42/100 is sufficient in apsc/ff/mf for now. More about readout speed, af and computational features. The latest iPhones really take very descent photos, many times exceeding typical output from compact cameras and coming quite close to apsc except for things like landscapes.

Click to expand...

haha, I'd think so that 42~48mp is properly the sweet MP in current FF sensor.

Click to expand...

I definitely would have preferred that the A7M4 stayed at 24MP with the same readout rate in MPixels/sec.

Instead the huge boost to readout rate was offset by a nearly 50% increase in pixel count.

Entropy512 said:

PWPhotography said:

SafariBob said:

Entropy512 said:

Not sure you will be happy with the smaller pixels, the Gfx has the same pixel pitch as the A7R5,

Click to expand...

agree with this. The bump from 36mp to 61mp has provided minimally more detail in most situations, so a bump to 100mp should be even less significant.

Click to expand...

They made a wrong assumption that more pixels are proportionally to ultimate IQ. But actually not as to a turning point more pixels only deteriorating in DR, high ISO even normalized. Squeezing more pixels into current 61mp FF sensor only making worse in many areas of IQ such as DR and high ISO except at base ISO on pure resolution that is still on diminishing return, unless there is a breakthrough in sensor technology.

Entropy512 said:

I think 26/42/100 is sufficient in apsc/ff/mf for now. More about readout speed, af and computational features. The latest iPhones really take very descent photos, many times exceeding typical output from compact cameras and coming quite close to apsc except for things like landscapes.

Click to expand...

haha, I'd think so that 42~48mp is properly the sweet MP in current FF sensor.

Click to expand...

I definitely would have preferred that the A7M4 stayed at 24MP with the same readout rate in MPixels/sec.

Instead the huge boost to readout rate was offset by a nearly 50% increase in pixel count.

Click to expand...

I feel the step up from AA 24 to non-AA 36 pretty much gives the full pixel level added resolution for ok lenses designed for digital. AA24 is great for film era lenses. TBH, I think 33mp is a bit on the low side. For APS-C it would be more than sufficient though.

PWPhotography said:

jonas ar said:

The same output size is a prerequisite for equivalency.

Click to expand...

The same output size and same AOV are prerequisite to compare IQ between cameras.

Click to expand...

And DoF

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

equivalent images have the same noise. You need to explain why you think differently

Click to expand...

What is equivalent image if not compared at the same output size and same AOV? Do you really want to compare 61mp FF IQ to 100mp MF photos? That's not a fair comparison. You'd need to compare both at 61mp (so 100mp MF downsampling) or both at 100mp (so 61mp FF upsampling).

Click to expand...

Equivalent images have the same size, the same AoV and the same DoF. If those criteria are met, they will have the amount of noise for the same shutter speed.

The same DoF in equivalent images are obtained when the same aperture (as opposed to the f-number) is used

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

but it turns out that FF systems have lenses with larger apertures than MF systems for the same AoV

Click to expand...

Yes, but larger sensor/mount, easier to design or more tolerance on a slower lens. MF is not a good example as lacking of competition, but in FF vs APS-C/mFT, on equivalency, a slower FF lens usually is lighter/smaller/cheaper than a faster APS-C/mFT lens, for example, Fuji 56/1.2 vs Sony 85/1.8 while latter is still resolve more details and sharper when compared at the same output size.

Click to expand...

it was you who claimed that l MF systems are cleaner in low light. I have shown that not to be the case as you can trade DoF for noise to a larger extent with FF systems.

Click to expand...

I am still right that 100mp MF image is still cleaner than 61mp FF image at the same output size, same AOV on crop equivalent FL/aperture lenses, in my sample above a MF 50mm/F1.8 vs FF 40mm/F1.4 FF lenses. Check this

GFX 100 at ISO 12800 is as clean as if not actually resolving more details than A7r V at ISO 3200 that is 2-stop above ;-)

Click to expand...

They are not shot at equivalent settings (they are shot at the same aperture and shutter speed). So, unless they very the light source, they have had the same exposure

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

Otherwise why anyone should buy very expensive and bulky 600/4.0 super-tele, as there is such camera, that boasts "24-600mm equivalent F2.4-4 stabilized zoom lens" ;-) But f4.0 on 1" sensor is ONLY eq to F11 on FF sensor. Equivalency not only applied to FL but also on aperture and everything on sensor size or crop factor.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv

Click to expand...

That was my point

Click to expand...

Don't forget equivalency as absolute aperture is related to sensor size (crop factor). But you only quote on such hand-held in low light (high ISO) scenario. Most serious photographers use FF or MF cameras on tripod in evening scenes to shoot at base ISO, no mention mostly under daylight ambient light where MF sensor always win from resolution/sharpness to DR and tonality.

Click to expand...

Larger sensors obviously wins at base ISO. This is because, as I said upthread, they record more light due to the larger sensor area

Click to expand...

As I said most serious FF and MF photographers shoot at base ISO as much as possible. Large sensor always win in IQ even under high ISO in equivalency.

Click to expand...

No they don't. You need to explain the physical principle that should give this advantage. I say that systems will have the same noise if the same amount of light was recorded (equivalent settings)

PWPhotography said:

Then comes to DR that is more important than resolution to many, where Fuji GFX 100 is clearly superior than any FF cameras, only Nikon D850 at ISO 64 is close.

Click to expand...

If ISO64 is close, it is because it accepts a larger exposure = more light recorded

PWPhotography said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm GFX 100S,Nikon D850,Sony ILCE-7RM5

Click to expand...

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

Large sensor always win in IQ even under high ISO in equivalency.

Click to expand...

No they don't. You need to explain the physical principle that should give this advantage. I say that systems will have the same noise if the same amount of light was recorded (equivalent settings)

Click to expand...

they do, because many of the optical imperfections/phenomena are essentially of a fixed size. So the smaller the sensor, the greater the magnification of imperfections. This is why, often great aps-c lenses are more expensive than equivalently performing decent ff lenses.

Jacques Cornell said:

joger said:

The have been plenty of rumors for years now about high res Canon and Sony sensors. With the given pixel density on Smartphones and incredible image quality at low ISO on these devices the question arises when will we see the high end FF Sony Sensor and what festers will the camera have.

The Alpha One is so close to the A7r IV and V that it's hard for me to understand why anyone would need both in a camera lineup except for a bit of savings on the cheaper A7R IV.

50 or 60 MP are basically the same and the AF on even my trusty A7R IV is lighting fast e.g. with the outstanding 70 .. 200 f/2.0 Macro - I have been able to shoot in very dim situations with amazing acquisition speed at ISO 6400 without a single missed shot. In other words AF has become really reliable and the A7R V is even better let alone the Alpha One.

the only thing remaining is medium format pixel count in a half weight and 2/3 size package with a much better lens availability.

What would you like to see in a high res medium format killer and what would you be willing to pay for a smaller and higher GFX 100 II that#äs retailing for just $ 7500 - I guess the Alpha One R would be a bit more affordable and even in case it would have the same price I already own the lenses that easily manage 100 MP

What are your thoughts?

( please skip this thread in case you're not interested in that kind of resolution )

Click to expand...

I shoot events with an a7IV and a7RV. I got the a7RV so I could use primes in Crop Mode and still get 26MP. 61MP is ridiculous overkill for my work, and I never print my travel/scenics big enough to need it. No more pixels, please.

Click to expand...

for you and for event photography and btw. nobody needs to buy something that does not meets one’s needs. I won’t buy any camera until we’ll get more image quality than the A7R IV

Jacques Cornell said:

What do you need 100MP for?

Click to expand...

For the same things GFX 100 users use their cameras for

Jacques Cornell said:

There's always high-rez multi-shot mode.

Click to expand...

Thats what I do 90 % of the time. Almost all my shots are either Brenizer method or 4x Pixel Shift or multishot - quite happy with the results but cumbersome.

Jacques Cornell said:

And, if you're after medium format's greater DR or bit depth, I suspect you really need a physically larger sensor for that.

Click to expand...

You’re ignoring the standards in Smartphones coping with shortcomings of smaller pixel sizes.

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

Large sensor always win in IQ even under high ISO in equivalency.

Click to expand...

No they don't. You need to explain the physical principle that should give this advantage. I say that systems will have the same noise if the same amount of light was recorded (equivalent settings)

Click to expand...

they do, because many of the optical imperfections/phenomena are essentially of a fixed size. So the smaller the sensor, the greater the magnification of imperfections. This is why, often great aps-c lenses are more expensive than equivalently performing decent ff lenses.

Click to expand...

Ok, I think it needs to be clarified if we are talking noise only (as I thought) or if other aspects of image quality is under discussion,

jonas ar said:

SafariBob said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

Large sensor always win in IQ even under high ISO in equivalency.

Click to expand...

No they don't. You need to explain the physical principle that should give this advantage. I say that systems will have the same noise if the same amount of light was recorded (equivalent settings)

Click to expand...

they do, because many of the optical imperfections/phenomena are essentially of a fixed size. So the smaller the sensor, the greater the magnification of imperfections. This is why, often great aps-c lenses are more expensive than equivalently performing decent ff lenses.

Click to expand...

Ok, I think it needs to be clarified if we are talking noise only (as I thought) or if other aspects of image quality is under discussion,

Click to expand...

Upthread you are talking about clean, noise can have different definitions. If you were talking t stops and not f stops, sure, you will get an equal amount of photons. Which is one driver of noise.

but, beyond that I don’t really think it pans out, and I don’t see this thread to be about such a narrow definitions.

jonas ar said:

PWPhotography said:

jonas ar said:

The same output size is a prerequisite for equivalency.

Click to expand...

The same output size and same AOV are prerequisite to compare IQ between cameras.

Click to expand...

And DoF

Click to expand...

That is another wrong argument from those crop fans over a decade ;-) Because you shoot APS-C at 8.0, I must shoot FF at F11? The same applied between FF and MF. That really depends on scenes and subject. Otherwise cellphone cameras have basically infinite DOF that only looks flat. Do you must shoot scenes at your cellphone sensor eq (that is very small) DOF that would be F16 or more on a FF sensor?

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

equivalent images have the same noise. You need to explain why you think differently

Click to expand...

What is equivalent image if not compared at the same output size and same AOV? Do you really want to compare 61mp FF IQ to 100mp MF photos? That's not a fair comparison. You'd need to compare both at 61mp (so 100mp MF downsampling) or both at 100mp (so 61mp FF upsampling).

Click to expand...

Equivalent images have the same size, the same AoV and the same DoF. If those criteria are met, they will have the amount of noise for the same shutter speed.

The same DoF in equivalent images are obtained when the same aperture (as opposed to the f-number) is used

Click to expand...

The same DOF is a wrong argument as said above. Most times even f2.8 on a FF camera has sufficient DOF. Do you need to stop down on portrait for example in evening?


in very deep St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan, hand-held

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

but it turns out that FF systems have lenses with larger apertures than MF systems for the same AoV

Click to expand...

Yes, but larger sensor/mount, easier to design or more tolerance on a slower lens. MF is not a good example as lacking of competition, but in FF vs APS-C/mFT, on equivalency, a slower FF lens usually is lighter/smaller/cheaper than a faster APS-C/mFT lens, for example, Fuji 56/1.2 vs Sony 85/1.8 while latter is still resolve more details and sharper when compared at the same output size.

Click to expand...

it was you who claimed that l MF systems are cleaner in low light. I have shown that not to be the case as you can trade DoF for noise to a larger extent with FF systems.

Click to expand...

I am still right that 100mp MF image is still cleaner than 61mp FF image at the same output size, same AOV on crop equivalent FL/aperture lenses, in my sample above a MF 50mm/F1.8 vs FF 40mm/F1.4 FF lenses. Check this

GFX 100 at ISO 12800 is as clean as if not actually resolving more details than A7r V at ISO 3200 that is 2-stop above ;-)

Click to expand...

They are not shot at equivalent settings (they are shot at the same aperture and shutter speed). So, unless they very the light source, they have had the same exposure

Click to expand...

LOL, you are against industry mainstream opinion that larger sensor, better high ISO performance ;-) FF sensor is better than APS-C in high ISO, the same MF sensor is better than FF in high ISO that really has no dispute but from few as you don't really understand. In the above DPR studio scene, clearly Fuji GFX 100 doesn't need to stop down to FF eq DOF to demo the IQ and high ISO performance. You should argue to DPR crew that they didn't do their studio tests validly ;-)

Do you really understand DOF such as hyperfocal?

https://www.nfi.edu/depth-of-field/

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

Otherwise why anyone should buy very expensive and bulky 600/4.0 super-tele, as there is such camera, that boasts "24-600mm equivalent F2.4-4 stabilized zoom lens" ;-) But f4.0 on 1" sensor is ONLY eq to F11 on FF sensor. Equivalency not only applied to FL but also on aperture and everything on sensor size or crop factor.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv

Click to expand...

That was my point

Click to expand...

Don't forget equivalency as absolute aperture is related to sensor size (crop factor). But you only quote on such hand-held in low light (high ISO) scenario. Most serious photographers use FF or MF cameras on tripod in evening scenes to shoot at base ISO, no mention mostly under daylight ambient light where MF sensor always win from resolution/sharpness to DR and tonality.

Click to expand...

Larger sensors obviously wins at base ISO. This is because, as I said upthread, they record more light due to the larger sensor area

Click to expand...

As I said most serious FF and MF photographers shoot at base ISO as much as possible. Large sensor always win in IQ even under high ISO in equivalency.

Click to expand...

No they don't. You need to explain the physical principle that should give this advantage. I say that systems will have the same noise if the same amount of light was recorded (equivalent settings)

Click to expand...

Your argument of DOF is not part of total light exposure that is solely determined by aperture, shutter speed and sensor size. Why on earth for those MF or FF photographers in low-light/evening must stop down to your APS-C camera eq aperture, especially on tripod from those serious landscape/cityscape photographers. Because you shoot at f8.0 from an APS-C camera, I must stop down to F11? It doesn't make sense and not reflected in how we use camera? Otherwise you should use your cellphone camera to satisfy your infinite DOF argument ;-)

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

Then comes to DR that is more important than resolution to many, where Fuji GFX 100 is clearly superior than any FF cameras, only Nikon D850 at ISO 64 is close.

Click to expand...

If ISO64 is close, it is because it accepts a larger exposure = more light recorded

Click to expand...

Still larger MF sensor wins. Sony cameras don't have native ISO 64 yet, which I wish they will implement in future A7r VI.

jonas ar said:

jonas ar said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm GFX 100S,Nikon D850,Sony ILCE-7RM5

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

PWPhotography said:

jonas ar said:

PWPhotography said:

jonas ar said:

The same output size is a prerequisite for equivalency.

Click to expand...

The same output size and same AOV are prerequisite to compare IQ between cameras.

Click to expand...

And DoF

Click to expand...

That is another wrong argument from those crop fans over a decade ;-) Because you shoot APS-C at 8.0, I must shoot FF at F11? The same applied between FF and MF. That really depends on scenes and subject. Otherwise cellphone cameras have basically infinite DOF that only looks flat. Do you must shoot scenes at your cellphone sensor eq (that is very small) DOF that would be F16 or more on a FF sensor?

Click to expand...

Don’t be silly. Equivalence is a framework for comparing systems. It does obviously not mandate that you have to use equivalent settings.
Equivalent images have the same AoV, the same DoF, the same amount of motion blur, the same amount of diffraction as well as noise.
Some systems have a broader shooting envelope where DoF can be traded for noise. No free lunch of course.

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

equivalent images have the same noise. You need to explain why you think differently

Click to expand...

What is equivalent image if not compared at the same output size and same AOV? Do you really want to compare 61mp FF IQ to 100mp MF photos? That's not a fair comparison. You'd need to compare both at 61mp (so 100mp MF downsampling) or both at 100mp (so 61mp FF upsampling).

Click to expand...

Equivalent images have the same size, the same AoV and the same DoF. If those criteria are met, they will have the amount of noise for the same shutter speed.

The same DoF in equivalent images are obtained when the same aperture (as opposed to the f-number) is used

Click to expand...

The same DOF is a wrong argument as said above. Most times even f2.8 on a FF camera has sufficient DOF. Do you need to stop down on portrait for example in evening?

Click to expand...

Because you said something doesn’t make it right

PWPhotography said:

in very deep St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan, hand-held

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

but it turns out that FF systems have lenses with larger apertures than MF systems for the same AoV

Click to expand...

Yes, but larger sensor/mount, easier to design or more tolerance on a slower lens. MF is not a good example as lacking of competition, but in FF vs APS-C/mFT, on equivalency, a slower FF lens usually is lighter/smaller/cheaper than a faster APS-C/mFT lens, for example, Fuji 56/1.2 vs Sony 85/1.8 while latter is still resolve more details and sharper when compared at the same output size.

Click to expand...

it was you who claimed that l MF systems are cleaner in low light. I have shown that not to be the case as you can trade DoF for noise to a larger extent with FF systems.

Click to expand...

I am still right that 100mp MF image is still cleaner than 61mp FF image at the same output size, same AOV on crop equivalent FL/aperture lenses, in my sample above a MF 50mm/F1.8 vs FF 40mm/F1.4 FF lenses. Check this

GFX 100 at ISO 12800 is as clean as if not actually resolving more details than A7r V at ISO 3200 that is 2-stop above ;-)

Click to expand...

They are not shot at equivalent settings (they are shot at the same aperture and shutter speed). So, unless they very the light source, they have had the same exposure

Click to expand...

LOL, you are against industry mainstream opinion that larger sensor, better high ISO performance ;-) FF sensor is better than APS-C in high ISO, the same MF sensor is better than FF in high ISO that really has no dispute but from few as you don't really understand. In the above DPR studio scene, clearly Fuji GFX 100 doesn't need to stop down to FF eq DOF to demo the IQ and high ISO performance.

Click to expand...

You clearly don’t understand what causes noise in an image.

PWPhotography said:

Do you really understand DOF such as hyperfocal?

Click to expand...

I do, but I don’t see the relevance of hyperfocal in a discussion about noise.

PWPhotography said:

https://www.nfi.edu/depth-of-field/

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

Otherwise why anyone should buy very expensive and bulky 600/4.0 super-tele, as there is such camera, that boasts "24-600mm equivalent F2.4-4 stabilized zoom lens" ;-) But f4.0 on 1" sensor is ONLY eq to F11 on FF sensor. Equivalency not only applied to FL but also on aperture and everything on sensor size or crop factor.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv

Click to expand...

That was my point

Click to expand...

Don't forget equivalency as absolute aperture is related to sensor size (crop factor). But you only quote on such hand-held in low light (high ISO) scenario. Most serious photographers use FF or MF cameras on tripod in evening scenes to shoot at base ISO, no mention mostly under daylight ambient light where MF sensor always win from resolution/sharpness to DR and tonality.

Click to expand...

Larger sensors obviously wins at base ISO. This is because, as I said upthread, they record more light due to the larger sensor area

Click to expand...

As I said most serious FF and MF photographers shoot at base ISO as much as possible. Large sensor always win in IQ even under high ISO in equivalency.

Click to expand...

No they don't. You need to explain the physical principle that should give this advantage. I say that systems will have the same noise if the same amount of light was recorded (equivalent settings)

Click to expand...

Your argument of DOF is not part of total light exposure that is solely determined by aperture, shutter speed and sensor size.

Click to expand...

sensor size does not affect exposure. You are showing your ignorance.



exposure is determined by scene brightness, f-number and shutter speed, it is measured in luxseconds.

A larger sensor will record more light at the same exposure (proportional to the area).

at the same exposure, a larger sensor will either give less DoF or have a slower shutter shutter speed.

at the same DoF and shutter speed all systems will have the same noise (all else being equal)

PWPhotography said:

Why on earth for those MF or FF photographers in low-light/evening must stop down to your APS-C camera eq aperture, especially on tripod from those serious landscape/cityscape photographers. Because you shoot at f8.0 from an APS-C camera, I must stop down to F11? It doesn't make sense and not reflected in how we use camera? Otherwise you should use your cellphone camera to satisfy your infinite DOF argument ;-)

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

Then comes to DR that is more important than resolution to many, where Fuji GFX 100 is clearly superior than any FF cameras, only Nikon D850 at ISO 64 is close.

Click to expand...

If ISO64 is close, it is because it accepts a larger exposure = more light recorded

Click to expand...

Still larger MF sensor wins. Sony cameras don't have native ISO 64 yet, which I wish they will implement in future A7r VI.

Click to expand...

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm GFX 100S,Nikon D850,Sony ILCE-7RM5

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Click to expand...

joger said:

The have been plenty of rumors for years now about high res Canon and Sony sensors. With the given pixel density on Smartphones and incredible image quality at low ISO on these devices the question arises when will we see the high end FF Sony Sensor and what festers will the camera have.

The Alpha One is so close to the A7r IV and V that it's hard for me to understand why anyone would need both in a camera lineup except for a bit of savings on the cheaper A7R IV.

50 or 60 MP are basically the same and the AF on even my trusty A7R IV is lighting fast e.g. with the outstanding 70 .. 200 f/2.0 Macro - I have been able to shoot in very dim situations with amazing acquisition speed at ISO 6400 without a single missed shot. In other words AF has become really reliable and the A7R V is even better let alone the Alpha One.

the only thing remaining is medium format pixel count in a half weight and 2/3 size package with a much better lens availability.

What would you like to see in a high res medium format killer and what would you be willing to pay for a smaller and higher GFX 100 II that#äs retailing for just $ 7500 - I guess the Alpha One R would be a bit more affordable and even in case it would have the same price I already own the lenses that easily manage 100 MP

What are your thoughts?

( please skip this thread in case you're not interested in that kind of resolution )

Click to expand...

Wow - so much misinformed opinion in many of the responses thus far.

A stacked, 80+ MP, BSI full frame camera could offer an attractive alternative to medium format cameras.

Some of the potential advantages - smaller, lighter, faster lenses, higher frame rates, more reliable auto-focus, fewer to no rolling shutter issues on ES.

An 80+ MP A1, or even a 60+ version would be pretty compelling.

Large Telescopes aren’t made with 1 inch sensors.



Smaller sensors don’t have correspondingly larger well capacities.

crosstalk cannot be miniaturised and affects signal to noise ratios. Same with heat dissipation.

there are a lot of reasons why exposure equivalence and noise don’t relate 1:1, but mostly it’s about lens design. The larger the sensor, the simpler the lens.

SafariBob said:

Large Telescopes aren’t made with 1 inch sensors.

Smaller sensors don’t have correspondingly larger well capacities.

crosstalk cannot be miniaturised and affects signal to noise ratios. Same with heat dissipation.

there are a lot of reasons why exposure equivalence and noise don’t relate 1:1, but mostly it’s about lens design. The larger the sensor, the simpler the lens.

Click to expand...

Can you please elaborate on this last point?

I don't need or don't wish nothing big or bulky. Not interested in MF. There is just one more lens I wish from Sony - one small, light and beautiful 14-30 f4 G gem. Nothing more.

Doppler9000 said:

joger said:

The have been plenty of rumors for years now about high res Canon and Sony sensors. With the given pixel density on Smartphones and incredible image quality at low ISO on these devices the question arises when will we see the high end FF Sony Sensor and what festers will the camera have.

The Alpha One is so close to the A7r IV and V that it's hard for me to understand why anyone would need both in a camera lineup except for a bit of savings on the cheaper A7R IV.

50 or 60 MP are basically the same and the AF on even my trusty A7R IV is lighting fast e.g. with the outstanding 70 .. 200 f/2.0 Macro - I have been able to shoot in very dim situations with amazing acquisition speed at ISO 6400 without a single missed shot. In other words AF has become really reliable and the A7R V is even better let alone the Alpha One.

the only thing remaining is medium format pixel count in a half weight and 2/3 size package with a much better lens availability.

What would you like to see in a high res medium format killer and what would you be willing to pay for a smaller and higher GFX 100 II that#äs retailing for just $ 7500 - I guess the Alpha One R would be a bit more affordable and even in case it would have the same price I already own the lenses that easily manage 100 MP

What are your thoughts?

( please skip this thread in case you're not interested in that kind of resolution )

Click to expand...

Wow - so much misinformed opinion in many of the responses thus far.

A stacked, 80+ MP, BSI full frame camera could offer an attractive alternative to medium format cameras.

Some of the potential advantages - smaller, lighter, faster lenses, higher frame rates, more reliable auto-focus, fewer to no rolling shutter issues on ES.

An 80+ MP A1, or even a 60+ version would be pretty compelling.

Click to expand...

My fairly strong impression is that it is more about well capacity than resolution, ie iso 50 for example. Alternatively something like foveon.

SafariBob said:

Doppler9000 said:

joger said:

The have been plenty of rumors for years now about high res Canon and Sony sensors. With the given pixel density on Smartphones and incredible image quality at low ISO on these devices the question arises when will we see the high end FF Sony Sensor and what festers will the camera have.

The Alpha One is so close to the A7r IV and V that it's hard for me to understand why anyone would need both in a camera lineup except for a bit of savings on the cheaper A7R IV.

50 or 60 MP are basically the same and the AF on even my trusty A7R IV is lighting fast e.g. with the outstanding 70 .. 200 f/2.0 Macro - I have been able to shoot in very dim situations with amazing acquisition speed at ISO 6400 without a single missed shot. In other words AF has become really reliable and the A7R V is even better let alone the Alpha One.

the only thing remaining is medium format pixel count in a half weight and 2/3 size package with a much better lens availability.

What would you like to see in a high res medium format killer and what would you be willing to pay for a smaller and higher GFX 100 II that#äs retailing for just $ 7500 - I guess the Alpha One R would be a bit more affordable and even in case it would have the same price I already own the lenses that easily manage 100 MP

What are your thoughts?

( please skip this thread in case you're not interested in that kind of resolution )

Click to expand...

Wow - so much misinformed opinion in many of the responses thus far.

A stacked, 80+ MP, BSI full frame camera could offer an attractive alternative to medium format cameras.

Some of the potential advantages - smaller, lighter, faster lenses, higher frame rates, more reliable auto-focus, fewer to no rolling shutter issues on ES.

An 80+ MP A1, or even a 60+ version would be pretty compelling.

Click to expand...

My fairly strong impression is that it is more about well capacity than resolution, ie iso 50 for example.

Click to expand...

Higher resolution reduces aliasing.

SafariBob said:

Alternatively something like foveon.

Click to expand...

Foveon has lots of problems - including terrible efficiency. There’s a reason we don’t see more three-layer sensors.

Doppler9000 said:

SafariBob said:

Doppler9000 said:

joger said:

The have been plenty of rumors for years now about high res Canon and Sony sensors. With the given pixel density on Smartphones and incredible image quality at low ISO on these devices the question arises when will we see the high end FF Sony Sensor and what festers will the camera have.

The Alpha One is so close to the A7r IV and V that it's hard for me to understand why anyone would need both in a camera lineup except for a bit of savings on the cheaper A7R IV.

50 or 60 MP are basically the same and the AF on even my trusty A7R IV is lighting fast e.g. with the outstanding 70 .. 200 f/2.0 Macro - I have been able to shoot in very dim situations with amazing acquisition speed at ISO 6400 without a single missed shot. In other words AF has become really reliable and the A7R V is even better let alone the Alpha One.

the only thing remaining is medium format pixel count in a half weight and 2/3 size package with a much better lens availability.

What would you like to see in a high res medium format killer and what would you be willing to pay for a smaller and higher GFX 100 II that#äs retailing for just $ 7500 - I guess the Alpha One R would be a bit more affordable and even in case it would have the same price I already own the lenses that easily manage 100 MP

What are your thoughts?

( please skip this thread in case you're not interested in that kind of resolution )

Click to expand...

Wow - so much misinformed opinion in many of the responses thus far.

A stacked, 80+ MP, BSI full frame camera could offer an attractive alternative to medium format cameras.

Some of the potential advantages - smaller, lighter, faster lenses, higher frame rates, more reliable auto-focus, fewer to no rolling shutter issues on ES.

An 80+ MP A1, or even a 60+ version would be pretty compelling.

Click to expand...

My fairly strong impression is that it is more about well capacity than resolution, ie iso 50 for example.

Click to expand...

Higher resolution reduces aliasing.

Click to expand...

true, but I think the 60 mp sensors are mostly devoid of that.

Doppler9000 said:

Doppler9000 said:

Alternatively something like foveon.

Click to expand...

Foveon has lots of problems - including terrible efficiency. There’s a reason we don’t see more three-layer sensors.

Click to expand...

My sense is that there has got to be a better design than foveon, but I could be wrong

joger said:

Jacques Cornell said:

joger said:

The have been plenty of rumors for years now about high res Canon and Sony sensors. With the given pixel density on Smartphones and incredible image quality at low ISO on these devices the question arises when will we see the high end FF Sony Sensor and what festers will the camera have.

The Alpha One is so close to the A7r IV and V that it's hard for me to understand why anyone would need both in a camera lineup except for a bit of savings on the cheaper A7R IV.

50 or 60 MP are basically the same and the AF on even my trusty A7R IV is lighting fast e.g. with the outstanding 70 .. 200 f/2.0 Macro - I have been able to shoot in very dim situations with amazing acquisition speed at ISO 6400 without a single missed shot. In other words AF has become really reliable and the A7R V is even better let alone the Alpha One.

the only thing remaining is medium format pixel count in a half weight and 2/3 size package with a much better lens availability.

What would you like to see in a high res medium format killer and what would you be willing to pay for a smaller and higher GFX 100 II that#äs retailing for just $ 7500 - I guess the Alpha One R would be a bit more affordable and even in case it would have the same price I already own the lenses that easily manage 100 MP

What are your thoughts?

( please skip this thread in case you're not interested in that kind of resolution )

Click to expand...

I shoot events with an a7IV and a7RV. I got the a7RV so I could use primes in Crop Mode and still get 26MP. 61MP is ridiculous overkill for my work, and I never print my travel/scenics big enough to need it. No more pixels, please.

Click to expand...

for you and for event photography and btw. nobody needs to buy something that does not meets one’s needs. I won’t buy any camera until we’ll get more image quality than the A7R IV

joger said:

What do you need 100MP for?

Click to expand...

For the same things GFX 100 users use their cameras for

joger said:

There's always high-rez multi-shot mode.

Click to expand...

Thats what I do 90 % of the time. Almost all my shots are either Brenizer method or 4x Pixel Shift or multishot - quite happy with the results but cumbersome.

joger said:

And, if you're after medium format's greater DR or bit depth, I suspect you really need a physically larger sensor for that.

Click to expand...

You’re ignoring the standards in Smartphones coping with shortcomings of smaller pixel sizes.

Click to expand...

Never mind. Over and out.

SafariBob said:

Doppler9000 said:

SafariBob said:

Doppler9000 said:

joger said:

The have been plenty of rumors for years now about high res Canon and Sony sensors. With the given pixel density on Smartphones and incredible image quality at low ISO on these devices the question arises when will we see the high end FF Sony Sensor and what festers will the camera have.

The Alpha One is so close to the A7r IV and V that it's hard for me to understand why anyone would need both in a camera lineup except for a bit of savings on the cheaper A7R IV.

50 or 60 MP are basically the same and the AF on even my trusty A7R IV is lighting fast e.g. with the outstanding 70 .. 200 f/2.0 Macro - I have been able to shoot in very dim situations with amazing acquisition speed at ISO 6400 without a single missed shot. In other words AF has become really reliable and the A7R V is even better let alone the Alpha One.

the only thing remaining is medium format pixel count in a half weight and 2/3 size package with a much better lens availability.

What would you like to see in a high res medium format killer and what would you be willing to pay for a smaller and higher GFX 100 II that#äs retailing for just $ 7500 - I guess the Alpha One R would be a bit more affordable and even in case it would have the same price I already own the lenses that easily manage 100 MP

What are your thoughts?

( please skip this thread in case you're not interested in that kind of resolution )

Click to expand...

Wow - so much misinformed opinion in many of the responses thus far.

A stacked, 80+ MP, BSI full frame camera could offer an attractive alternative to medium format cameras.

Some of the potential advantages - smaller, lighter, faster lenses, higher frame rates, more reliable auto-focus, fewer to no rolling shutter issues on ES.

An 80+ MP A1, or even a 60+ version would be pretty compelling.

Click to expand...

My fairly strong impression is that it is more about well capacity than resolution, ie iso 50 for example.

Click to expand...

Higher resolution reduces aliasing.

Click to expand...

true, but I think the 60 mp sensors are mostly devoid of that.

Click to expand...

Higher is better, but the degree to which it matters will vary by photographer.

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

Alternatively something like foveon.

Click to expand...

Foveon has lots of problems - including terrible efficiency. There’s a reason we don’t see more three-layer sensors.

Click to expand...

My sense is that there has got to be a better design than foveon, but I could be wrong

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the basic architecture is inherently inefficient, at least with current approaches. The Bayer is pretty hard to beat at this point.