Re: Great debate on whether you really need 24.6 megapixels
Dave_Anderson
wrote:
For me, the high resolution was icing on the cake. What I wanted, and what it took for me to make the jump from film to digital(aside from my aging P&S), is the convergence of all of the following features in one body:
Full Frame
DOF Preview
Mirror lockup
100% VF
Flash sync connector
Compatibility with the fine Minolta A-mount glass I've acquired over the years
Image stabilization that works with my lenses
Memory locations for custom settings
Better than 3 FPS
Bonuses that sealed the deal:
24.6 MP
AF Micro adjustment
The last item seems like a no-brainer that should be offered on any DSLR... Honestly, I didn't know I wanted it until I saw that it was available on a body that I wanted for other reasons.
The DOF and MLU were features that I sorely missed on my trusty 7000i/8000i bodies; I soldiered on without them but resolved to never buy an SLR without those features again. The FF and Sync were on my list from the beginning, the others were added as the state-of-the--art advanced.
I agree that the combination of the above factors certainly makes the A900 an attractive proposition!
In one of my replies on the Dyxum forum, I tried to summarise why I was benefiting from the A900's 24.6 megapixel count, I said this:
"Thanks very much for confirming what I have found myself, namely that “mind-blowing” high quality large prints can be obtained from the Sony A900’s images. At 150 pixels per inch, you get a print that is 40.32 inches wide, 41.6% larger, all things being equal, than you can get from the 12 megapixel Sony A700. If I owned the A700, this factor alone would be sufficient reason for me to decide to upgrade to the A900. It brings pictures to life in a way that is simply remarkable.
Incidentally, the fact that you can print at way below 300 ppi and still get a great result from A900 images, needs to be emphasised because quite a few internet articles say that you need to print at 300 ppi to get the best results.
And of course the ability to crop out say, 50% of the width and 50% of the height of a picture and still get a great 20 inch wide print is a huge advantage of having 24.6 megapixels. This cropping advantage should not be underestimated. You may think that you’ll never gain much advantage from cropping, but it gives you a huge amount of freedom to produce different versions of the same print, all of which give you an excellent print size.
I was asked if I could give a few more examples of how the 24.6 megapixel count is benefiting me, in comparison with a lower megapixel count of say, 10 or 12 megapixels. I have mentioned this before, but it’s not only a 40 inch print that I love looking at, it’s also the huge sharp image on a big LCD screen. Imagine looking at huge images on a 52 inch LCD screen and being able to zoom in and read the writing on buildings or signposts that are a long way away from the camera. Or even being able to recognise people in a picture when you can hardly see them in pictures taken by lower megapixel count cameras. I use the Playstation 3 to view images on a TV screen and I zoom in and out using a games controller. When you zoom in to the maximum extent with A900 images and get even a small part of an image filling the whole screen, you can’t imagine how much more life is injected into a slide show than can be achieved with images from lower megapixel count cameras.
You mention above that: “The sheer image quality that the A900 provides (when paired up with lenses like the CZ 85mm or CZ 135mm) when printing large, is not matched anywhere in dslr-dom….”
This is a huge factor in itself, and your view on this not only matches my experience with the A900, but it is also referred to in the DPR review of the Sony A900, which says that the A900 has excellent out of camera results with superb tonality, dynamic range and colour. Now what more could you ask? This “sheer image quality” as you put it, is probably reason enough on its own for an enthusiastic amateur photographer to upgrade to the Sony A900.
Incidentally, the A900 itself is a ruggedly built camera with heaps of extremely useful features that I haven’t experienced with other cameras. Some of these alone would be justification for upgrading to the Sony A900, but I won’t go into these because it goes beyond the theme of this thread, which is, do you really need 24.6 megapixels!
Now I realise that, to get the above advantages there is a fairly hefty price tag. Because I am a very enthusiastic amateur photographer, the price was well worth it to me, and without question the best photographic dollars I have ever spent! I can fully understand, however, and respect the views of other people who say that the above advantages, to them, are simply not worth the amount you have to pay to get them. And I know my friends respect my viewpoint on cars, which is that, although I would really like to own one, I simply don’t think it’s worth the hefty price tag to upgrade my nice little modern car to the latest BMW saloon!
Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Sony-A900.html
p.s. Does anyone else use Playstation 3 for viewing their images. The zoom function on the games controller is most useful, as mentioned above.