why 16mp sensor is enough..for everyday used

[Raist3d]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

Inconvenient that. I'm not surprised that he's simply ignoring it.

But I am surprised, to say the least.

This all reminds me of some time back when some guy in the forum challenged me to produce evidence that Olympus managers had said that they had to justify the Imaging division to exist to the bigger new bosses after the scandal.

At first I said I don't bother anymore ditching evidence because people just ignore what I do - like when I checked the Olympus 4/3rds e-620 DR and what happened, explored it and gave concrete examples. Same with some high ISO perf. discussions on Foveon other years.

So I went in, found the Imaging Resource interview and provided the evidence.

After that I was accused of me not getting it, that these were mere marketing statements (!), and that those are not high level managers enough etc. etc.

This sub-thread seems pretty familiar . Truly amazing but I can't be surprised at this point.

 

[Zack Brainiac]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

Inconvenient that. I'm not surprised that he's simply ignoring it.

But I am surprised, to say the least.

This all reminds me of some time back when some guy in the forum challenged me to produce evidence that Olympus managers had said that they had to justify the Imaging division to exist to the bigger new bosses after the scandal.

At first I said I don't bother anymore ditching evidence because people just ignore what I do - like when I checked the Olympus 4/3rds e-620 DR and what happened, explored it and gave concrete examples. Same with some high ISO perf. discussions on Foveon other years.

So I went in, found the Imaging Resource interview and provided the evidence.

After that I was accused of me not getting it, that these were mere marketing statements (!), and that those are not high level managers enough etc. etc.

This sub-thread seems pretty familiar . Truly amazing but I can't be surprised at this point.

This case is kind of funny. Several examples were given proving a point, the last one turned out to not be relevant. No one ignored it, but most instead looked at all the previous examples that were relevant. So then the counter argument became, " ignore are factual evidence and previous examples! You are ignoring the last one that is not relevant therefore ALL the facts must be wrong!". They continued to ignore all original posts and facts and cried about a later one pretending it nullified all the original facts. Typical for those types on a forum though.

 

[Raist3d]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

Inconvenient that. I'm not surprised that he's simply ignoring it.

But I am surprised, to say the least.

This all reminds me of some time back when some guy in the forum challenged me to produce evidence that Olympus managers had said that they had to justify the Imaging division to exist to the bigger new bosses after the scandal.

At first I said I don't bother anymore ditching evidence because people just ignore what I do - like when I checked the Olympus 4/3rds e-620 DR and what happened, explored it and gave concrete examples. Same with some high ISO perf. discussions on Foveon other years.

So I went in, found the Imaging Resource interview and provided the evidence.

After that I was accused of me not getting it, that these were mere marketing statements (!), and that those are not high level managers enough etc. etc.

This sub-thread seems pretty familiar . Truly amazing but I can't be surprised at this point.

This case is kind of funny. Several examples were given proving a point, the last one turned out to not be relevant. No one ignored it, but most instead looked at all the previous examples that were relevant. So then the counter argument became, " ignore are factual evidence and previous examples! You are ignoring the last one that is not relevant therefore ALL the facts must be wrong!". They continued to ignore all original posts and facts and cried about a later one pretending it nullified all the original facts. Typical for those types on a forum though.

I can read, thanks. I also know the general reputation of the people you are engaging with. Sorry, but it's not working.

 

[bobn2]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Yes

^^^^

And in the link you posted (that wasn't the original comparison) the first comparison was between two cameras using the same sensor.

That is freaking hilarious. You busted your own argument! LOL!!!!!!! You cheery picked and still made yourself look bad.

The really hilarious thing is that the only one who is creating links to DXO is ZB. All others are only quoting him

In DXO he seems to be only looking at the so called scores, probably the one called landscape. The difficulty with these scores is that DXO does not really divulge how they come to them. Of more interest on that site are the measurements. If you look at the graphs for DR, you will see that for the 'normal' ISO range with ZB's first example they are virtually identical. Which means his original claim about Nikon doing a bit better than Sony fails at least for that camera.

Exactly.

 

[Xasan]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

Inconvenient that. I'm not surprised that he's simply ignoring it.

But I am surprised, to say the least.

This all reminds me of some time back when some guy in the forum challenged me to produce evidence that Olympus managers had said that they had to justify the Imaging division to exist to the bigger new bosses after the scandal.

At first I said I don't bother anymore ditching evidence because people just ignore what I do - like when I checked the Olympus 4/3rds e-620 DR and what happened, explored it and gave concrete examples. Same with some high ISO perf. discussions on Foveon other years.

So I went in, found the Imaging Resource interview and provided the evidence.

After that I was accused of me not getting it, that these were mere marketing statements (!), and that those are not high level managers enough etc. etc.

This sub-thread seems pretty familiar . Truly amazing but I can't be surprised at this point.

This case is kind of funny. Several examples were given proving a point, the last one turned out to not be relevant. No one ignored it, but most instead looked at all the previous examples that were relevant.

All of your examples are misguided and irrelevant. It was explained to you why, several times, by different people. It's you here who are ignoring facts and have zero knowledge of the matter (sensor hardware, analog vs. digital sensor interface, DxO error margin, sample variation, the role of firmware, the list goes on and on). Busting your A to get busted, you got what was coming, good job, failed troll.

So then the counter argument became, " ignore are factual evidence and previous examples! You are ignoring the last one that is not relevant therefore ALL the facts must be wrong!". They continued to ignore all original posts and facts and cried about a later one pretending it nullified all the original facts. Typical for those types on a forum though.

 

[LoneTree1]

The main advantage is lower price. The 16mp cameras are second generation, and the latest generation of 20mp cameras cost more.

Once you get a new toy, the old toy tends to stay in the toy box. But until you get the new toy, you can find comfort knowing your present toy, is already bought and paid for.

Currently Google Photos charges money, to store pictures of more than 16mp, or if you want free unlimited storage then Google whacks your 20mp pictures back down to below 16mp. With a 16mp sensor Google doesn’t have to reduce them.

16mp sensors generate smaller files than 20mp sensors. Storage space is not usually a big concern, but smaller files allow more photos on a card, or on a hard drive.

And four million less pixels on a 4/3” sensor mean you have fatter, bigger pixels, on the 16ml sensor, which may mean better pictures because of larger photosites, which may increase dynamic range. But the newer 20mp sensors may be so improved, as to negate that theoretical advantage.

But mainly, the advantage of a 16mp sensor is so long as you make do with what you have you don’t need to buy a new camera.

Using what you got, is free, the way I see it.

Besides, the idea is to wear one out, isn’t it?

There is no doubt large megapixel counts come with costs, most due to storage and the camera's speed of processing. But you have to counterbalance that against the gains afforded by having more pixels, like the ability to smaller, cheaper lenses to do the same job sometimes and the ability to crop more.

 

[TanDLe]

Hi all!

Thanks everybody for your comments. I was surprised how many had comment in this thread. I had read every comment and thanks for that. I think we are very lucky to live in this time which technology going very fast. I'm would honest be with you that's i'm very satificed with M43 16mp for now.

Compact and light.

But I also fall in love with fujifilm design/ASP-C sensor too..Fullframe nowadays could also be compact, like leica..

Happy Sunday everyone!

Cheers

Tan

 

[LoneTree1]

File the above next to, "Who'll ever need more than 640KB of memory?"

 

[TanDLe]

Finally a have my first slideshow to youtube.

All pics are from lumix gx80 with me to India.

Enjoy!

 

[boxerman]

If you don't mind, I think you should put your work at the top level of viewers' attention, not the question of whether 16 mpx is "enough." So, either post your own thread, or find one where your work fits well. I'd do the former.

On your work, we went to India a few years ago and found it amazing in every dimension. Particularly, the culture was more exotic than any place we had been before. Besides being tourists of the usual sort (Golden Triangle), we went on safari in central India. Got some great tiger shots!

Your work seemed to me a very good spread of, mostly, the people one runs across. Greatly appreciated. For myself, I might have presented it a little differently. I might have chosen a few of my best shots as stills, and then included the video link for enthusiastic consumers. As for your subject matter, the people are truly diverse and interesting. Most of your shots are posed, so I might (myself, again) have tried to capture the buzz of motion more. A few of yours did, but motion is a feature of the place that was very salient for us. Even crossing the street was a great adventure. Riding in the pedicabs, dancing ... ...

I know you didn't ask for comments or critiques, so I hope you don't mind getting such commentary. Your work did remind me that we definitely wanted to go back, some time. Thanks.